Public record
Software health reportschema 0.31.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-16 11:12 UTC

rickselby / rubocop-rickselby

Gem for my rubocop configuration

RubyMIT★ 0 stars⑂ 0 forkssince Dec 2023View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryhow this is determined
#rubocop#ruby

rickselby/rubocop-rickselby holds a health index of 62 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Vitality (92/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (33/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

62
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.

62
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 58 is calibrated to 62 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Rick SelbyPersonal account
17 followers37 public repossince Mar 2012

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
RubyGemsrubocop-rickselby0.75.0-820 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

92Excellent · 21% of overall

Development activity

94Exceptional
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
30.5/36Commit cadence — 44/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 226 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year226
human_commit_share0.61
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year44

Release discipline

88Excellent
How it's scored
16.2/27Ships releases — 78 version tags (no GitHub releases)
36/36Release recency — latest release 0 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~26.6 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count78
latest_release_tagv0.75.0
releases_from_tagsyes
days_since_latest_release0
mean_days_between_releases26.6
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?

33At Risk · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

1Critical
How it's scored
0/60Stars — 0 stars
0/25Forks — 0 forks
0/15Watchers — 1 watchers
Inputs used
forks0
stars0
watchers1
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

50Moderate
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_badges0
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services—
has_pull_request_templateno

Ecosystem adoption (downloads)

61Moderate
How it's scored
48.7/80Total downloads — 48,580 downloads all-time across rubygems
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesrubocop-rickselby
dependents—
ecosystemsrubygems
total_downloads48,580
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?

51Moderate · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

13Critical
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 100% of commits
1.4/13.5Contributor breadth — 1 contributors
3/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled1
top_contributor_share1

Issue & PR responsiveness

57Moderate
How it's scored
0/42Issue resolution — no issues or no data
25.5/30PR acceptance — 206/242 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/6 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs206
open_issues0
closed_issues0
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d1
prs_merged_30d3
prs_decided_30d5
issue_closed_ratio—
closed_unmerged_prs36
first_time_authors_30d0
first_time_prs_merged_30d0
first_time_prs_decided_30d0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Issue resolution, Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.

Ownership & stewardship

53Moderate
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
9/25Owner reach — 17 followers of rickselby
23.5/25Track record — 37 public repos, account ~14 yr old
Inputs used
followers17
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginrickselby
public_repos37
account_age_days5,259
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 — 82 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesrubocop-rickselby
ecosystemsrubygems
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish0

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

56Moderate · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

60Moderate
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 2 workflow(s)
0/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — .rubocop.yml
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 12 out of 12 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsno
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
10/10Topics — 2 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsrubocop, ruby
has_wikino
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?

60Moderate · 16% of overall

Security posture

50Moderate
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 — 12 out of 12 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 0/6 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0.8/2.5Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 0 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
0/5Security-Policy — security policy file not 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_aggregate4.9
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging, Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories0
affected_packages0
assessed_packages52
unassessed_packages12
affected_by_severitynone
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 52 resolved dependencies against OSV. 12 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.

35Weak · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

34At Risk
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
34.1/40Legible commit history — 39 of 61 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.639
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

29At Risk
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
0/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — .rubocop.yml
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environment — lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
8/8Automated maintenance — 27 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsno
lockfilesGemfile.lock
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0.27

Code legibility for models

55Moderate
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — Ruby without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/4 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRuby
largest_source_bytes1,728
source_files_sampled4
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

0GitHub stars
1contributors
226commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
78releases
1bus factor
0open issues
RubyGemspackage ecosystems

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.9 / 10
4.9aggregate

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 · 2026-08-16 11:12 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
10CI-Tests12 out of 12 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 0/6 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
3Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 0 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
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 2
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
RubyGemslefthook~> 2.1Gemfile
RubyGemsrake~> 13.4Gemfile
All dependencies 64

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 2 direct and 62 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
RubyGemslefthook2.1.10direct
RubyGemsrake13.4.2direct
RubyGemsactionview8.1.3indirect
RubyGemsactivesupport8.1.3indirect
RubyGemsast2.4.3indirect
RubyGemsbase640.3.0indirect
RubyGemsbetter_html2.2.0indirect
RubyGemsbigdecimal4.1.2indirect
RubyGemsbuilder3.3.0indirect
RubyGemsconcurrent-ruby1.3.7indirect
RubyGemsconnection_pool3.0.2indirect
RubyGemscrass1.0.7indirect
RubyGemsdrb2.2.3indirect
RubyGemserb_lint—indirect
RubyGemserb_lint0.9.0indirect
RubyGemserubi1.13.1indirect
RubyGemsi18n1.15.2indirect
RubyGemsjson2.21.2indirect
RubyGemslanguage_server-protocol3.17.0.6indirect
RubyGemslint_roller1.1.0indirect
RubyGemslogger1.7.0indirect
RubyGemsloofah2.25.2indirect
RubyGemsmini_portile22.8.9indirect
RubyGemsminitest6.0.6indirect
RubyGemsnokogiri1.19.4indirect
RubyGemsparallel1.28.0indirect
RubyGemsparser3.3.12.0indirect
RubyGemsprism1.9.0indirect
RubyGemsracc1.8.1indirect
RubyGemsrack3.2.6indirect
RubyGemsrails-dom-testing2.3.0indirect
RubyGemsrails-html-sanitizer1.7.1indirect
RubyGemsrainbow3.1.1indirect
RubyGemsregexp_parser2.12.0indirect
RubyGemsrexml—indirect
RubyGemsrexml3.4.4indirect
RubyGemsrubocop—indirect
RubyGemsrubocop1.89.0indirect
RubyGemsrubocop-ast1.50.0indirect
RubyGemsrubocop-capybara—indirect
RubyGemsrubocop-capybara3.0.0indirect
RubyGemsrubocop-factory_bot—indirect
RubyGemsrubocop-factory_bot2.28.0indirect
RubyGemsrubocop-performance—indirect
RubyGemsrubocop-performance1.26.1indirect
RubyGemsrubocop-rails—indirect
RubyGemsrubocop-rails2.36.0indirect
RubyGemsrubocop-rails-accessibility—indirect
RubyGemsrubocop-rails-accessibility1.0.1indirect
RubyGemsrubocop-rake—indirect
RubyGemsrubocop-rake0.7.1indirect
RubyGemsrubocop-rspec—indirect
RubyGemsrubocop-rspec3.10.2indirect
RubyGemsrubocop-rspec_rails—indirect
RubyGemsrubocop-rspec_rails2.32.0indirect
RubyGemsrubocop-sequel—indirect
RubyGemsrubocop-sequel0.4.1indirect
RubyGemsruby-progressbar1.13.0indirect
RubyGemssecurerandom0.4.1indirect
RubyGemssmart_properties1.17.0indirect
RubyGemstzinfo2.0.6indirect
RubyGemsunicode-display_width3.2.0indirect
RubyGemsunicode-emoji4.2.0indirect
RubyGemsuri1.1.1indirect
Dependency advisories 0

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 52 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct. 12 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list.

No known advisories affect the assessed dependencies.

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.

Related records

Inspected repositories sharing catalogue tags or ecosystems with rickselby/rubocop-rickselby. Read them side by side →

98rubocop/rubocopA Ruby static code analyzer and formatter, based on the community Ruby style guide.Exceptional96rubocop/rubocop-rspecCode style checking for RSpec files.Exceptional94rouge-ruby/rougeA pure Ruby code highlighter that is compatible with PygmentsExceptional94Shopify/ruby-style-guideShopify’s Ruby Style GuideExceptional94github/rubocop-githubCode style checking for GitHub's Ruby projectsExceptional94Shopify/rubocop-sorbetA collection of RuboCop rules for SorbetExceptional

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 v0.31.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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