Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-28 00:33 UTC

ruby-grape / grape

An opinionated framework for creating REST-like APIs in Ruby.

RubyMIT★ 10,004 stars⑂ 1,231 forkssince Aug 2010View on GitHub ↗

ruby-grape/grape holds a health index of 92 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Vitality (92/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (65/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

92
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.

92
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 78 is calibrated to 92 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Ruby GrapeOrganization
34 followers17 public repossince Aug 2015

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
RubyGemsgrape3.3.5-8628 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

92Excellent · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 0 days ago
30.5/36Commit cadence44/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume313 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained30 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year313
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year44
How it's scored
16.2/27Ships releases84 version tags (no GitHub releases)
36/36Release recencylatest release 28 days ago
27/27Release cadencea release every ~20.6 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count84
latest_release_tagv3.3.5
releases_from_tagsyes
days_since_latest_release28
mean_days_between_releases20.6
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?

89Excellent · 17% of overall
How it's scored
60/60Stars10,004 stars
25/25Forks1,231 forks
12.7/15Watchers194 watchers
Inputs used
forks1,231
stars10,004
watchers194
growth_stateorganic
growth_factor_pct100
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (MIT)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges3
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesbadge.fury.io, coveralls.io, github.com
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
80/80Total downloads85,274,551 downloads all-time across rubygems
0/20Registry dependentsnot reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesgrape
dependents
ecosystemsrubygems
total_downloads85,274,551
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?

68Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
10.6/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 53% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth100 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 45 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled100
top_contributor_share0.528
How it's scored
34.7/42Issue resolution83% of issues closed
23.4/30PR acceptance1,261/1,620 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
9/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 17/28 approved changesets -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
merged_prs1,261
open_issues211
closed_issues999
prs_merged_7d9
prs_decided_7d12
prs_merged_30d23
prs_decided_30d27
issue_closed_ratio0.826
closed_unmerged_prs359
first_time_authors_30d0
first_time_prs_merged_30d0
first_time_prs_decided_30d0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backingorganization-owned
0/20Verified domain
11.1/25Owner reach34 followers of ruby-grape
21.1/25Track record17 public repos, account ~11 yr old
Inputs used
followers34
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_loginruby-grape
public_repos17
account_age_days4,042

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable1 package(s) on rubygems
35/35Publish recencylatest publish 28 days ago
20/20Version history86 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesgrape
ecosystemsrubygems
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish28

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

76Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows4 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config.rubocop.yml
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests27 out of 27 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
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage sitehttp://www.ruby-grape.org
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics4 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsgrape, api, ruby, hacktoberfest
has_wikino
homepagehttp://www.ruby-grape.org
docs_sitehttp://www.ruby-grape.org
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

66Good · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protectionno data
2.5/2.5CI-Tests27 out of 27 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
4.5/7.5Code-ReviewFound 17/28 approved changesets -- score normalized to 6
2.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 45 contributing companies or organizations
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
7.5/7.5Maintained30 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packagingno data
0/5Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0/5SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
5/5Security-Policysecurity policy file 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_evaluated15
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive3
scorecard_aggregate5.8
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, Packaging, Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisoriesno direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisoriestransitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40No advisories left outstandingno advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories0
affected_packages0
assessed_packages3
unassessed_packages21
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 3 resolved dependencies against OSV. 21 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.

65Good · 4% of overall
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructionsAGENTS.md
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history91 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.91
agent_instruction_filesAGENTS.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes5,647
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config.rubocop.yml
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environmentDockerfile
10/10Demonstrated agent practice67 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
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_dockerfileyes
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share0.67
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable codeRuby without a type-check config
54.7/55Manageable file sizes2/325 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRuby
largest_source_bytes149,680
source_files_sampled325
oversized_source_files2

Key facts

10,004GitHub stars
100contributors
313commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
84releases
1bus factor
211open issues
RubyGemspackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • Star history carried forward from 2026-07-21: GitHub restricted the stargazers API to repository admins, so it can no longer be collected. The repository has 10004 stars today.

More detail

Star and fork history 9,996 ★ / 1,231 ⇿
9,996Stars
1,231Forks
66Releases

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.

Only the most recent history is shown — this repository exceeds the collection window, so the earliest history is not captured.

Star history is shown as collected on 2026-07-21. GitHub restricted the stargazers API to repository administrators in July 2026, so this series can no longer be extended; the current star total above remains live.

02,0004,0006,0008,00010,0009,9961,231192013-062020-012026-08
Major 3Minor 29Patch 34

Each point covers 12 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.8 / 10
5.8aggregate

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 · 2026-08-28 00:33 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
n/aBranch-Protectioninternal error: error during branchesHandler.setup: internal error: some github tokens can't read classic branch protection rules: https://github.com/ossf/scorecard-action/blob/main/docs/authentication/fine-grained-auth-token.md
10CI-Tests27 out of 27 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
6Code-ReviewFound 17/28 approved changesets -- score normalized to 6
10Contributorsproject has 45 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 1 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
10Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 1
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
RubyGemsraccGemfile
All dependencies 24

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 1 direct and 23 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
RubyGemsraccdirect
RubyGemsactivesupportindirect
RubyGemsbenchmark-ipsindirect
RubyGemsbenchmark-memoryindirect
RubyGemsbuilderindirect
RubyGemsbundlerindirect
RubyGemsdangerindirect
RubyGemsdanger-changelogindirect
RubyGemsdanger-pr-commentindirect
RubyGemsdry-configurableindirect
RubyGemsdry-typesindirect
RubyGemsirbindirect
RubyGemsmustermannindirect
RubyGemsrackindirect
RubyGemsrack-contribindirect
RubyGemsrack-testindirect
RubyGemsrakeindirect
RubyGemsrspecindirect
RubyGemsrubocop1.88.0indirect
RubyGemsrubocop-performance1.26.1indirect
RubyGemsrubocop-rspec3.10.2indirect
RubyGemssimplecovindirect
RubyGemssimplecov-lcovindirect
RubyGemszeitwerkindirect
Dependency advisories 0

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 3 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct. 21 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.

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.