Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-08 13:37 UTC

rbotafogo / galaaz

Galaaz 2.0 drives GNU R from JRuby over a process bridge (CRAN, Bioconductor, ggplot2, dplyr).

HTML · RubyBSD-2-Clause★ 24 stars⑂ 1 forksince May 2015View on GitHub ↗

rbotafogo/galaaz holds a health index of 57 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (76/100) and lowest on Sustainability & Governance (35/100). It was last updated 1 day ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

57
overall / 100
Moderate

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.

57
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 55 is calibrated to 57 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Rodrigo BotafogoPersonal account
6 followers23 public repossince Mar 2013Cripto Forte Informática LTDA

This repository is owned by a personal account. A single-owner project carries more continuity risk than an organization-backed one.

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

66Good · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 1 days ago
6.2/36Commit cadence9/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume109 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintainedno data
Inputs used
commits_last_year109
human_commit_share
days_since_last_push1
active_weeks_last_year9
How it's scored
16.2/27Ships releases8 version tags (no GitHub releases)
36/36Release recencylatest release 4 days ago
5.4/27Release cadencea release every ~404.5 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count8
latest_release_tagv2.1.0
releases_from_tagsyes
days_since_latest_release4
mean_days_between_releases404.5

Community & Adoption

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

44Weak · 17% of overall
How it's scored
22.1/60Stars24 stars
0/25Forks1 forks
3.3/15Watchers5 watchers
Inputs used
forks1
stars24
watchers5
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (BSD-2-Clause)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_services
has_pull_request_templateno

Sustainability & Governance

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

35Weak · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 100% of commits
1.4/13.5Contributor breadth1 contributors
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsno data
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled1
top_contributor_share1
How it's scored
0/42Issue resolutionno issues or no data
15/30PR acceptance2/4 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Reviewno data
Inputs used
merged_prs2
open_issues0
closed_issues0
prs_merged_7d
prs_decided_7d
prs_merged_30d
prs_decided_30d
issue_closed_ratio
closed_unmerged_prs2
first_time_authors_30d
first_time_prs_merged_30d
first_time_prs_decided_30d
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Issue resolution, Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backingpersonal (user) account
0/20Verified domainnot applicable to user accounts
6.1/25Owner reach6 followers of rbotafogo
22.1/25Track record23 public repos, account ~13 yr old
Inputs used
followers6
owner_typeUser
is_verified
owner_loginrbotafogo
public_repos23
account_age_days4,911
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

76Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows4 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Testsno data
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

100Exceptional
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage sitehttps://rbotafogo.github.io/galaaz/
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics9 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsfastr, graalvm, r, ruby, ruby-gem, ruby-library, rubydatascience, rubygems, truffleruby
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://rbotafogo.github.io/galaaz/
docs_sitehttps://rbotafogo.github.io/galaaz/
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

60Moderate · 16% of overall
How it's scored
0/30Security policy (SECURITY.md)
25/25Dependabot config
25/25Dependency lockfilesGemfile.lock
0/20CodeQL workflow
Inputs used
sourcefile_signals
lockfilesGemfile.lock
manifestsGemfile
has_codeql_workflowno
has_security_policyno
has_dependabot_configyes

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisoriesno direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisoriestransitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40No advisories left outstandingno advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories1
affected_packages1
assessed_packages20
unassessed_packages4
affected_by_severityhigh 1
direct_affected_packages0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories, No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 20 resolved dependencies against OSV. 4 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list. This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so the repository dependency graph was assessed instead. That graph mixes development and test pins with shipped dependencies, so only the declared runtime dependencies are scored; transitive findings are reported as context and excluded from the score. Reachability is not analyzed.

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.

51Moderate · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
0/40Legible commit historyno data
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Legible commit history. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrapexamples/latex_templates/Test-acm_article/Makefile, ext/new_bridge/Makefile, mise.toml
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environmentDockerfile, lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno data
5/8Automated maintenancedependency automation configured, none observed in the sampled commits
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesno data
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesGemfile.lock
has_dockerfileyes
typed_languageno
bootstrap_filesexamples/latex_templates/Test-acm_article/Makefile, ext/new_bridge/Makefile, mise.toml
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Demonstrated agent practice. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable codeHTML without a type-check config
54.8/55Manageable file sizes1/222 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageHTML
largest_source_bytes73,584
source_files_sampled222
oversized_source_files1
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto)not applicable to this kind of software
0/20MCP servernot applicable to this kind of software
40/40Runnable examplesexamples
Inputs used
example_dirsexamples
has_mcp_signalno
api_schema_files
interfaces_expected_of
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto), MCP server. Remaining weights renormalized.

Key facts

24GitHub stars
1contributors
109commits, last 12 months
1days since last push
8releases
1bus factor
0open issues
RubyGemspackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • GraphQL snapshot failed, fell back to REST: Network error requesting /graphql: timed out
  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • OpenSSF Scorecard did not return a usable result (exit code 0; Skipping github.com/rbotafogo/galaaz: run: RepoClient.LocalPath: error during tarballHandler.setup: internal error: handler.httpClient.Do: Get "https://codeload.github.com/rbotafogo/galaaz/legacy.tar.gz/refs/heads/galaaz2_0": internal error: innerTransport.RoundTrip: internal error: innerTransport.RoundTrip: error in HTTP: dial tcp 140.82.121.9:443: i/o timeout); skipping Scorecard checks

More detail

All dependencies 24

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 24 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
RubyGemsdate3.5.1indirect
RubyGemsdiff-lcs1.6.2indirect
RubyGemsdocile1.4.1indirect
RubyGemserb6.0.2indirect
RubyGemsjar-dependencies0.5.6indirect
RubyGemsmsgpackindirect
RubyGemsmsgpack1.8.4indirect
RubyGemspsych5.3.1indirect
RubyGemsrdocindirect
RubyGemsrdoc7.2.0indirect
RubyGemsrspecindirect
RubyGemsrspec3.13.2indirect
RubyGemsrspec-core3.13.6indirect
RubyGemsrspec-expectations3.13.5indirect
RubyGemsrspec-mocks3.13.8indirect
RubyGemsrspec-support3.13.7indirect
RubyGemsruby-maven3.9.3indirect
RubyGemsruby-maven-libs3.9.9indirect
RubyGemssimplecovindirect
RubyGemssimplecov0.22.0indirect
RubyGemssimplecov-html0.13.2indirect
RubyGemssimplecov_json_formatter0.1.4indirect
RubyGemsstringio3.2.0indirect
RubyGemstsort0.2.0indirect
Dependency advisories 1

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 20 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 1 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct. 4 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
erb6.0.2indirecthigh16.0.4

An advisory means the version recorded in the dependency graph falls inside an advisory’s affected range. Reachability is not analysed, and the graph includes development and test pins — a finding may concern tooling rather than shipped software.

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.