Public record
Software health reportschema 0.11.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-17 01:16 UTC

rubysec / bundler-audit

Patch-level verification for Bundler

RubyGPL-3.0★ 2,755 stars⑂ 249 forkssince Feb 2013View on GitHub ↗
#bundler-audit#ruby-advisory-db#ruby#dependency-checker#patch-management#security#security-tools#security-audit

rubysec/bundler-audit holds a health index of 73 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Community & Adoption (69/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (40/100). It was last updated 1 day ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

73
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.

73
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 64 is calibrated to 73 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

RubySecOrganization
32 followers6 public repossince Feb 2013

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

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

62Moderate · 21% of overall

Development activity

70Good
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 1 days ago
8.3/36Commit cadence — 12/52 weeks with commits
15.7/18Commit volume — 55 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 9 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year55
human_commit_share—
days_since_last_push1
active_weeks_last_year12

Release discipline

49Weak
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 2 releases published
16.2/36Release recency — latest release 230 days ago
5.4/27Release cadence — a release every ~463 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count2
latest_release_tagv0.9.3
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release230
mean_days_between_releases463

Community & Adoption

Does the project have users, downloads, attention, and a welcoming setup for contributors?

69Good · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

85Excellent
How it's scored
55.8/60Stars — 2,755 stars
20/25Forks — 249 forks
8.8/15Watchers — 40 watchers
Inputs used
forks249
stars2,755
watchers40
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 (GPL-3.0)
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

Sustainability & Governance

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

60Moderate · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

38Weak
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
5.9/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 74% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 63 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 27 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled63
top_contributor_share0.736

Issue & PR responsiveness

74Good
How it's scored
36.2/42Issue resolution — 86% of issues closed
15.8/30PR acceptance — 129/245 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
12/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 8/10 approved changesets -- score normalized to 8
Inputs used
merged_prs129
open_issues24
closed_issues149
prs_merged_7d—
prs_decided_7d—
prs_merged_30d—
prs_decided_30d—
issue_closed_ratio0.861
closed_unmerged_prs116
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

74Good
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain — verified-domain status not read for this organization
10.9/25Owner reach — 32 followers of rubysec
18.2/25Track record — 6 public repos, account ~13 yr old
Inputs used
followers32
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified—
owner_loginrubysec
public_repos6
account_age_days4,902
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

68Good · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

80Excellent
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 1 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — .rubocop.yml
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
16/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 14 out of 16 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 8
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

50Moderate
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 8 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsbundler-audit, ruby-advisory-db, ruby, dependency-checker, patch-management, security, security-tools, security-audit
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?

66Good · 16% of overall

Security posture

66Good
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 — 14 out of 16 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 8
0.5/2.5CII-Best-Practices — badge detected: InProgress
6/7.5Code-Review — Found 8/10 approved changesets -- score normalized to 8
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 27 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 9 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packaging — no data
5/5Pinned-Dependencies — all dependencies are pinned
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 — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
7.5/7.5Token-Permissions — GitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated17
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive1
scorecard_aggregate6.6
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging. 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.

40Weak · 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)

64Moderate
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — .rubocop.yml
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environment — lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no data
5/8Automated maintenance — dependency automation configured, none observed in the sampled commits
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — all dependencies are pinned
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesGemfile.lock
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
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.

Code legibility for models

55Moderate
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — Ruby without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/37 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRuby
largest_source_bytes11,323
source_files_sampled37
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

2,755GitHub stars
63contributors
55commits, last 12 months
1days since last push
2releases
1bus factor
24open issues
RubyGemspackage ecosystems

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 6.6 / 10
6.6aggregate

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 01:16 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
8CI-Tests14 out of 16 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 8
2CII-Best-Practicesbadge detected: InProgress
8Code-ReviewFound 8/10 approved changesets -- score normalized to 8
10Contributorsproject has 27 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 9 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
10Pinned-Dependenciesall dependencies are pinned
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
0Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
10Token-PermissionsGitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
All dependencies 91

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 91 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
RubyGemsactioncable5.2.8indirect
RubyGemsactioncable6.1.3.2indirect
RubyGemsactionmailbox6.1.3.2indirect
RubyGemsactionmailer5.2.8indirect
RubyGemsactionmailer6.1.3.2indirect
RubyGemsactionpack5.2.8indirect
RubyGemsactionpack6.1.3.2indirect
RubyGemsactiontext6.1.3.2indirect
RubyGemsactionview5.2.8indirect
RubyGemsactionview6.1.3.2indirect
RubyGemsactivejob5.2.8indirect
RubyGemsactivejob6.1.3.2indirect
RubyGemsactivemodel3.2.10indirect
RubyGemsactivemodel5.2.8indirect
RubyGemsactivemodel6.1.3.2indirect
RubyGemsactiverecord3.2.10indirect
RubyGemsactiverecord5.2.8indirect
RubyGemsactiverecord6.1.3.2indirect
RubyGemsactivestorage5.2.8indirect
RubyGemsactivestorage6.1.3.2indirect
RubyGemsactivesupport3.2.10indirect
RubyGemsactivesupport5.2.8indirect
RubyGemsactivesupport6.1.3.2indirect
RubyGemsarel3.0.3indirect
RubyGemsarel9.0.0indirect
RubyGemsbuilder3.0.4indirect
RubyGemsbuilder3.2.4indirect
RubyGemsconcurrent-ruby1.1.10indirect
RubyGemsconcurrent-ruby1.1.7indirect
RubyGemsconcurrent-ruby1.1.8indirect
RubyGemsconcurrent-ruby1.3.7indirect
RubyGemscrass1.0.6indirect
RubyGemserubi1.10.0indirect
RubyGemsglobalid0.4.2indirect
RubyGemsglobalid1.0.1indirect
RubyGemsi18n0.9.5indirect
RubyGemsi18n1.12.0indirect
RubyGemsi18n1.8.10indirect
RubyGemskramdown—indirect
RubyGemsloofah2.19.1indirect
RubyGemsmail2.7.1indirect
RubyGemsmarcel1.0.1indirect
RubyGemsmarcel1.0.2indirect
RubyGemsmethod_source1.0.0indirect
RubyGemsmini_mime1.0.3indirect
RubyGemsmini_mime1.1.2indirect
RubyGemsmini_portile22.8.0indirect
RubyGemsmini_portile22.8.9indirect
RubyGemsminitest5.14.4indirect
RubyGemsminitest5.17.0indirect
RubyGemsmulti_json1.15.0indirect
RubyGemsnio4r2.5.7indirect
RubyGemsnio4r2.5.8indirect
RubyGemsnokogiri1.13.10indirect
RubyGemsnokogiri1.19.4indirect
RubyGemsracc1.6.1indirect
RubyGemsracc1.8.1indirect
RubyGemsrack2.2.23indirect
RubyGemsrack2.2.6.3indirect
RubyGemsrack-test1.1.0indirect
RubyGemsrails5.2.8indirect
RubyGemsrails6.1.3.2indirect
RubyGemsrails-dom-testing2.0.3indirect
RubyGemsrails-html-sanitizer1.4.4indirect
RubyGemsrailties5.2.8indirect
RubyGemsrailties6.1.3.2indirect
RubyGemsrake—indirect
RubyGemsrake13.0.3indirect
RubyGemsrake13.0.6indirect
RubyGemsredcarpet—indirect
RubyGemsrspec—indirect
RubyGemsrubocop—indirect
RubyGemsrubygems-tasks—indirect
RubyGemssimplecov—indirect
RubyGemssprockets4.0.2indirect
RubyGemssprockets4.0.3indirect
RubyGemssprockets-rails3.2.2indirect
RubyGemssprockets-rails3.4.2indirect
RubyGemsthor1.1.0indirect
RubyGemsthor1.2.1indirect
RubyGemsthread_safe0.3.6indirect
RubyGemstzinfo0.3.58indirect
RubyGemstzinfo0.3.61indirect
RubyGemstzinfo1.2.10indirect
RubyGemstzinfo2.0.4indirect
RubyGemswebsocket-driver0.7.4indirect
RubyGemswebsocket-driver0.7.5indirect
RubyGemswebsocket-extensions0.1.5indirect
RubyGemsyard—indirect
RubyGemsyard-spellcheck—indirect
RubyGemszeitwerk2.4.2indirect
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 rubysec/bundler-audit. Read them side by side →

92pglombardo/PasswordPusher🔐 Securely share sensitive information with automatic expiration & deletion after a set number of views or duration. Track who, what and when with full audit logs.Excellent99prowler-cloud/prowlerProwler is the world’s most widely used open-source cloud security platform that automates security and compliance across any cloud environment.Exceptional96NodeSecure/js-x-rayJavaScript & Node.js open-source SAST scanner. A static analyser for detecting most common malicious patterns 🔬.Exceptional99trufflesecurity/trufflehogFind, verify, and analyze leaked credentialsExceptional98authzed/spicedbOpen Source, Google Zanzibar-inspired database for scalably storing and querying fine-grained authorization dataExceptional95securego/gosecGo security checkerExceptional

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 v0.11.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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