Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-11 21:47 UTC

rails / sass-rails

Ruby on Rails stylesheet engine for Sass

RubyMIT★ 860 stars⑂ 324 forkssince May 2011View on GitHub ↗

rails/sass-rails holds a health index of 25 out of 100, placing it in the At Risk band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (75/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (15/100). It was last updated 2171 days ago. 3 contributors account for most of its recent work.

25
overall / 100
At Risk

Software health index

Metrics are grouped into weighted categories on one standardized 1–100 scale. Overall starts as their weighted mean, calibrated against the distribution of the public record so bands carry percentile meaning; when public evidence triggers the High-Risk Jurisdiction Policy, the rating is adjusted and receives an At Risk ceiling of 34.

25
Exceptional93-100The record's top tier (≈ top 5%); essentially all checked criteria met
Excellent80-92Strong across the board; minor gaps
Good65-79Healthy; gaps are limited and manageable
Moderate50-64Acceptable with notable gaps; review recommended
Weak35-49Material weaknesses across several areas
At Risk20-34Significant weaknesses; adoption warrants caution
Critical1-19Severe problems (abandoned, single-maintainer, no hygiene)
VitalityCommunity &AdoptionSustainability &GovernanceEngineeringQualitySecurityAI Readiness

Score profile

Each axis is a category. The shape matters more than the average — a healthy subject fills the whole shape, while a spike-and-crater profile means strength in one dimension is masking risk in another.

The weighted overall 44 is calibrated to 41 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Ruby on RailsOrganization
2,712 followers130 public repossince Apr 2008

This repository is backed by an organization — shared, accountable stewardship that can outlive any single maintainer.

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
RubyGemssass-rails6.0.0-482583 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

Is the project alive — is code being written and are releases shipping?

18Critical · 21% of overall
How it's scored
0/36Push recency — last push 2,171 days ago
0/36Commit cadence — 0/52 weeks with commits
0/18Commit volume — 0 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
commits_last_year0
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push2,171
active_weeks_last_year0
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 18 releases published
0/36Release recency — latest release 2,564 days ago
12.6/27Release cadence — a release every ~179.9 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count18
latest_release_tagv6.0.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release2,564
mean_days_between_releases179.9
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

Community & Adoption

Does the project have users, downloads, attention, and a welcoming setup for contributors?

74Good · 17% of overall
How it's scored
47.6/60Stars — 860 stars
20.9/25Forks — 324 forks
9.1/15Watchers — 44 watchers
Inputs used
forks324
stars860
watchers44
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (MIT)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges2
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesbadge.fury.io, travis-ci.org
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
80/80Total downloads — 294,263,666 downloads all-time across rubygems
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagessass-rails
dependents—
ecosystemsrubygems
total_downloads294,263,666
monthly_downloads—
unverified_packages_excluded—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Registry dependents. Remaining weights renormalized.

Sustainability & Governance

Will the project survive its people — bus factor, responsiveness, who backs it, and package upkeep?

75Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
36/54Bus factor — 3 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
17.1/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 24% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 61 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 45 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor3
contributors_sampled61
top_contributor_share0.242
How it's scored
40.7/42Issue resolution — 97% of issues closed
18.4/30PR acceptance — 83/135 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
4.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 5/14 approved changesets -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
merged_prs83
open_issues10
closed_issues306
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio0.968
closed_unmerged_prs52
first_time_authors_30d0
first_time_prs_merged_30d0
first_time_prs_decided_30d0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain
24.7/25Owner reach — 2,712 followers of rails
25/25Track record — 130 public repos, account ~18 yr old
Inputs used
followers2,712
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_loginrails
public_repos130
account_age_days6,736
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on rubygems
4/35Publish recency — latest publish 2,583 days ago
20/20Version history — 48 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagessass-rails
ecosystemsrubygems
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish2,583

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

23At Risk · 19% of overall
How it's scored
0/24CI workflows
0/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 0 out of 6 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_cino
has_testsno
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

55Moderate
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://github.com/rails/sass-rails/blob/master/README.markdown
10/10Repository description
0/10Topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics—
has_wikino
homepage—
docs_sitehttps://github.com/rails/sass-rails/blob/master/README.markdown
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

Are visible security and supply-chain practices strong, without unresolved high-risk jurisdiction exposure?

32At Risk · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0/2.5CI-Tests — 0 out of 6 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
2.2/7.5Code-Review — Found 5/14 approved changesets -- score normalized to 3
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 45 contributing companies or organizations
0/10Dangerous-Workflow — no data
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
0/7.5Maintained — 0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
0/5Packaging — no data
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — no data
0/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — no data
0/7.5Token-Permissions — no data
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated13
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive5
scorecard_aggregate3.2
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Dangerous-Workflow, Packaging, Pinned-Dependencies, Signed-Releases, Token-Permissions. Remaining weights renormalized.

AI Readiness

How well is the repo equipped to be developed and maintained with AI coding agents? Carries a deliberately small weight (4%): agent tooling is a real maintenance signal, but a repository with none can still reach 100/100.

15Critical · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
14.9/40Legible commit history — 28 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.28
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
0/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
0/11Static type checking
0/10Reproducible environment
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
0/8Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — no data
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsno
lockfiles—
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — Ruby without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/6 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRuby
largest_source_bytes186
source_files_sampled6
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

860GitHub stars
61contributors
0commits, last 12 months
2,171days since last push
18releases
3bus factor
10open issues
RubyGemspackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • No resolved dependencies carried a version and a supported ecosystem

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 324 ⇿
0Stars
324Forks
18Releases

When each star and fork was added, collected from GitHub and bucketed by day. Cumulative growth sits directly above the daily additions it is made of, so the two read against each other: steady organic accretion looks nothing like an abrupt, short-lived burst. Where that difference is measurable, it is reported as growth authenticity.

05010015020025030030072011-052018-112026-05
Major 3Minor 0Patch 15

Each point covers 14 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 3.2 / 10
3.2aggregate

Independent, tool-agnostic security assessment from the open-source OpenSSF Scorecard. Each check rewards a security practice, not a specific vendor's tool. Checks Scorecard could not determine are marked n/a and excluded from the security score (never counted as zero).Scorecard v5.5.0 · 2026-09-11 21:46 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0CI-Tests0 out of 6 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
3Code-ReviewFound 5/14 approved changesets -- score normalized to 3
10Contributorsproject has 45 contributing companies or organizations
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
0Maintained0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
n/aPinned-Dependenciesno dependencies found
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
n/aToken-PermissionsNo tokens found
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
All dependencies 3

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 3 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
RubyGemsrails—indirect
RubyGemssassc-rails—indirect
RubyGemssqlite3—indirect
Dependency advisories not assessed

Advisory matching could not run for this report: No resolved dependencies carried a version and a supported ecosystem

Raw JSON report machine-readable

Feedback

Spotted something off in this report, or have thoughts to share? Wrong measurements, missed tooling, ideas, questions — anything is welcome. Every message is read and gets a response.

The message is kept through sign-in.

Scores are signals, not warranties. They reflect publicly visible practices on GitHub — not a code audit, and not a security guarantee.

Missing data is excluded and weights renormalized, never scored as zero. Methodology is versioned and open: metrics v2.10.0, schema v0.34.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

How one result sits in the wider record: aggregate statistics — RubyGems.