Software health reportschema 0.16.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-20 17:32 UTC

ruby-grape / grape-swagger-rails

Swagger UI as Rails Engine for grape-swagger gem.

Ruby · JavaScript · TypeScriptMIT★ 260 stars⑂ 196 forkssince Feb 2015View on GitHub ↗

ruby-grape/grape-swagger-rails holds a health index of 34 out of 100, placing it in the At Risk band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (79/100) and lowest on Security (47/100). It was last updated today. 2 contributors account for most of its recent work.

overall / 100

At Risk

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.

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)

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 69 is calibrated to 81 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02). High-Risk Jurisdiction Policy applies a 75% multiplier to weighted overall health and gives it an At Risk ceiling of 34.

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

Registry	Package	Version	Downloads / mo	Versions	Last publish
RubyGems	grape-swagger-rails	1.0.5	-	23	4 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

73Good · 21% of overall

Development activity

74Good

How it's scored

36/36	Push recency — last push 0 days ago
9.7/36	Commit cadence — 14/52 weeks with commits
17.8/18	Commit volume — 95 commits in the last year
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10

Inputs used

commits_last_year	95
human_commit_share	—
days_since_last_push	0
active_weeks_last_year	14

Release discipline

72Good

How it's scored

16.2/27	Ships releases — 24 version tags (no GitHub releases)
36/36	Release recency — latest release 4 days ago
12.6/27	Release cadence — a release every ~133.9 days
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data

Inputs used

releases_count	24
latest_release_tag	v1.0.5
releases_from_tags	yes
days_since_latest_release	4
mean_days_between_releases	133.9

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?

72Good · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

63Moderate

How it's scored

39.1/60	Stars — 260 stars
19.1/25	Forks — 196 forks
5/15	Watchers — 9 watchers

Inputs used

forks	196
stars	260
watchers	9
growth_state	unverified
growth_factor_pct	100
growth_unverified_reason	no_history

Community health

70Good

How it's scored

22.5/22.5	README
22.5/22.5	License — recognized license (MIT)
18/18	CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5	Code of conduct
0/7.2	Issue template
0/6.3	PR template

Inputs used

has_readme	yes
has_license	yes
readme_badges	—
has_contributing	yes
has_issue_template	no
has_code_of_conduct	no
readme_badge_services	—
has_pull_request_template	no

Ecosystem adoption (downloads)

91Excellent

How it's scored

72.6/80	Total downloads — 9,602,758 downloads all-time across rubygems
0/20	Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem

Inputs used

packages	grape-swagger-rails
dependents	—
ecosystems	rubygems
total_downloads	9,602,758
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?

79Good · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

65Good

How it's scored

25.2/54	Bus factor — 2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
15.9/22.5	Commit distribution — top contributor authored 30% of commits
13.5/13.5	Contributor breadth — 38 contributors
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 23 contributing companies or organizations

Inputs used

bus_factor	2
contributors_sampled	38
top_contributor_share	0.295

Issue & PR responsiveness

81Excellent

How it's scored

41.4/42	Issue resolution — 98% of issues closed
21.5/30	PR acceptance — 73/102 decided PRs merged
0/13	Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
7.5/15	OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 12/24 approved changesets -- score normalized to 5

Inputs used

merged_prs	73
open_issues	1
closed_issues	66
prs_merged_7d	—
prs_decided_7d	—
prs_merged_30d	—
prs_decided_30d	—
issue_closed_ratio	0.985
closed_unmerged_prs	29
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.

Ownership & stewardship

78Good

How it's scored

30/30	Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20	Verified domain — verified-domain status not read for this organization
11.1/25	Owner reach — 34 followers of ruby-grape
21.1/25	Track record — 17 public repos, account ~10 yr old

Inputs used

followers	34
owner_type	Organization
is_verified	—
owner_login	ruby-grape
public_repos	17
account_age_days	4,004

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

100Exceptional

How it's scored

25/25	Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on rubygems
35/35	Publish recency — latest publish 4 days ago
20/20	Version history — 23 published versions
20/20	Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked

Inputs used

packages	grape-swagger-rails
ecosystems	rubygems
any_deprecated	no
min_days_since_publish	4

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

66Good · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

84Excellent

How it's scored

24/24	CI workflows — 6 workflow(s)
24/24	Tests present
16/16	Linter config — .rubocop.yml
0/9.6	Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4	.editorconfig
20/20	OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 21 out of 21 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10

Inputs used

has_ci	yes
has_tests	yes
has_editorconfig	no
has_linter_config	yes
has_precommit_config	no

Documentation

40Weak

How it's scored

30/30	README
0/25	Documentation directory
0/15	Documentation / homepage site
10/10	Repository description
0/10	Topics
0/10	Wiki

Inputs used

topics	—
has_wiki	no
homepage	—
docs_site	—
has_readme	yes
has_docs_dir	no
has_description	yes

Security

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

47Weak · 16% of overall

Security posture

34At Risk

Jurisdiction risk alert

High-risk jurisdiction exposure detected

1 contributor organization profilesRussia

Based on self-published public profile locations. This governance signal does not determine nationality, citizenship, intent, sanctions status, or individual trustworthiness.

How jurisdiction exposure is assessed

How it's scored

7.5/7.5	Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5	Branch-Protection — branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
2.5/2.5	CI-Tests — 21 out of 21 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5	CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
3.8/7.5	Code-Review — Found 12/24 approved changesets -- score normalized to 5
2.5/2.5	Contributors — project has 23 contributing companies or organizations
10/10	Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5	Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
0/5	Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5	License — license file detected
7.5/7.5	Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5	Packaging — no data
0/5	Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0/5	SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5	Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5	Signed-Releases — no data
0/7.5	Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5	Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected

Inputs used

source	openssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated	16
scorecard_version	v5.5.0
checks_inconclusive	2
scorecard_aggregate	5.5
high_risk_jurisdiction_cap	34
high_risk_jurisdiction_multiplier	75
security_posture_after_multiplier	41
security_posture_before_jurisdiction	55

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging, Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized. High-Risk Jurisdiction Policy applies a 75% multiplier and gives Security posture an At risk ceiling of 34.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional

How it's scored

35/35	Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25	Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40	No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date

Inputs used

source	osv
advisories	0
affected_packages	0
assessed_packages	28
unassessed_packages	28
affected_by_severity	none
direct_affected_packages	0

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories, No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 28 resolved dependencies against OSV. 28 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.

71Good · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

75Good

How it's scored

45/45	Agent instructions — .github/copilot-instructions.md, CLAUDE.md
0/15	Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
0/40	Legible commit history — no data

Inputs used

has_llms_txt	no
llms_txt_url	—
legible_history_share	—
agent_instruction_files	.github/copilot-instructions.md, CLAUDE.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes	5,657

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Legible commit history. Remaining weights renormalized.

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

66Good

How it's scored

0/18	One-command bootstrap
22/22	Automated tests
11/11	Lint / format config — .rubocop.yml
11/11	Static type checking — tsconfig.json
10/10	Reproducible environment — lockfile
0/10	Demonstrated agent practice — no data
0/8	Automated maintenance — no data
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

has_nix	no
has_tests	yes
lockfiles	yarn.lock
has_dockerfile	no
typed_language	no
bootstrap_files	—
has_devcontainer	no
has_linter_config	yes
typecheck_configs	tsconfig.json
agent_commit_share	—
toolchain_manifests	—
dependency_bot_commit_share	—

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Demonstrated agent practice, Automated maintenance. Remaining weights renormalized.

Code legibility for models

77Good

How it's scored

27/45	Type-checkable code — Ruby with type-check config (tsconfig.json)
50.4/55	Manageable file sizes — 3/36 source files over 60KB

Inputs used

primary_language	Ruby
largest_source_bytes	1,537,593
source_files_sampled	36
oversized_source_files	3

Key facts

260GitHub stars

38contributors

95commits, last 12 months

0days since last push

24releases

2bus factor

1open issues

npm, RubyGemspackage ecosystems

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.5 / 10

5.5aggregate

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 · 2026-07-20 17:31 UTC

10	Binary-Artifacts	no binaries found in the repo
0	Branch-Protection	branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
10	CI-Tests	21 out of 21 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0	CII-Best-Practices	no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
5	Code-Review	Found 12/24 approved changesets -- score normalized to 5
10	Contributors	project has 23 contributing companies or organizations
10	Dangerous-Workflow	no dangerous workflow patterns detected
10	Dependency-Update-Tool	update tool detected
0	Fuzzing	project is not fuzzed
10	License	license file detected
10	Maintained	30 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/a	Packaging	packaging workflow not detected
0	Pinned-Dependencies	dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0	SAST	SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0	Security-Policy	security policy file not detected
n/a	Signed-Releases	no releases found
0	Token-Permissions	detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10	Vulnerabilities	0 existing vulnerabilities detected

Direct dependencies 6

Registry	Package	Version constraint	Manifest
RubyGems	grape	`—`	Gemfile
RubyGems	grape	`—`	Gemfile
RubyGems	grape-swagger	`—`	Gemfile
RubyGems	grape-swagger	`—`	Gemfile
RubyGems	railties	`—`	Gemfile
RubyGems	railties	`—`	Gemfile

All dependencies 56

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 3 direct and 53 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

Registry	Package	Version	Relation
RubyGems	grape	`—`	direct
RubyGems	grape-swagger	`—`	direct
RubyGems	railties	`—`	direct
npm	@esbuild/aix-ppc64	`0.28.1`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/android-arm	`0.28.1`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/android-arm64	`0.28.1`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/android-x64	`0.28.1`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/darwin-arm64	`0.28.1`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/darwin-x64	`0.28.1`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/freebsd-arm64	`0.28.1`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/freebsd-x64	`0.28.1`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/linux-arm	`0.28.1`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/linux-arm64	`0.28.1`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/linux-ia32	`0.28.1`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/linux-loong64	`0.28.1`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/linux-mips64el	`0.28.1`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/linux-ppc64	`0.28.1`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/linux-riscv64	`0.28.1`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/linux-s390x	`0.28.1`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/linux-x64	`0.28.1`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/netbsd-arm64	`0.28.1`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/netbsd-x64	`0.28.1`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/openbsd-arm64	`0.28.1`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/openbsd-x64	`0.28.1`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/openharmony-arm64	`0.28.1`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/sunos-x64	`0.28.1`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/win32-arm64	`0.28.1`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/win32-ia32	`0.28.1`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/win32-x64	`0.28.1`	indirect
npm	esbuild	`0.28.1`	indirect
npm	typescript	`5.9.3`	indirect
RubyGems	capybara	`—`	indirect
RubyGems	danger	`—`	indirect
RubyGems	danger-changelog	`—`	indirect
RubyGems	danger-pr-comment	`—`	indirect
RubyGems	danger-toc	`—`	indirect
RubyGems	grape-swagger-ui	`—`	indirect
RubyGems	haml-rails	`—`	indirect
RubyGems	jquery-rails	`—`	indirect
RubyGems	mime-types	`—`	indirect
RubyGems	nokogiri	`—`	indirect
RubyGems	ostruct	`—`	indirect
RubyGems	propshaft	`—`	indirect
RubyGems	rack	`—`	indirect
RubyGems	rack-cors	`—`	indirect
RubyGems	rake	`—`	indirect
RubyGems	rspec-rails	`—`	indirect
RubyGems	rubocop	`—`	indirect
RubyGems	rubocop-capybara	`—`	indirect
RubyGems	rubocop-rake	`—`	indirect
RubyGems	rubocop-rspec	`—`	indirect
RubyGems	rubocop-rspec_rails	`—`	indirect
RubyGems	selenium-webdriver	`—`	indirect
RubyGems	sprockets-rails	`—`	indirect
RubyGems	uglifier	`—`	indirect
RubyGems	webrick	`—`	indirect

Dependency advisories 0

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 28 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct. 28 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.

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 v0.16.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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

Software health index

Score profile

Ownership

Package ecosystems

Metrics by category

Key facts

More detail

Feedback

Related records