Public record
Software health reportschema 0.15.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-20 13:40 UTC

rubycdp / ferrum

Headless Chrome Ruby API

Ruby · HTMLMIT★ 2,033 stars⑂ 168 forkssince Jul 2019View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryNetwork servicehow this is determined
#chrome#chromium#headless#headless-chrome#web#automation#developer-tools

rubycdp/ferrum holds a health index of 80 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (88/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (34/100). It was last updated 13 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

80
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.

80
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 68 is calibrated to 80 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

RubyCDPOrganization
40 followers7 public repossince Jan 2020

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
RubyGemsferrum0.17.2-26119 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

65Good · 21% of overall

Development activity

59Moderate
How it's scored
28.8/36Push recency — last push 13 days ago
6.9/36Commit cadence — 10/52 weeks with commits
13.1/18Commit volume — 28 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 9 commit(s) and 6 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year28
human_commit_share—
days_since_last_push13
active_weeks_last_year10

Release discipline

74Good
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 8 releases published
27/36Release recency — latest release 118 days ago
12.6/27Release cadence — a release every ~184 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count8
latest_release_tagv0.17.2
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release118
mean_days_between_releases184
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?

73Good · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

80Excellent
How it's scored
53.7/60Stars — 2,033 stars
18.5/25Forks — 168 forks
7.6/15Watchers — 24 watchers
Inputs used
forks168
stars2,033
watchers24
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

50Moderate
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (MIT)
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

Ecosystem adoption (downloads)

93Exceptional
How it's scored
74.4/80Total downloads — 14,347,662 downloads all-time across rubygems
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesferrum
dependents—
ecosystemsrubygems
total_downloads14,347,662
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?

70Good · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

39Weak
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
6.6/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 71% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 69 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 21 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled69
top_contributor_share0.707

Issue & PR responsiveness

78Good
How it's scored
37.5/42Issue resolution — 89% of issues closed
25.8/30PR acceptance — 217/252 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
4.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 10/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
merged_prs217
open_issues27
closed_issues224
prs_merged_7d—
prs_decided_7d—
prs_merged_30d—
prs_decided_30d—
issue_closed_ratio0.892
closed_unmerged_prs35
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

75Good
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain — verified-domain status not read for this organization
11.6/25Owner reach — 40 followers of rubycdp
18.6/25Track record — 7 public repos, account ~6 yr old
Inputs used
followers40
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified—
owner_loginrubycdp
public_repos7
account_age_days2,366
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on rubygems
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 119 days ago
20/20Version history — 26 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesferrum
ecosystemsrubygems
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish119

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

88Excellent · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

86Excellent
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 2 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — .rubocop.yml
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
16/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 14 out of 17 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 8
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

90Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://ferrum.rubycdp.com
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 7 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicschrome, chromium, headless, headless-chrome, web, automation, developer-tools
has_wikino
homepagehttps://ferrum.rubycdp.com
docs_sitehttps://ferrum.rubycdp.com
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

49Weak · 16% of overall

Security posture

49Weak
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — no data
2/2.5CI-Tests — 14 out of 17 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
2.2/7.5Code-Review — Found 10/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 3
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 21 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained — 9 commit(s) and 6 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packaging — no data
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5Security-Policy — security policy file not 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_evaluated15
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive3
scorecard_aggregate4.9
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.

34At Risk · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

1Critical
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
0/40Legible commit history — no 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.

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

52Moderate
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — .rubocop.yml
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environment — devcontainer, Dockerfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no data
0/8Automated maintenance — no data
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles—
has_dockerfileyes
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontaineryes
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share—
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Demonstrated agent practice, Automated maintenance. Remaining weights renormalized.

Code legibility for models

54Moderate
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — Ruby without a type-check config
53.8/55Manageable file sizes — 2/91 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRuby
largest_source_bytes255,084
source_files_sampled91
oversized_source_files2

Key facts

2,033GitHub stars
69contributors
28commits, last 12 months
13days since last push
8releases
1bus factor
27open issues
RubyGemspackage ecosystems

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.9 / 10
4.9aggregate

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 13:39 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
8CI-Tests14 out of 17 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 8
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
3Code-ReviewFound 10/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 3
10Contributorsproject has 21 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained9 commit(s) and 6 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
0Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
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 16
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
RubyGemsbyebug~> 11.0Gemfile
RubyGemschunky_png~> 1.3Gemfile
RubyGemsimage_size~> 2.0Gemfile
RubyGemskramdown~> 2.0Gemfile
RubyGemsostruct—Gemfile
RubyGemspdf-reader~> 2.12Gemfile
RubyGemspuma>= 5.6.7Gemfile
RubyGemsrake~> 13.0Gemfile
RubyGemsrbs~> 3.10Gemfile
RubyGemsredcarpet—Gemfile
RubyGemsrspec~> 3.8Gemfile
RubyGemsrspec-wait—Gemfile
RubyGemsrubocop~> 1.22Gemfile
RubyGemsrubocop-rake—Gemfile
RubyGemssinatra~> 4.0Gemfile
RubyGemsyard~> 0.9Gemfile
All dependencies 20

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 15 direct and 5 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
RubyGemschunky_png—direct
RubyGemsimage_size—direct
RubyGemskramdown—direct
RubyGemsostruct—direct
RubyGemspdf-reader—direct
RubyGemspuma—direct
RubyGemsrake—direct
RubyGemsrbs—direct
RubyGemsredcarpet—direct
RubyGemsrspec—direct
RubyGemsrspec-wait—direct
RubyGemsrubocop—direct
RubyGemsrubocop-rake—direct
RubyGemssinatra—direct
RubyGemsyard—direct
RubyGemsaddressable—indirect
RubyGemsbase64—indirect
RubyGemsconcurrent-ruby—indirect
RubyGemswebrick—indirect
RubyGemswebsocket-driver—indirect
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.

Related records

Inspected repositories sharing catalogue tags or ecosystems with rubycdp/ferrum. Read them side by side →

99puppeteer/puppeteerJavaScript API for Chrome and FirefoxExceptional99microsoft/playwrightPlaywright is a framework for Web Testing and Automation. It allows testing Chromium, Firefox and WebKit with a single API. Exceptional98apify/crawlee-pythonCrawlee—A web scraping and browser automation library for Python to build reliable crawlers. Extract data for AI, LLMs, RAG, or GPTs. Download HTML, PDF, JPG, PNG, and other files from websites. Works with Parsel, BeautifulSoup, Playwright, and raw HTTP. Both headful and headless mode. With proxy rotation.Exceptional98apify/crawleeCrawlee—A web scraping and browser automation library for Node.js to build reliable crawlers. In JavaScript and TypeScript. Extract data for AI, LLMs, RAG, or GPTs. Download HTML, PDF, JPG, PNG, and other files from websites. Works with Puppeteer, Playwright, Cheerio, JSDOM, and raw HTTP. Both headful and headless mode. With proxy rotation.Exceptional98GoogleChrome/lighthouseAutomated auditing, performance metrics, and best practices for the web.Exceptional94apify/apify-sdk-pythonApify SDK for Python—The official library for building Apify Actors: serverless cloud programs for web scraping, browser automation, data processing, and AI agents. Manages the Actor lifecycle, storages (datasets, key-value stores, request queues), events, proxies, and pay-per-event monetization. Built on top of the the Apify API Client.Exceptional

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 v0.15.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

How one result sits in the wider record: aggregate statistics — RubyGems.