Public record
Software health reportschema 0.27.0 · metrics 2.5.0 · 2026-07-31 02:58 UTC

ruby-amqp / kicks

The project originally known as Sneakers

RubyMIT★ 105 stars⑂ 15 forkssince Jun 2024View on GitHub ↗

ruby-amqp/kicks holds a health index of 63 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (73/100) and lowest on Security (46/100). It was last updated today. 2 contributors account for most of its recent work.

63
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.

63
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 59 is calibrated to 63 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

8 followers16 public repossince Jan 2011

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
RubyGemskicks3.4.0-70 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

63Moderate · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
4.2/36Commit cadence — 6/52 weeks with commits
10.8/18Commit volume — 15 commits in the last year
4/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 4 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 4
Inputs used
commits_last_year15
human_commit_share0.95
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year6
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 4 releases published
27/36Release recency — latest release 120 days ago
12.6/27Release cadence — a release every ~176.6 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count4
latest_release_tag3.3.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release120
mean_days_between_releases176.6
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?

56Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
32.7/60Stars — 105 stars
9.6/25Forks — 15 forks
5.3/15Watchers — 10 watchers
Inputs used
forks15
stars105
watchers10
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
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
60.6/80Total downloads — 676,822 downloads all-time across rubygems
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packageskicks
dependents
ecosystemsrubygems
total_downloads676,822
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?

73Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
25.2/54Bus factor — 2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
15.6/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 31% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 87 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 29 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor2
contributors_sampled87
top_contributor_share0.306
How it's scored
37.3/42Issue resolution — 89% of issues closed
30/30PR acceptance — 24/24 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
1.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 4/21 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
Inputs used
merged_prs24
open_issues1
closed_issues8
prs_merged_7d
prs_decided_7d
prs_merged_30d
prs_decided_30d
issue_closed_ratio0.889
closed_unmerged_prs0
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
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain
6.9/25Owner reach — 8 followers of ruby-amqp
21/25Track record — 16 public repos, account ~15 yr old
Inputs used
followers8
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified
owner_loginruby-amqp
public_repos16
account_age_days5,683

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 — 7 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packageskicks
ecosystemsrubygems
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish0

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

52Moderate · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 1 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
12/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 6 out of 9 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
0/10Topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics
has_wikino
homepage
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

46Weak · 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
1.5/2.5CI-Tests — 6 out of 9 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 6
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0.8/7.5Code-Review — Found 4/21 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 29 contributing companies or organizations
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
3/7.5Maintained — 4 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 4
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_aggregate4.6
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.

47Weak · 4% of overall
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructions — AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md, GEMINI.md
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
11.8/40Legible commit history — 21 of 95 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
legible_history_share0.221
agent_instruction_filesAGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md, GEMINI.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes4,603
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environment — Dockerfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
8/8Automated maintenance — 5 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
lockfiles
has_dockerfileyes
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share0.05
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — Ruby without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/57 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRuby
largest_source_bytes21,305
source_files_sampled57
oversized_source_files0
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto)
0/20MCP server
40/40Runnable examples — examples
Inputs used
example_dirsexamples
has_mcp_signalno
api_schema_files

Key facts

105GitHub stars
87contributors
15commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
4releases
2bus factor
1open 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

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 15 ⇿
0Stars
15Forks
3Releases

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.

03581013151522024-062025-042026-01
Major 1Minor 2Patch 0

Each point covers 2 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 · 2026-07-31 02:58 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
6CI-Tests6 out of 9 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 6
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
1Code-ReviewFound 4/21 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
10Contributorsproject has 29 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
4Maintained4 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 4
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 3
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
RubyGemsruby-profGemfile
RubyGemsrake>= 12.3Gemfile
RubyGemsmetric_fuGemfile
All dependencies 19

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 3 direct and 16 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
RubyGemsmetric_fudirect
RubyGemsrakedirect
RubyGemsruby-profdirect
RubyGemsactivejobindirect
RubyGemsactivesupportindirect
RubyGemsbunnyindirect
RubyGemsconcurrent-rubyindirect
RubyGemsguardindirect
RubyGemsguard-minitestindirect
RubyGemsminitestindirect
RubyGemspry-byebugindirect
RubyGemsrabbitmq_http_api_clientindirect
RubyGemsredisindirect
RubyGemsrrindirect
RubyGemsserverengineindirect
RubyGemssimplecovindirect
RubyGemssimplecov-rcov-textindirect
RubyGemsthorindirect
RubyGemsunparserindirect
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

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.