Public record
Software health reportschema 0.27.0 · metrics 2.5.0 · 2026-08-01 01:05 UTC

rinkei / jipcode

A gem for Japan Post's official zipcode data search & update.

RubyMIT★ 82 stars⑂ 11 forkssince Mar 2018View on GitHub ↗

rinkei/jipcode holds a health index of 67 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Vitality (69/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (30/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

67
overall / 100
Good

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.

67
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 61 is calibrated to 67 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

rinkeiPersonal account
11 followers20 public repossince Jul 2011

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
RubyGemsjipcode3.4.3-1250 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

69Good · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
1.4/36Commit cadence — 2/52 weeks with commits
9/18Commit volume — 9 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 21 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year9
human_commit_share0.99
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year2
How it's scored
16.2/27Ships releases — 100 version tags (no GitHub releases)
36/36Release recency — latest release 0 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~20.1 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count100
latest_release_tagv3.4.3
releases_from_tagsyes
days_since_latest_release0
mean_days_between_releases20.1
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?

58Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
31/60Stars — 82 stars
8.3/25Forks — 11 forks
0/15Watchers — 1 watchers
Inputs used
forks11
stars82
watchers1
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
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
How it's scored
63.6/80Total downloads — 1,314,620 downloads all-time across rubygems
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesjipcode
dependents
ecosystemsrubygems
total_downloads1,314,620
monthly_downloads
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 factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
1.9/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 92% of commits
6.8/13.5Contributor breadth — 5 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled5
top_contributor_share0.917
How it's scored
42/42Issue resolution — 100% of issues closed
27.4/30PR acceptance — 21/23 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/21 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs21
open_issues0
closed_issues3
prs_merged_7d
prs_decided_7d
prs_merged_30d
prs_decided_30d
issue_closed_ratio1
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): newcomer_pr_acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
7.8/25Owner reach — 11 followers of rinkei
21.6/25Track record — 20 public repos, account ~15 yr old
Inputs used
followers11
owner_typeUser
is_verified
owner_loginrinkei
public_repos20
account_age_days5,488
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 — 125 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesjipcode
ecosystemsrubygems
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish0

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

65Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 2 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 5 out of 5 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

60Moderate
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 1 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsruby
has_wikiyes
homepage
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

57Moderate · 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
2.5/2.5CI-Tests — 5 out of 5 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 0/21 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
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 — 21 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
3/7.5Vulnerabilities — 6 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate4.6
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
advisories6
affected_packages1
assessed_packages20
unassessed_packages11
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. 11 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.

30At Risk · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
4.3/40Legible commit history — 8 of 99 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
legible_history_share0.081
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environment — lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
8/8Automated maintenance — 1 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_testsyes
lockfilesGemfile.lock
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share0.01
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_bytes4,529
source_files_sampled6
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

82GitHub stars
5contributors
9commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
100releases
1bus factor
0open issues
RubyGemspackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 11 ⇿
0Stars
11Forks
78Releases

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.

0246810121112018-042021-092025-01
Major 2Minor 2Patch 74

Each point covers 7 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.6 / 10
4.6aggregate

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 · 2026-08-01 01:05 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
10CI-Tests5 out of 5 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 0/21 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
10Contributorsproject has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained21 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
4Vulnerabilities6 existing vulnerabilities detected
All dependencies 31

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 31 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
RubyGemsaddressable2.9.0indirect
RubyGemsbase64indirect
RubyGemsbase640.3.0indirect
RubyGemsbigdecimalindirect
RubyGemsbigdecimal3.3.1indirect
RubyGemsbumpindirect
RubyGemsbump0.10.0indirect
RubyGemsbundlerindirect
RubyGemscrack0.4.5indirect
RubyGemscsvindirect
RubyGemscsv3.2.8indirect
RubyGemsdiff-lcs1.5.0indirect
RubyGemshashdiff1.0.1indirect
RubyGemsnkfindirect
RubyGemsnkf0.2.0indirect
RubyGemspublic_suffix4.0.7indirect
RubyGemsrakeindirect
RubyGemsrake13.0.6indirect
RubyGemsrexml3.2.5indirect
RubyGemsrspecindirect
RubyGemsrspec3.12.0indirect
RubyGemsrspec-core3.12.2indirect
RubyGemsrspec-expectations3.12.3indirect
RubyGemsrspec-mocks3.12.5indirect
RubyGemsrspec-support3.12.1indirect
RubyGemsrubyzipindirect
RubyGemsrubyzip2.3.2indirect
RubyGemsvcrindirect
RubyGemsvcr6.2.0indirect
RubyGemswebmockindirect
RubyGemswebmock3.18.1indirect
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. 11 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
rexml3.2.5indirecthigh63.3.9

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

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 v2.5.0, schema v0.27.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

How one result sits in the wider record: aggregate statisticsRubyGems.