Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-23 18:16 UTC

relaton / relaton-ieee

Relaton for fetching IEEE Standards (and perhaps others)

RubyMIT★ 1 star⑂ 0 forkssince Mar 2020View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryCommand-line toolhow this is determined

relaton/relaton-ieee holds a health index of 54 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Vitality (64/100) and lowest on Security (34/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

54
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.

54
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 53 is calibrated to 54 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

RelatonOrganization
7 followers129 public repossince May 2018

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
RubyGemsrelaton-ieee2.1.3-7089 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

64Moderate · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 0 days ago
2.1/36Commit cadence3/52 weeks with commits
7/18Commit volume5 commits in the last year
1/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained2 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 1
Inputs used
commits_last_year5
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year3
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases61 releases published
36/36Release recencylatest release 0 days ago
19.8/27Release cadencea release every ~114.6 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count61
latest_release_tagv2.1.3
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release0
mean_days_between_releases114.6
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?

37Weak · 17% of overall
How it's scored
0/60Stars1 stars
0/25Forks0 forks
3.3/15Watchers5 watchers
Inputs used
forks0
stars1
watchers5
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized 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_badges
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
59/80Total downloads473,285 downloads all-time across rubygems
0/20Registry dependentsnot reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesrelaton-ieee
dependents
ecosystemsrubygems
total_downloads473,285
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?

61Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
3.3/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 85% of commits
4.1/13.5Contributor breadth3 contributors
6/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled3
top_contributor_share0.854
How it's scored
34.4/42Issue resolution82% of issues closed
30/30PR acceptance13/13 decided PRs merged
13/13Newcomer PR acceptance1/1 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 1/28 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs13
open_issues6
closed_issues27
prs_merged_7d2
prs_decided_7d2
prs_merged_30d2
prs_decided_30d2
issue_closed_ratio0.818
closed_unmerged_prs0
first_time_authors_30d1
first_time_prs_merged_30d1
first_time_prs_decided_30d1
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backingorganization-owned
0/20Verified domain
6.5/25Owner reach7 followers of relaton
25/25Track record129 public repos, account ~8 yr old
Inputs used
followers7
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_loginrelaton
public_repos129
account_age_days3,044

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable1 package(s) on rubygems
35/35Publish recencylatest publish 89 days ago
20/20Version history70 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesrelaton-ieee
ecosystemsrubygems
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish89

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

61Moderate · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows2 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config.rubocop.yml
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
4/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests1 out of 5 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 2
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

50Moderate
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
0/10Topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics
has_wikiyes
homepage
docs_site
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

34At Risk · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0.5/2.5CI-Tests1 out of 5 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 2
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-ReviewFound 1/28 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
1.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
10/10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5Licenselicense file detected
0.8/7.5Maintained2 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 1
0/5Packagingno data
0/5Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
1/5SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 2
0/5Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releasesno data
0/7.5Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate3.4
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.

45Weak · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
28.6/40Legible commit history52 of 97 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.536
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config.rubocop.yml
0/11Static type checking
0/10Reproducible environment
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno agent-authored commits among the last 97
0/8Automated maintenanceno automated dependency updates observed
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable codeRuby without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes0/36 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRuby
largest_source_bytes32,643
source_files_sampled36
oversized_source_files0
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

1GitHub stars
3contributors
5commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
61releases
1bus factor
6open 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

OpenSSF Scorecard 3.4 / 10
3.4aggregate

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 · 2026-09-23 18:15 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
2CI-Tests1 out of 5 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 2
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 1/28 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
6Contributorsproject has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
1Maintained2 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 1
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
0Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
2SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 2
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 10
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
RubyGemsrake~> 13.0Gemfile
RubyGemsrspec~> 3.0Gemfile
RubyGemsequivalent-xml~> 0.6Gemfile
RubyGemspry-byebugGemfile
RubyGemsruby-jingGemfile
RubyGemssimplecovGemfile
RubyGemsvcrGemfile
RubyGemswebmockGemfile
RubyGemswebrickGemfile
RubyGemsrelaton-indexGemfile
All dependencies 16

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 10 direct and 6 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
RubyGemsequivalent-xmldirect
RubyGemspry-byebugdirect
RubyGemsrakedirect
RubyGemsrelaton-indexdirect
RubyGemsrspecdirect
RubyGemsruby-jingdirect
RubyGemssimplecovdirect
RubyGemsvcrdirect
RubyGemswebmockdirect
RubyGemswebrickdirect
RubyGemsfaradayindirect
RubyGemsieee-idamsindirect
RubyGemslutaml-modelindirect
RubyGemsmini_portile2indirect
RubyGemsrelaton-bibindirect
RubyGemsrubyzipindirect
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 statisticsRubyGems.