Public record
Software health reportschema 0.31.0 · metrics 2.5.0 · 2026-08-05 19:32 UTC

seuros / action_mcp

Rails Engine with MCP compliant Spec.

RubyMIT★ 117 stars⑂ 19 forkssince Feb 2025View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryNetwork serviceCommand-line toolPluginhow this is determined

seuros/action_mcp holds a health index of 80 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Vitality (92/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (52/100). It was last updated today. 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

Abdelkader BoudihPersonal account
625 followers423 public repossince Sep 2012Open Source Contributor

This repository is owned by a personal account. A single-owner project carries more continuity risk than an organization-backed one.

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
RubyGemsactionmcp0.200.1-990 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

92Excellent · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
21.5/36Commit cadence — 31/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 104 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 25 commit(s) and 2 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year104
human_commit_share0.71
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year31

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 100 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 0 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~15.4 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count100
latest_release_tagaction_mcp/v0.200.1
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release0
mean_days_between_releases15.4
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?

52Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
33.5/60Stars — 117 stars
10.5/25Forks — 19 forks
1.7/15Watchers — 3 watchers
Inputs used
forks19
stars117
watchers3
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
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_badges0
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
51.9/80Total downloads — 97,954 downloads all-time across rubygems
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesactionmcp
dependents
ecosystemsrubygems
total_downloads97,954
monthly_downloads
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?

67Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
1/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 96% of commits
8.1/13.5Contributor breadth — 6 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 10 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled6
top_contributor_share0.957
How it's scored
42/42Issue resolution — 100% of issues closed
29.1/30PR acceptance — 202/208 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
3/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 3/14 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
Inputs used
merged_prs202
open_issues0
closed_issues20
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d1
prs_decided_30d1
issue_closed_ratio1
closed_unmerged_prs6
first_time_authors_30d0
first_time_prs_merged_30d0
first_time_prs_decided_30d0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): newcomer_pr_acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
20.1/25Owner reach — 625 followers of seuros
25/25Track record — 423 public repos, account ~13 yr old
Inputs used
followers625
owner_typeUser
is_verified
owner_loginseuros
public_repos423
account_age_days5,066
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 0 days ago
20/20Version history — 99 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesactionmcp
ecosystemsrubygems
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish0

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

70Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 2 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — .rubocop.yml
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
12/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 12 out of 19 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

60Moderate
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 20 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsmcp, mcp-client, mcp-server, ai, llm, authentication, gateway, model-context-protocol, rails, claude, gem, http, json-rpc, language-model, prompt-engineering, rest-api, ruby, tool-use, vscode, websocket
has_wikiyes
homepage
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

56Moderate · 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
1.5/2.5CI-Tests — 12 out of 19 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 6
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
1.5/7.5Code-Review — Found 3/14 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 10 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 — 25 commit(s) and 2 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
0.8/7.5Vulnerabilities — 9 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate4.5
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): packaging, signed_releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories0
affected_packages0
assessed_packages3
unassessed_packages39
affected_by_severitynone
direct_affected_packages0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories, No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 3 resolved dependencies against OSV. 39 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.

66Good · 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 — 70 of 71 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
legible_history_share0.986
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrap — mise.toml
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — .rubocop.yml
11/11Static type checking — javascript/vite-plugin-action-mcp/tsconfig.json
10/10Reproducible environment — Dockerfile
2/10Demonstrated agent practice — 1 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
5/8Automated maintenance — dependency automation configured, none observed in the sampled commits
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_filesmise.toml
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configsjavascript/vite-plugin-action-mcp/tsconfig.json
agent_commit_share0.01
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
27/45Type-checkable code — Ruby with type-check config (javascript/vite-plugin-action-mcp/tsconfig.json)
54.9/55Manageable file sizes — 1/395 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRuby
largest_source_bytes337,227
source_files_sampled395
oversized_source_files1

Key facts

117GitHub stars
6contributors
104commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
100releases
1bus factor
0open issues
RubyGemspackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 19 ⇿
0Stars
19Forks
61Releases

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.

0481216201912025-032025-102026-05
Major 0Minor 0Patch 0

Each point covers 2 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.5 / 10
4.5aggregate

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 · 2026-08-05 19:32 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
6CI-Tests12 out of 19 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 6
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
2Code-ReviewFound 3/14 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
10Contributorsproject has 10 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained25 commit(s) and 2 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
1Vulnerabilities9 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 17
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
RubyGemsfalconGemfile
RubyGemspumaGemfile
RubyGemsrubocopGemfile
RubyGemsrubocop-rails-omakaseGemfile
RubyGemsdebug>= 1.0.0Gemfile
RubyGemsrails_app_versionGemfile
RubyGemsrailtiesGemfile
RubyGemsrailtiesGemfile
RubyGemssimplecovGemfile
RubyGemssolid_cacheGemfile
RubyGemssolid_queueGemfile
RubyGemsbcrypt~> 3.1.7Gemfile
RubyGemsjwtGemfile
RubyGemswardenGemfile
RubyGemspgGemfile
RubyGemssqlite3~> 2.0Gemfile
RubyGemsfaradayGemfile
All dependencies 42

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 16 direct and 26 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
RubyGemsbcryptdirect
RubyGemsdebugdirect
RubyGemsfalcondirect
RubyGemsfaradaydirect
RubyGemsjwtdirect
RubyGemspgdirect
RubyGemspumadirect
RubyGemsrails_app_versiondirect
RubyGemsrailtiesdirect
RubyGemsrubocopdirect
RubyGemsrubocop-rails-omakasedirect
RubyGemssimplecovdirect
RubyGemssolid_cachedirect
RubyGemssolid_queuedirect
RubyGemssqlite3direct
RubyGemswardendirect
npm@modelcontextprotocol/ext-apps1.7.4indirect
npm@modelcontextprotocol/sdk1.29.0indirect
npm@types/bun^1.3.14indirect
npm@types/node^26.1.0indirect
npmtypescript^6.0.3indirect
npmvite^7.3.4indirect
npmzod4.4.3indirect
RubyGemsactivejobindirect
RubyGemsactiverecordindirect
RubyGemsaddressableindirect
RubyGemsconcurrent-rubyindirect
RubyGemsdatabase_cleaner-active_recordindirect
RubyGemsjson_schemerindirect
RubyGemsjsonrpc-railsindirect
RubyGemslistenindirect
RubyGemsmaxitestindirect
RubyGemsminitestindirect
RubyGemsminitest-mockindirect
RubyGemsminitest-reportersindirect
RubyGemsmulti_jsonindirect
RubyGemsrails_lensindirect
RubyGemsrubocop-minitestindirect
RubyGemsrubocop-rakeindirect
RubyGemsstate_machines-activerecordindirect
RubyGemswebmockindirect
RubyGemszeitwerkindirect
Dependency advisories 0

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 3 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct. 39 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list.

No known advisories affect the assessed dependencies.

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

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 v2.5.0, schema v0.31.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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