Public record
Software health reportschema 0.16.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-20 19:12 UTC

reidmorrison / semantic_logger

Semantic Logger is a high-performance, asynchronous structured logging framework for Ruby and Rails.

RubyApache-2.0★ 956 stars⑂ 138 forkssince Aug 2012View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryhow this is determined
#logging#rails-semantic-logger#bugsnag#syslog#splunk#elasticsearch

reidmorrison/semantic_logger holds a health index of 84 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (86/100) and lowest on Security (48/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

84
overall / 100
Excellent

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.

84
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 71 is calibrated to 84 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Reid MorrisonPersonal account
105 followers23 public repossince Oct 2009

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
RubyGemssemantic_logger5.1.0-1030 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

73Good · 21% of overall

Development activity

74Good
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
10.4/36Commit cadence — 15/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 166 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 9 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year166
human_commit_share—
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year15

Release discipline

72Good
How it's scored
16.2/27Ships releases — 56 version tags (no GitHub releases)
36/36Release recency — latest release 0 days ago
12.6/27Release cadence — a release every ~151 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count56
latest_release_tagv5.1.0
releases_from_tagsyes
days_since_latest_release0
mean_days_between_releases151
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?

84Excellent · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

74Good
How it's scored
48.3/60Stars — 956 stars
17.8/25Forks — 138 forks
7.5/15Watchers — 23 watchers
Inputs used
forks138
stars956
watchers23
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

85Excellent
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (Apache-2.0)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
7.2/7.2Issue template
6.3/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges—
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateyes
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services—
has_pull_request_templateyes

Ecosystem adoption (downloads)

98Exceptional
How it's scored
78.4/80Total downloads — 35,342,046 downloads all-time across rubygems
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagessemantic_logger
dependents—
ecosystemsrubygems
total_downloads35,342,046
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?

65Good · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

37Weak
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
4.6/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 79% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 82 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 6 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled82
top_contributor_share0.794

Issue & PR responsiveness

77Good
How it's scored
42/42Issue resolution — 100% of issues closed
25.1/30PR acceptance — 158/189 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/12 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs158
open_issues0
closed_issues160
prs_merged_7d—
prs_decided_7d—
prs_merged_30d—
prs_decided_30d—
issue_closed_ratio1
closed_unmerged_prs31
first_time_authors_30d—
first_time_prs_merged_30d—
first_time_prs_decided_30d—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.

Ownership & stewardship

58Moderate
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
14.6/25Owner reach — 105 followers of reidmorrison
22.1/25Track record — 23 public repos, account ~16 yr old
Inputs used
followers105
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginreidmorrison
public_repos23
account_age_days6,107
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on rubygems
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 0 days ago
20/20Version history — 103 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagessemantic_logger
ecosystemsrubygems
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish0

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

86Excellent · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

84Excellent
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 1 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — .rubocop.yml
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 11 out of 11 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

90Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://logger.rocketjob.io/
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 6 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicslogging, rails-semantic-logger, bugsnag, syslog, splunk, elasticsearch
has_wikino
homepagehttps://logger.rocketjob.io/
docs_sitehttps://logger.rocketjob.io/
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

48Weak · 16% of overall

Security posture

48Weak
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
2.5/2.5CI-Tests — 11 out of 11 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-Review — Found 0/12 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 6 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 9 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packaging — no data
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
4.5/5Security-Policy — security policy file detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — no data
0/7.5Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate4.8
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging, Signed-Releases. 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.

69Good · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructions — AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md
15/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) — llms.txt present
0/40Legible commit history — no data
Inputs used
has_llms_txtyes
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share—
agent_instruction_filesAGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes14,263
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Legible commit history. Remaining weights renormalized.

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

52Moderate
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — .rubocop.yml
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environment — Dockerfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no data
0/8Automated maintenance — no data
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles—
has_dockerfileyes
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share—
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Demonstrated agent practice, Automated maintenance. Remaining weights renormalized.

Code legibility for models

55Moderate
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — Ruby without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/151 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRuby
largest_source_bytes29,649
source_files_sampled151
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

956GitHub stars
82contributors
166commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
56releases
1bus factor
0open issues
RubyGemspackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • No resolved dependencies carried a version and a supported ecosystem

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.8 / 10
4.8aggregate

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 · 2026-07-20 19:11 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
10CI-Tests11 out of 11 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 0/12 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
10Contributorsproject has 6 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 9 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
0Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
9Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 34
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
RubyGemsamazing_print—Gemfile
RubyGemsminitest~> 6.0Gemfile
RubyGemsminitest-mock—Gemfile
RubyGemsminitest-reporters—Gemfile
RubyGemsminitest-shared_description—Gemfile
RubyGemsminitest-stub_any_instance—Gemfile
RubyGemsrake—Gemfile
RubyGemsrspec—Gemfile
RubyGemssimplecov—Gemfile
RubyGemssolargraph—Gemfile
RubyGemsbugsnag—Gemfile
RubyGemsbunny—Gemfile
RubyGemselasticsearch~>7.13.0Gemfile
RubyGemsopensearch-ruby—Gemfile
RubyGemsgelf—Gemfile
RubyGemshoneybadger—Gemfile
RubyGemsruby-kafka—Gemfile
RubyGemsbase64—Gemfile
RubyGemsmongo—Gemfile
RubyGemsopentelemetry-logs-sdk—Gemfile
RubyGemsnet_tcp_client—Gemfile
RubyGemsnokogiri—Gemfile
RubyGemssplunk-sdk-ruby—Gemfile
RubyGemsstatsd-ruby—Gemfile
RubyGemssentry-raven—Gemfile
RubyGemssentry-ruby—Gemfile
RubyGemssyslog—Gemfile
RubyGemssyslog_protocol—Gemfile
RubyGemsaws-sdk-cloudwatchlogs—Gemfile
RubyGemsrubocop~> 1.79.0Gemfile
RubyGemsrubocop-minitest—Gemfile
RubyGemsrubocop-rake—Gemfile
RubyGemsrubocop-rspec—Gemfile
RubyGemsgithub-pages—docs/Gemfile
All dependencies 35

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 34 direct and 1 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
RubyGemsamazing_print—direct
RubyGemsaws-sdk-cloudwatchlogs—direct
RubyGemsbase64—direct
RubyGemsbugsnag—direct
RubyGemsbunny—direct
RubyGemselasticsearch—direct
RubyGemsgelf—direct
RubyGemsgithub-pages—direct
RubyGemshoneybadger—direct
RubyGemsminitest—direct
RubyGemsminitest-mock—direct
RubyGemsminitest-reporters—direct
RubyGemsminitest-shared_description—direct
RubyGemsminitest-stub_any_instance—direct
RubyGemsmongo—direct
RubyGemsnet_tcp_client—direct
RubyGemsnokogiri—direct
RubyGemsopensearch-ruby—direct
RubyGemsopentelemetry-logs-sdk—direct
RubyGemsrake—direct
RubyGemsrspec—direct
RubyGemsrubocop—direct
RubyGemsrubocop-minitest—direct
RubyGemsrubocop-rake—direct
RubyGemsrubocop-rspec—direct
RubyGemsruby-kafka—direct
RubyGemssentry-raven—direct
RubyGemssentry-ruby—direct
RubyGemssimplecov—direct
RubyGemssolargraph—direct
RubyGemssplunk-sdk-ruby—direct
RubyGemsstatsd-ruby—direct
RubyGemssyslog—direct
RubyGemssyslog_protocol—direct
RubyGemsconcurrent-ruby—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.

Related records

Inspected repositories sharing catalogue tags or ecosystems with reidmorrison/semantic_logger. Read them side by side →

83bugsnag/bugsnag-laravelBugSnag notifier for the Laravel PHP framework. Monitor and report Laravel errors.Excellent98openobserve/openobserveOpen source observability platform for logs, metrics, traces, frontend monitoring, pipelines and LLM observability. A sophisticated, simple and highly performant alternative to Datadog, Splunk, and Elasticsearch with 140x lower storage costs and single binary deployment.Exceptional94apache/logging-log4j2Apache Log4j is a versatile, feature-rich, efficient logging API and backend for Java.Exceptional91apache/logging-log4netApache Log4net is a versatile, feature-rich, efficient logging API and backend for .NETExcellent91zentralopensource/zentralZentral is a control plane for secure, observable Apple endpoints in enterprises. Configure, observe, and enforce the desired state of every Apple endpoint. Manage that desired state as code through GitOps and Terraform.Excellent90exceptionless/ExceptionlessExceptionless applicationExcellent

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 v0.16.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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