Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-12 20:05 UTC

ruby / psych

A libyaml wrapper for Ruby

Ruby · C · JavaMIT★ 597 stars⑂ 224 forkssince Sep 2009View on GitHub ↗

ruby/psych holds a health index of 88 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Vitality (90/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (49/100). It was last updated 4 days ago. 2 contributors account for most of its recent work.

88
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.

88
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 74 is calibrated to 88 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

The Ruby Programming LanguageOrganization · verified domain
2,096 followers191 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
RubyGemspsych5.5.0-15722 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

90Excellent · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 4 days ago
24.2/36Commit cadence — 35/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 117 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 11 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year117
human_commit_share0.74
days_since_last_push4
active_weeks_last_year35
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 88 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 22 days ago
19.8/27Release cadence — a release every ~69.6 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count88
latest_release_tagv5.5.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release22
mean_days_between_releases69.6
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?

79Good · 17% of overall
How it's scored
45/60Stars — 597 stars
19.6/25Forks — 224 forks
9/15Watchers — 42 watchers
Inputs used
forks224
stars597
watchers42
growth_stateorganic
growth_factor_pct100
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized 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_badges0
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services—
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
80/80Total downloads — 242,417,014 downloads all-time across rubygems
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagespsych
dependents—
ecosystemsrubygems
total_downloads242,417,014
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?

81Excellent · 23% of overall
How it's scored
25.2/54Bus factor — 2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
14/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 38% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 99 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 84 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor2
contributors_sampled99
top_contributor_share0.376
How it's scored
34.8/42Issue resolution — 83% of issues closed
25.6/30PR acceptance — 344/403 decided PRs merged
3.2/13Newcomer PR acceptance — 1/4 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
6/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 2/5 approved changesets -- score normalized to 4
Inputs used
merged_prs344
open_issues66
closed_issues319
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d2
prs_merged_30d2
prs_decided_30d5
issue_closed_ratio0.829
closed_unmerged_prs59
first_time_authors_30d4
first_time_prs_merged_30d1
first_time_prs_decided_30d4
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
20/20Verified domain
23.9/25Owner reach — 2,096 followers of ruby
25/25Track record — 191 public repos, account ~16 yr old
Inputs used
followers2,096
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedyes
owner_loginruby
public_repos191
account_age_days6,043

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on rubygems
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 22 days ago
20/20Version history — 157 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagespsych
ecosystemsrubygems
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish22

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

61Moderate · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 5 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 9 out of 9 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
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
10/10Topics — 7 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicspsych, libyaml, c, yaml-parser, java, ruby, 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?

61Moderate · 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
2.5/2.5CI-Tests — 9 out of 9 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
3/7.5Code-Review — Found 2/5 approved changesets -- score normalized to 4
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 84 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
7.5/7.5Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 11 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packaging — no data
1/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 2
0/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
5/5Security-Policy — security policy file 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_aggregate6.1
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.

49Weak · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
15/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) — llms.txt served by the project website (https://docs.ruby-lang.org/llms.txt)
38.9/40Legible commit history — 54 of 74 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtyes
llms_txt_urlhttps://docs.ruby-lang.org/llms.txt
legible_history_share0.73
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
0/11Static type checking
0/10Reproducible environment
10/10Demonstrated agent practice — 29 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
8/8Automated maintenance — 26 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
2/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 2
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles—
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0.29
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0.26
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — Ruby without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/105 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRuby
largest_source_bytes37,659
source_files_sampled105
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

597GitHub stars
99contributors
117commits, last 12 months
4days since last push
88releases
2bus factor
66open issues
RubyGemspackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • Star history carried forward from 2026-05-30: GitHub restricted the stargazers API to repository admins, so it can no longer be collected. The repository has 597 stars today.
  • No resolved dependencies carried a version and a supported ecosystem

More detail

Star and fork history 596 ★ / 224 ⇿
596Stars
224Forks
88Releases

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.

Star history is shown as collected on 2026-05-30. 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.

0100200300400500600595218922009-092018-032026-09
Major 4Minor 12Patch 54

Each point covers 16 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 6.1 / 10
6.1aggregate

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 · 2026-09-12 20:04 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
10CI-Tests9 out of 9 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
4Code-ReviewFound 2/5 approved changesets -- score normalized to 4
10Contributorsproject has 84 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 11 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
2Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 2
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
All dependencies 7

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 7 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
RubyGemsdate—indirect
RubyGemsjar-dependencies—indirect
RubyGemsrake-compiler—indirect
RubyGemsruby-maven—indirect
RubyGemsstringio—indirect
RubyGemstest-unit—indirect
RubyGemstest-unit-ruby-core—indirect
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

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 statistics — RubyGems.