Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-09 03:59 UTC

ruby / reline

The compatible library with the API of Ruby's stdlib 'readline'

RubyCustom license★ 311 stars⑂ 98 forkssince Mar 2018View on GitHub ↗

ruby/reline holds a health index of 86 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Vitality (85/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (39/100). It was last updated 1 day ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

86
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.

86
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 72 is calibrated to 86 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

The Ruby Programming LanguageOrganization · verified domain
2,097 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
RubyGemsreline0.7.0-7132 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

85Excellent · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 1 days ago
18.7/36Commit cadence — 27/52 weeks with commits
16.5/18Commit volume — 67 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 13 commit(s) and 3 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year67
human_commit_share0.69
days_since_last_push1
active_weeks_last_year27
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 71 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 32 days ago
19.8/27Release cadence — a release every ~88.8 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count71
latest_release_tagv0.7.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release32
mean_days_between_releases88.8
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?

70Good · 17% of overall
How it's scored
40.4/60Stars — 311 stars
16.6/25Forks — 98 forks
8.8/15Watchers — 40 watchers
Inputs used
forks98
stars311
watchers40
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
16.9/22.5License — license file present, not a recognized license
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
7.2/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges2
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateyes
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesbadge.fury.io, github.com
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
80/80Total downloads — 249,889,976 downloads all-time across rubygems
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesreline
dependents—
ecosystemsrubygems
total_downloads249,889,976
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?

74Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
6.9/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 69% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 72 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 54 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled72
top_contributor_share0.693
How it's scored
36.4/42Issue resolution — 87% of issues closed
26.9/30PR acceptance — 603/672 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — 0/1 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
7.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 3/6 approved changesets -- score normalized to 5
Inputs used
merged_prs603
open_issues31
closed_issues202
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d1
prs_merged_30d2
prs_decided_30d3
issue_closed_ratio0.867
closed_unmerged_prs69
first_time_authors_30d1
first_time_prs_merged_30d0
first_time_prs_decided_30d1
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
20/20Verified domain
23.9/25Owner reach — 2,097 followers of ruby
25/25Track record — 190 public repos, account ~16 yr old
Inputs used
followers2,097
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedyes
owner_loginruby
public_repos190
account_age_days6,040

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on rubygems
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 32 days ago
20/20Version history — 71 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesreline
ecosystemsrubygems
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish32

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

72Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 4 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
16/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 17 out of 20 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 8
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

85Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 2 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsruby, hacktoberfest
has_wikiyes
homepage—
docs_site—
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
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
2/2.5CI-Tests — 17 out of 20 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 8
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
3.8/7.5Code-Review — Found 3/6 approved changesets -- score normalized to 5
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 54 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
2.2/2.5License — license file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained — 13 commit(s) and 3 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.

39Weak · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history — 65 of 69 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.942
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
2/10Demonstrated agent practice — 1 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
8/8Automated maintenance — 31 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_share0.01
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0.31
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — Ruby without a type-check config
52.3/55Manageable file sizes — 2/41 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRuby
largest_source_bytes79,153
source_files_sampled41
oversized_source_files2

Key facts

311GitHub stars
72contributors
67commits, last 12 months
1days since last push
71releases
1bus factor
31open issues
RubyGemspackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • No resolved dependencies carried a version and a supported ecosystem

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 98 ⇿
0Stars
98Forks
71Releases

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.

0204060801009732018-092022-092026-08
Major 1Minor 7Patch 51

Each point covers 8 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 · 2026-09-09 03:58 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
8CI-Tests17 out of 20 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 8
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
5Code-ReviewFound 3/6 approved changesets -- score normalized to 5
10Contributorsproject has 54 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
9Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained13 commit(s) and 3 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
Direct dependencies 8
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
RubyGemsvterm—Gemfile
RubyGemsyamatanooroti—Gemfile
RubyGemsbundler—Gemfile
RubyGemsrdoc—Gemfile
RubyGemsrake—Gemfile
RubyGemstest-unit—Gemfile
RubyGemstest-unit-ruby-core—Gemfile
RubyGemsreadline—Gemfile
All dependencies 9

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 8 direct and 1 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
RubyGemsbundler—direct
RubyGemsrake—direct
RubyGemsrdoc—direct
RubyGemsreadline—direct
RubyGemstest-unit—direct
RubyGemstest-unit-ruby-core—direct
RubyGemsvterm—direct
RubyGemsyamatanooroti—direct
RubyGemsio-console—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.