Software health reportschema 0.16.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-20 21:09 UTC

ruby / setup-ruby

An action to download a prebuilt Ruby and add it to the PATH in 5 seconds

JavaScript · RubyMIT★ 984 stars⑂ 368 forkssince Jan 2020View on GitHub ↗

#mri #jruby #truffleruby #actions #prebuilt-ruby #prebuilt-rubies #ruby-action

ruby/setup-ruby holds a health index of 81 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Vitality (95/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (18/100). It was last updated 4 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

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.

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).

Ownership

The Ruby Programming LanguageOrganization

2,075 followers190 public repossince Feb 2010

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
npm	setup-rubypoints to another repo — not scored	0.0.1-security	6	1	1544 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

95Exceptional · 21% of overall

Development activity

92Excellent

How it's scored

36/36	Push recency — last push 4 days ago
27.7/36	Commit cadence — 40/52 weeks with commits
18/18	Commit volume — 131 commits in the last year
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 21 commit(s) and 6 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10

Inputs used

commits_last_year	131
human_commit_share	—
days_since_last_push	4
active_weeks_last_year	40

Release discipline

100Exceptional

How it's scored

27/27	Ships releases — 100 releases published
36/36	Release recency — latest release 4 days ago
27/27	Release cadence — a release every ~6.3 days
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data

Inputs used

releases_count	100
latest_release_tag	v1.319.0
releases_from_tags	no
days_since_latest_release	4
mean_days_between_releases	6.3

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?

74Good · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

78Good

How it's scored

48.5/60	Stars — 984 stars
21.4/25	Forks — 368 forks
8/15	Watchers — 29 watchers

Inputs used

forks	368
stars	984
watchers	29
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

Sustainability & Governance

Will the project survive its people — bus factor, responsiveness, who backs it, and package upkeep?

74Good · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

42Weak

How it's scored

9/54	Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
9.5/22.5	Commit distribution — top contributor authored 58% of commits
13.5/13.5	Contributor breadth — 77 contributors
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 49 contributing companies or organizations

Inputs used

bus_factor	1
contributors_sampled	77
top_contributor_share	0.578

Issue & PR responsiveness

89Excellent

How it's scored

40.9/42	Issue resolution — 97% of issues closed
24.9/30	PR acceptance — 356/429 decided PRs merged
0/13	Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
12/15	OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 20/24 approved changesets -- score normalized to 8

Inputs used

merged_prs	356
open_issues	11
closed_issues	412
prs_merged_7d	—
prs_decided_7d	—
prs_merged_30d	—
prs_decided_30d	—
issue_closed_ratio	0.974
closed_unmerged_prs	73
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

98Exceptional

How it's scored

30/30	Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20	Verified domain — verified-domain status not read for this organization
23.8/25	Owner reach — 2,075 followers of ruby
25/25	Track record — 190 public repos, account ~16 yr old

Inputs used

followers	2,075
owner_type	Organization
is_verified	—
owner_login	ruby
public_repos	190
account_age_days	5,989

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

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

51Moderate · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

42Weak

How it's scored

24/24	CI workflows — 4 workflow(s)
0/24	Tests present
0/16	Linter config
0/9.6	Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4	.editorconfig
18/20	OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 20 out of 22 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9

Inputs used

has_ci	yes
has_tests	no
has_editorconfig	no
has_linter_config	no
has_precommit_config	no

Documentation

65Good

How it's scored

30/30	README
0/25	Documentation directory
15/15	Documentation / homepage site — https://github.com/marketplace/actions/setup-ruby-jruby-and-truffleruby
10/10	Repository description
10/10	Topics — 7 topics
0/10	Wiki

Inputs used

topics	mri, jruby, truffleruby, actions, prebuilt-ruby, prebuilt-rubies, ruby-action
has_wiki	no
homepage	https://github.com/marketplace/actions/setup-ruby-jruby-and-truffleruby
docs_site	https://github.com/marketplace/actions/setup-ruby-jruby-and-truffleruby
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?

54Moderate · 16% of overall

Security posture

52Moderate

How it's scored

7.5/7.5	Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
2.2/7.5	Branch-Protection — branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
2.2/2.5	CI-Tests — 20 out of 22 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9
0/2.5	CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
6/7.5	Code-Review — Found 20/24 approved changesets -- score normalized to 8
2.5/2.5	Contributors — project has 49 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 — 21 commit(s) and 6 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
0/7.5	Vulnerabilities — 15 existing vulnerabilities detected

Inputs used

source	openssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated	16
scorecard_version	v5.5.0
checks_inconclusive	2
scorecard_aggregate	5.2

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging, Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

64Moderate

How it's scored

14/35	Direct dependencies free of known advisories — 1 affected: json 2.2.0 (high 7.5)
0/25	Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
33.7/40	No advisories left outstanding — 1 advisory-carrying package(s) unaddressed past 90 days; oldest published 2,184 days ago

Inputs used

source	osv
advisories	16
affected_packages	5
assessed_packages	50
unassessed_packages	2
affected_by_severity	high 5
direct_affected_packages	1

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 50 resolved dependencies against OSV. 2 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.

18Critical · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

1Critical

How it's scored

0/45	Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
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	—
agent_instruction_max_bytes	—

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

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

17Critical

How it's scored

0/18	One-command bootstrap
0/22	Automated tests
0/11	Lint / format config
0/11	Static type checking
10/10	Reproducible environment — lockfile
0/10	Demonstrated agent practice — no data
5/8	Automated maintenance — dependency automation configured, none observed in the sampled commits
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

has_nix	no
has_tests	no
lockfiles	yarn.lock
has_dockerfile	no
typed_language	no
bootstrap_files	—
has_devcontainer	no
has_linter_config	no
typecheck_configs	—
agent_commit_share	—
toolchain_manifests	—
dependency_bot_commit_share	0

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

Code legibility for models

55Moderate

How it's scored

0/45	Type-checkable code — JavaScript without a type-check config
55/55	Manageable file sizes — 0/12 source files over 60KB

Inputs used

primary_language	JavaScript
largest_source_bytes	13,780
source_files_sampled	12
oversized_source_files	0

Key facts

984GitHub stars

77contributors

131commits, last 12 months

4days since last push

100releases

1bus factor

11open issues

npm, RubyGemspackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

npm package 'setup-ruby' points at a different repository (npm/security-holder); excluded from ecosystem scoring

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.2 / 10

5.2aggregate

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 21:08 UTC

10	Binary-Artifacts	no binaries found in the repo
3	Branch-Protection	branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
9	CI-Tests	20 out of 22 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9
0	CII-Best-Practices	no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
8	Code-Review	Found 20/24 approved changesets -- score normalized to 8
10	Contributors	project has 49 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	21 commit(s) and 6 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
0	Vulnerabilities	15 existing vulnerabilities detected

Direct dependencies 10

Registry	Package	Version constraint	Manifest
RubyGems	rake	`—`	Gemfile
RubyGems	path	`—`	Gemfile
RubyGems	json	`2.2.0`	Gemfile
npm	@actions/cache	`^5.0.3`	package.json
npm	@actions/core	`^2.0.2`	package.json
npm	@actions/exec	`^2.0.0`	package.json
npm	@actions/io	`^2.0.0`	package.json
npm	@actions/tool-cache	`^3.0.0`	package.json
npm	linux-os-info	`^2.0.0`	package.json
npm	semver	`^7.7.3`	package.json

All dependencies 52

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 14 direct and 38 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

Registry	Package	Version	Relation
npm	@actions/cache	`5.0.3`	direct
npm	@actions/core	`1.11.1`	direct
npm	@actions/core	`2.0.2`	direct
npm	@actions/exec	`1.1.1`	direct
npm	@actions/exec	`2.0.0`	direct
npm	@actions/io	`1.1.3`	direct
npm	@actions/io	`2.0.0`	direct
npm	@actions/tool-cache	`3.0.0`	direct
npm	linux-os-info	`2.0.0`	direct
npm	semver	`6.3.1`	direct
npm	semver	`7.7.3`	direct
RubyGems	json	`2.2.0`	direct
RubyGems	path	`—`	direct
RubyGems	rake	`—`	direct
npm	@actions/glob	`0.5.0`	indirect
npm	@actions/http-client	`2.2.3`	indirect
npm	@actions/http-client	`3.0.1`	indirect
npm	@azure/abort-controller	`1.1.0`	indirect
npm	@azure/abort-controller	`2.1.2`	indirect
npm	@azure/core-auth	`1.10.1`	indirect
npm	@azure/core-client	`1.10.1`	indirect
npm	@azure/core-http-compat	`2.3.1`	indirect
npm	@azure/core-lro	`2.7.2`	indirect
npm	@azure/core-paging	`1.6.2`	indirect
npm	@azure/core-rest-pipeline	`1.22.2`	indirect
npm	@azure/core-tracing	`1.3.1`	indirect
npm	@azure/core-util	`1.13.1`	indirect
npm	@azure/core-xml	`1.5.0`	indirect
npm	@azure/logger	`1.3.0`	indirect
npm	@azure/storage-blob	`12.30.0`	indirect
npm	@azure/storage-common	`12.2.0`	indirect
npm	@fastify/busboy	`2.1.1`	indirect
npm	@protobuf-ts/runtime	`2.11.1`	indirect
npm	@protobuf-ts/runtime-rpc	`2.11.1`	indirect
npm	@typespec/ts-http-runtime	`0.3.2`	indirect
npm	@vercel/ncc	`0.38.4`	indirect
npm	agent-base	`7.1.4`	indirect
npm	balanced-match	`1.0.2`	indirect
npm	brace-expansion	`1.1.12`	indirect
npm	concat-map	`0.0.1`	indirect
npm	debug	`4.4.3`	indirect
npm	events	`3.3.0`	indirect
npm	fast-xml-builder	`1.0.0`	indirect
npm	fast-xml-parser	`5.4.1`	indirect
npm	http-proxy-agent	`7.0.2`	indirect
npm	https-proxy-agent	`7.0.6`	indirect
npm	minimatch	`3.1.4`	indirect
npm	ms	`2.1.3`	indirect
npm	strnum	`2.1.2`	indirect
npm	tslib	`2.8.1`	indirect
npm	tunnel	`0.0.6`	indirect
npm	undici	`5.29.0`	indirect

Dependency advisories 5

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 50 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 5 carry known advisories, of which 1 are direct. 2 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list.

Package	Version	Relation	Severity	Advisories	Fixed in
json	`2.2.0`	direct	high	1	`2.3.0`
brace-expansion	`1.1.12`	indirect	high	2	`5.0.7`
fast-xml-builder	`1.0.0`	indirect	high	1	`1.1.7`
fast-xml-parser	`5.4.1`	indirect	high	3	`5.7.0`
undici	`5.29.0`	indirect	high	9	`8.5.0`

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 — npm.

Software health index

Score profile

Ownership

Package ecosystems

Metrics by category

Key facts

Data collection warnings

More detail

Feedback

Related records