Public record
Software health reportschema 0.11.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-16 12:22 UTC

ruby / irb

interactive Ruby

RubyBSD-2-Clause★ 473 stars⑂ 154 forkssince Jun 2018View on GitHub ↗

ruby/irb holds a health index of 94 out of 100, placing it in the Exceptional band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (89/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (32/100). It was last updated 2 days ago. 3 contributors account for most of its recent work.

94
overall / 100
Exceptional

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.

94
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 81 is calibrated to 94 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

2,074 followers190 public repossince Feb 2010

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
RubyGemsirb1.18.0-7985 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

87Excellent · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 2 days ago
20.8/36Commit cadence30/52 weeks with commits
17.2/18Commit volume81 commits in the last year
9/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained9 commit(s) and 2 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 9
Inputs used
commits_last_year81
human_commit_share
days_since_last_push2
active_weeks_last_year30
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases76 releases published
36/36Release recencylatest release 85 days ago
19.8/27Release cadencea release every ~63.6 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count76
latest_release_tagv1.18.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release85
mean_days_between_releases63.6
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?

81Excellent · 17% of overall
How it's scored
43.4/60Stars473 stars
18.2/25Forks154 forks
9.1/15Watchers45 watchers
Inputs used
forks154
stars473
watchers45
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (BSD-2-Clause)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
7.2/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateyes
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
80/80Total downloads220,831,881 downloads all-time across rubygems
0/20Registry dependentsnot reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesirb
dependents
ecosystemsrubygems
total_downloads220,831,881
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?

89Excellent · 23% of overall
How it's scored
36/54Bus factor3 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
16.3/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 28% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth100 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 97 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor3
contributors_sampled100
top_contributor_share0.277
How it's scored
33.5/42Issue resolution80% of issues closed
27.9/30PR acceptance838/901 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
15/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Reviewall changesets reviewed
Inputs used
merged_prs838
open_issues61
closed_issues241
prs_merged_7d
prs_decided_7d
prs_merged_30d
prs_decided_30d
issue_closed_ratio0.798
closed_unmerged_prs63
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 backingorganization-owned
0/20Verified domainverified-domain status not read for this organization
23.8/25Owner reach2,074 followers of ruby
25/25Track record190 public repos, account ~16 yr old
Inputs used
followers2,074
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified
owner_loginruby
public_repos190
account_age_days5,985
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable1 package(s) on rubygems
35/35Publish recencylatest publish 85 days ago
20/20Version history79 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesirb
ecosystemsrubygems
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish85

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

86Excellent · 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-Tests30 out of 30 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

Documentation

90Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage sitehttps://ruby.github.io/irb/
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics3 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicshacktoberfest, repl, ruby
has_wikino
homepagehttps://ruby.github.io/irb/
docs_sitehttps://ruby.github.io/irb/
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
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-Tests30 out of 30 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
7.5/7.5Code-Reviewall changesets reviewed
2.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 97 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5Licenselicense file detected
6.8/7.5Maintained9 commit(s) and 2 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 9
0/5Packagingno data
1.5/5Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 3
0/5SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5Security-Policysecurity policy file not 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_aggregate6.6
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, 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.

32At Risk · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
0/40Legible commit historyno data
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Legible commit history. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config.rubocop.yml
0/11Static type checking
0/10Reproducible environment
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno data
5/8Automated maintenancedependency automation configured, none observed in the sampled commits
3/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Demonstrated agent practice. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable codeRuby without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes0/111 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRuby
largest_source_bytes29,182
source_files_sampled111
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

473GitHub stars
100contributors
81commits, last 12 months
2days since last push
76releases
3bus factor
61open issues
RubyGemspackage ecosystems

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 6.6 / 10
6.6aggregate

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 · 2026-07-16 12:22 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-Tests30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
10Code-Reviewall changesets reviewed
10Contributorsproject has 97 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
9Maintained9 commit(s) and 2 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 9
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
3Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 3
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 15
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
RubyGemsvtermGemfile
RubyGemsyamatanoorotiGemfile
RubyGemsstackprofGemfile
RubyGemsrelineGemfile
RubyGemsrakeGemfile
RubyGemstest-unitGemfile
RubyGemstest-unit-ruby-coreGemfile
RubyGemsrubocopGemfile
RubyGemstracerGemfile
RubyGemsdebugGemfile
RubyGemsrdoc>= 6.11.0Gemfile
RubyGemsprismGemfile
RubyGemsprismGemfile
RubyGemsprism!= 1.8.0Gemfile
RubyGemsrepl_type_completorGemfile
All dependencies 13

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 12 direct and 1 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
RubyGemsdebugdirect
RubyGemsprismdirect
RubyGemsprism1.8.0direct
RubyGemsrakedirect
RubyGemsrdocdirect
RubyGemsrelinedirect
RubyGemsrepl_type_completordirect
RubyGemsrubocopdirect
RubyGemstest-unitdirect
RubyGemstest-unit-ruby-coredirect
RubyGemsvtermdirect
RubyGemsyamatanoorotidirect
RubyGemsppindirect
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 v0.11.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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