Public record
Software health reportschema 0.12.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-17 17:47 UTC

ruby / matrix

An implementation of Matrix and Vector classes

RubyCustom license★ 91 stars⑂ 27 forkssince Sep 2017View on GitHub ↗

ruby/matrix holds a health index of 69 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (78/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (26/100). It was last updated 4 days ago. 2 contributors account for most of its recent work.

69
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.

69
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 62 is calibrated to 69 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
RubyGemsmatrix0.4.3-8394 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

62Moderate · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 4 days ago
15.2/36Commit cadence22/52 weeks with commits
12.6/18Commit volume24 commits in the last year
5/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained6 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 5
Inputs used
commits_last_year24
human_commit_share
days_since_last_push4
active_weeks_last_year22
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases7 releases published
7.2/36Release recencylatest release 394 days ago
12.6/27Release cadencea release every ~157.3 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count7
latest_release_tagv0.4.3
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release394
mean_days_between_releases157.3
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?

61Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
31.7/60Stars91 stars
11.8/25Forks27 forks
8.4/15Watchers34 watchers
Inputs used
forks27
stars91
watchers34
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
16.9/22.5Licenselicense file present, not a recognized license
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
80/80Total downloads167,408,491 downloads all-time across rubygems
0/20Registry dependentsnot reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesmatrix
dependents
ecosystemsrubygems
total_downloads167,408,491
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?

78Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
25.2/54Bus factor2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
12.1/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 46% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth30 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 21 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor2
contributors_sampled30
top_contributor_share0.464
How it's scored
36/42Issue resolution86% of issues closed
27.1/30PR acceptance47/52 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
3/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 2/7 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
Inputs used
merged_prs47
open_issues1
closed_issues6
prs_merged_7d
prs_decided_7d
prs_merged_30d
prs_decided_30d
issue_closed_ratio0.857
closed_unmerged_prs5
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_days5,986
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable1 package(s) on rubygems
14/35Publish recencylatest publish 394 days ago
20/20Version history8 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesmatrix
ecosystemsrubygems
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish394

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

60Moderate · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows2 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
18/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests24 out of 26 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

50Moderate
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics2 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsruby, hacktoberfest
has_wikino
homepage
docs_site
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

51Moderate · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
2.2/2.5CI-Tests24 out of 26 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
1.5/7.5Code-ReviewFound 2/7 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
2.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 21 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.2/2.5Licenselicense file detected
3.8/7.5Maintained6 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 5
0/5Packagingno data
2.5/5Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 5
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_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate5.1
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.

26At 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
0/11Lint / format config
0/11Static type checking
0/10Reproducible environment
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno data
5/8Automated maintenancedependency automation configured, none observed in the sampled commits
5/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 5
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
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
47.1/55Manageable file sizes1/7 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRuby
largest_source_bytes64,445
source_files_sampled7
oversized_source_files1

Key facts

91GitHub stars
30contributors
24commits, last 12 months
4days since last push
7releases
2bus factor
1open issues
RubyGemspackage ecosystems

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.1 / 10
5.1aggregate

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 · 2026-07-17 17:47 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
9CI-Tests24 out of 26 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
2Code-ReviewFound 2/7 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
10Contributorsproject has 21 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
9Licenselicense file detected
5Maintained6 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 5
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
5Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 5
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
RubyGemsrakeGemfile
RubyGemstest-unitGemfile
RubyGemstest-unit-ruby-coreGemfile
All dependencies 3

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 3 direct and 0 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
RubyGemsrakedirect
RubyGemstest-unitdirect
RubyGemstest-unit-ruby-coredirect
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 v0.12.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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