Public record
Software health reportschema 0.31.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-14 10:07 UTC

socketry / utopia

A content-centric Ruby/Rack based web framework.

RubyMIT★ 140 stars⑂ 20 forkssince Apr 2010View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryhow this is determined
#utopia#ruby#web#framework

socketry/utopia holds a health index of 75 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (74/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (45/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

75
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.

75
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 65 is calibrated to 75 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

SocketryOrganization
214 followers192 public repossince Sep 2016

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
RubyGemsutopia3.0.0-1940 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

72Good · 21% of overall

Development activity

64Moderate
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
4.8/36Commit cadence — 7/52 weeks with commits
13.6/18Commit volume — 32 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 16 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year32
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year7

Release discipline

84Excellent
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 1 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 0 days ago
12.6/27Release cadence — cadence unknown (single release)
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count1
latest_release_tagv3.0.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release0
mean_days_between_releases—
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?

58Moderate · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

50Moderate
How it's scored
34.8/60Stars — 140 stars
10.7/25Forks — 20 forks
4.7/15Watchers — 8 watchers
Inputs used
forks20
stars140
watchers8
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

57Moderate
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
6.3/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges1
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesgithub.com
has_pull_request_templateyes

Ecosystem adoption (downloads)

74Good
How it's scored
59.3/80Total downloads — 514,066 downloads all-time across rubygems
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesutopia
dependents—
ecosystemsrubygems
total_downloads514,066
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?

66Good · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

29At Risk
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0.7/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 97% of commits
9.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 7 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 9 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled7
top_contributor_share0.969

Issue & PR responsiveness

61Moderate
How it's scored
26.2/42Issue resolution — 62% of issues closed
26.5/30PR acceptance — 46/52 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs46
open_issues6
closed_issues10
prs_merged_7d9
prs_decided_7d10
prs_merged_30d11
prs_decided_30d12
issue_closed_ratio0.625
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.

Ownership & stewardship

90Excellent
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain — verified-domain status not read for this organization
16.8/25Owner reach — 214 followers of socketry
25/25Track record — 192 public repos, account ~9 yr old
Inputs used
followers214
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified—
owner_loginsocketry
public_repos192
account_age_days3,623
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 — 194 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesutopia
ecosystemsrubygems
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish0

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

74Good · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

90Excellent
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 6 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — .rubocop.yml
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 14 out of 14 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigyes
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 — 4 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsutopia, ruby, web, framework
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?

57Moderate · 16% of overall

Security posture

57Moderate
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
2.5/2.5CI-Tests — 14 out of 14 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-Review — Found 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 9 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 — 16 commit(s) and 0 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
5/5Security-Policy — security policy file detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — no data
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_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate5.7
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.

45Weak · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

56Moderate
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructions — .github/copilot-instructions.md
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
10.7/40Legible commit history — 20 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.2
agent_instruction_files.github/copilot-instructions.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes931

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

33At Risk
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — .rubocop.yml
0/11Static type checking
0/10Reproducible environment
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
0/8Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles—
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0

Code legibility for models

55Moderate
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — Ruby without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/134 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRuby
largest_source_bytes15,251
source_files_sampled134
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

140GitHub stars
7contributors
32commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
1releases
1bus factor
6open issues
—package 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 ★ / 20 ⇿
0Stars
20Forks

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.

0481216202012015-102020-102025-11

Each point covers 10 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.7 / 10
5.7aggregate

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 · 2026-08-14 10:07 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
10CI-Tests14 out of 14 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
10Contributorsproject has 9 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained16 commit(s) and 0 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
10Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
10Token-PermissionsGitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
All dependencies 43

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 43 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
RubyGemsagent-context—indirect
RubyGemsasync-websocket—indirect
RubyGemsbake—indirect
RubyGemsbake-gem—indirect
RubyGemsbake-modernize—indirect
RubyGemsbake-releases—indirect
RubyGemsbake-test—indirect
RubyGemsbake-test-external—indirect
RubyGemsbenchmark-http—indirect
RubyGemsbenchmark-ips—indirect
RubyGemsbundler—indirect
RubyGemsconcurrent-ruby—indirect
RubyGemsconsole—indirect
RubyGemscovered—indirect
RubyGemsdecode—indirect
RubyGemsfalcon—indirect
RubyGemsguard-falcon—indirect
RubyGemsirb—indirect
RubyGemsjson—indirect
RubyGemskramdown—indirect
RubyGemskramdown-parser-gfm—indirect
RubyGemsmail—indirect
RubyGemsmsgpack—indirect
RubyGemsnet-smtp—indirect
RubyGemsprotocol-content—indirect
RubyGemsprotocol-http—indirect
RubyGemsprotocol-media—indirect
RubyGemsprotocol-media-registry—indirect
RubyGemsprotocol-url—indirect
RubyGemsrack-test—indirect
RubyGemsrake—indirect
RubyGemsrspec—indirect
RubyGemsrubocop—indirect
RubyGemsrubocop-md—indirect
RubyGemsrubocop-socketry—indirect
RubyGemssamovar—indirect
RubyGemssus—indirect
RubyGemssus-fixtures-async-http—indirect
RubyGemssus-fixtures-protocol-http—indirect
RubyGemstraces—indirect
RubyGemsutopia-project—indirect
RubyGemsvariant—indirect
RubyGemsxrb—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.

Related records

Inspected repositories sharing catalogue tags or ecosystems with socketry/utopia. Read them side by side →

98rails/railsRuby on RailsExceptional95rack/rackA modular Ruby web server interface.Exceptional95expo/expoAn open-source framework for making universal native apps with React. Expo runs on Android, iOS, and the web.Exceptional100fastify/fastifyFast and low overhead web framework, for Node.jsExceptional100reflex-dev/reflex🕸️ Web apps in pure Python 🐍Exceptional100ionic-team/ionic-frameworkA powerful cross-platform UI toolkit for building native-quality iOS, Android, and Progressive Web Apps with HTML, CSS, and JavaScript.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 v0.31.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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