Software health reportschema 0.15.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-20 13:43 UTC

splitwise / super_diff

A more helpful way to view differences between complex data structures in RSpec.

RubyMIT★ 1,047 stars⑂ 64 forkssince Jan 2011View on GitHub ↗

splitwise/super_diff holds a health index of 83 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (89/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (39/100). It was last updated 27 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 70 is calibrated to 83 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

SplitwiseOrganization

64 followers63 public repossince Mar 2012

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
RubyGems	super_diff	0.19.0	-	26	79 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

66Good · 21% of overall

Development activity

49Weak

How it's scored

28.8/36	Push recency — last push 27 days ago
4.8/36	Commit cadence — 7/52 weeks with commits
12.6/18	Commit volume — 24 commits in the last year
3/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 3 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 3

Inputs used

commits_last_year	24
human_commit_share	—
days_since_last_push	27
active_weeks_last_year	7

Release discipline

92Excellent

How it's scored

27/27	Ships releases — 27 releases published
36/36	Release recency — latest release 79 days ago
19.8/27	Release cadence — a release every ~90.1 days
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data

Inputs used

releases_count	27
latest_release_tag	v0.19.0
releases_from_tags	no
days_since_latest_release	79
mean_days_between_releases	90.1

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

69Good

How it's scored

49/60	Stars — 1,047 stars
15/25	Forks — 64 forks
5.3/15	Watchers — 10 watchers

Inputs used

forks	64
stars	1,047
watchers	10
growth_state	unverified
growth_factor_pct	100
growth_unverified_reason	no_history

Community health

65Good

How it's scored

22.5/22.5	README
22.5/22.5	License — recognized license (MIT)
0/18	CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5	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	no
has_issue_template	no
has_code_of_conduct	yes
readme_badge_services	—
has_pull_request_template	no

Ecosystem adoption (downloads)

93Exceptional

How it's scored

74.2/80	Total downloads — 13,955,848 downloads all-time across rubygems
0/20	Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem

Inputs used

packages	super_diff
dependents	—
ecosystems	rubygems
total_downloads	13,955,848
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?

69Good · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

36Weak

How it's scored

9/54	Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
7.3/22.5	Commit distribution — top contributor authored 68% of commits
13.5/13.5	Contributor breadth — 31 contributors
6/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6

Inputs used

bus_factor	1
contributors_sampled	31
top_contributor_share	0.675

Issue & PR responsiveness

66Good

How it's scored

30.7/42	Issue resolution — 73% of issues closed
26.3/30	PR acceptance — 128/146 decided PRs merged
0/13	Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15	OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 2/27 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

merged_prs	128
open_issues	44
closed_issues	119
prs_merged_7d	—
prs_decided_7d	—
prs_merged_30d	—
prs_decided_30d	—
issue_closed_ratio	0.73
closed_unmerged_prs	18
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

85Excellent

How it's scored

30/30	Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20	Verified domain — verified-domain status not read for this organization
13/25	Owner reach — 64 followers of splitwise
25/25	Track record — 63 public repos, account ~14 yr old

Inputs used

followers	64
owner_type	Organization
is_verified	—
owner_login	splitwise
public_repos	63
account_age_days	5,226

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

Package maintenance

100Exceptional

How it's scored

25/25	Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on rubygems
35/35	Publish recency — latest publish 79 days ago
20/20	Version history — 26 published versions
20/20	Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked

Inputs used

packages	super_diff
ecosystems	rubygems
any_deprecated	no
min_days_since_publish	79

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

89Excellent · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

88Excellent

How it's scored

24/24	CI workflows — 1 workflow(s)
24/24	Tests present
16/16	Linter config — .rubocop.yml
0/9.6	Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4	.editorconfig
18/20	OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 18 out of 19 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9

Inputs used

has_ci	yes
has_tests	yes
has_editorconfig	yes
has_linter_config	yes
has_precommit_config	no

Documentation

90Excellent

How it's scored

30/30	README
25/25	Documentation directory
15/15	Documentation / homepage site — https://splitwise.github.io/super_diff/
10/10	Repository description
10/10	Topics — 3 topics
0/10	Wiki

Inputs used

topics	rspec, ruby, testing
has_wiki	no
homepage	https://splitwise.github.io/super_diff/
docs_site	https://splitwise.github.io/super_diff/
has_readme	yes
has_docs_dir	yes
has_description	yes

Security

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

60Moderate · 16% of overall

Security posture

60Moderate

How it's scored

7.5/7.5	Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5	Branch-Protection — no data
2.2/2.5	CI-Tests — 18 out of 19 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
0/7.5	Code-Review — Found 2/27 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
1.5/2.5	Contributors — project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
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
2.2/7.5	Maintained — 3 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 3
0/5	Packaging — no data
4/5	Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 8
4/5	SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 8
4.5/5	Security-Policy — security policy file detected
0/7.5	Signed-Releases — no data
0/7.5	Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
5.2/7.5	Vulnerabilities — 3 existing vulnerabilities detected

Inputs used

source	openssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated	15
scorecard_version	v5.5.0
checks_inconclusive	3
scorecard_aggregate	6

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.

39Weak · 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)

62Moderate

How it's scored

0/18	One-command bootstrap
22/22	Automated tests
11/11	Lint / format config — .rubocop.yml
0/11	Static type checking
10/10	Reproducible environment — lockfile
0/10	Demonstrated agent practice — no data
0/8	Automated maintenance — no data
8/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 8

Inputs used

has_nix	no
has_tests	yes
lockfiles	Gemfile.lock, yarn.lock
has_dockerfile	no
typed_language	no
bootstrap_files	—
has_devcontainer	no
has_linter_config	yes
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

0/45	Type-checkable code — Ruby without a type-check config
54.3/55	Manageable file sizes — 4/313 source files over 60KB

Inputs used

primary_language	Ruby
largest_source_bytes	2,212,925
source_files_sampled	313
oversized_source_files	4

Key facts

1,047GitHub stars

31contributors

24commits, last 12 months

27days since last push

27releases

1bus factor

44open issues

npm, PyPI, RubyGemspackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

Could not fetch pypi package 'super-diff' from its registry

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 6.0 / 10

6.0aggregate

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 13:42 UTC

10	Binary-Artifacts	no binaries found in the repo
n/a	Branch-Protection	internal 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
9	CI-Tests	18 out of 19 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
0	Code-Review	Found 2/27 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
6	Contributors	project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
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
3	Maintained	3 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 3
n/a	Packaging	packaging workflow not detected
8	Pinned-Dependencies	dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 8
8	SAST	SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 8
9	Security-Policy	security policy file detected
n/a	Signed-Releases	no releases found
0	Token-Permissions	detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7	Vulnerabilities	3 existing vulnerabilities detected

Direct dependencies 8

Registry	Package	Version constraint	Manifest
RubyGems	appraisal	`~> 2.5`	Gemfile
RubyGems	bundler-audit	`—`	Gemfile
RubyGems	childprocess	`—`	Gemfile
RubyGems	climate_control	`—`	Gemfile
RubyGems	debug	`—`	Gemfile
RubyGems	prettier_print	`—`	Gemfile
RubyGems	rake	`—`	Gemfile
RubyGems	rubocop	`—`	Gemfile

All dependencies 145

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 8 direct and 137 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

Registry	Package	Version	Relation
RubyGems	appraisal	`2.5.0`	direct
RubyGems	bundler-audit	`0.9.2`	direct
RubyGems	childprocess	`4.1.0`	direct
RubyGems	climate_control	`1.1.1`	direct
RubyGems	debug	`1.11.0`	direct
RubyGems	prettier_print	`1.2.1`	direct
RubyGems	rake	`13.0.6`	direct
RubyGems	rubocop	`1.67.0`	direct
npm	@gar/promise-retry	`1.0.3`	indirect
npm	@isaacs/fs-minipass	`4.0.1`	indirect
npm	@lavamoat/aa	`4.3.6`	indirect
npm	@lavamoat/allow-scripts	`3.4.3`	indirect
npm	@npmcli/agent	`4.0.0`	indirect
npm	@npmcli/fs	`5.0.0`	indirect
npm	@npmcli/git	`7.0.2`	indirect
npm	@npmcli/node-gyp	`5.0.0`	indirect
npm	@npmcli/package-json	`7.0.5`	indirect
npm	@npmcli/promise-spawn	`9.0.1`	indirect
npm	@npmcli/redact	`4.0.0`	indirect
npm	@npmcli/run-script	`10.0.3`	indirect
npm	abbrev	`4.0.0`	indirect
npm	agent-base	`7.1.3`	indirect
npm	ansi-regex	`5.0.1`	indirect
npm	ansi-styles	`4.3.0`	indirect
npm	balanced-match	`4.0.4`	indirect
npm	bin-links	`4.0.4`	indirect
npm	brace-expansion	`5.0.5`	indirect
npm	cacache	`20.0.4`	indirect
npm	chownr	`3.0.0`	indirect
npm	cliui	`8.0.1`	indirect
npm	cmd-shim	`6.0.1`	indirect
npm	color-convert	`2.0.1`	indirect
npm	color-name	`1.1.4`	indirect
npm	debug	`4.4.0`	indirect
npm	emoji-regex	`8.0.0`	indirect
npm	env-paths	`2.2.1`	indirect
npm	escalade	`3.1.1`	indirect
npm	exponential-backoff	`3.1.2`	indirect
npm	fdir	`6.5.0`	indirect
npm	fs-minipass	`3.0.3`	indirect
npm	function-bind	`1.1.2`	indirect
npm	get-caller-file	`2.0.5`	indirect
npm	glob	`13.0.6`	indirect
npm	graceful-fs	`4.2.11`	indirect
npm	hasown	`2.0.2`	indirect
npm	hosted-git-info	`9.0.2`	indirect
npm	http-cache-semantics	`4.1.1`	indirect
npm	http-proxy-agent	`7.0.2`	indirect
npm	https-proxy-agent	`7.0.6`	indirect
npm	husky	`8.0.3`	indirect
npm	iconv-lite	`0.7.2`	indirect
npm	imurmurhash	`0.1.4`	indirect
npm	ini	`6.0.0`	indirect
npm	ip-address	`9.0.5`	indirect
npm	is-core-module	`2.16.1`	indirect
npm	is-fullwidth-code-point	`3.0.0`	indirect
npm	isexe	`4.0.0`	indirect
npm	jsbn	`1.1.0`	indirect
npm	json-parse-even-better-errors	`5.0.0`	indirect
npm	lru-cache	`11.2.7`	indirect
npm	make-fetch-happen	`15.0.5`	indirect
npm	minimatch	`10.2.4`	indirect
npm	minipass	`3.3.6`	indirect
npm	minipass	`7.1.2`	indirect
npm	minipass	`7.1.3`	indirect
npm	minipass-collect	`2.0.1`	indirect
npm	minipass-fetch	`5.0.2`	indirect
npm	minipass-flush	`1.0.5`	indirect
npm	minipass-pipeline	`1.2.4`	indirect
npm	minipass-sized	`2.0.0`	indirect
npm	minizlib	`3.1.0`	indirect
npm	ms	`2.1.3`	indirect
npm	negotiator	`1.0.0`	indirect
npm	node-gyp	`12.2.0`	indirect
npm	nopt	`9.0.0`	indirect
npm	npm-install-checks	`8.0.0`	indirect
npm	npm-normalize-package-bin	`3.0.0`	indirect
npm	npm-normalize-package-bin	`3.0.1`	indirect
npm	npm-normalize-package-bin	`5.0.0`	indirect
npm	npm-package-arg	`13.0.2`	indirect
npm	npm-pick-manifest	`11.0.3`	indirect
npm	p-map	`7.0.4`	indirect
npm	path-parse	`1.0.7`	indirect
npm	path-scurry	`2.0.2`	indirect
npm	picomatch	`4.0.4`	indirect
npm	proc-log	`6.1.0`	indirect
npm	read-cmd-shim	`4.0.0`	indirect
npm	require-directory	`2.1.1`	indirect
npm	resolve	`1.22.10`	indirect
npm	safer-buffer	`2.1.2`	indirect
npm	semver	`7.7.1`	indirect
npm	signal-exit	`3.0.7`	indirect
npm	smart-buffer	`4.2.0`	indirect
npm	socks	`2.8.4`	indirect
npm	socks-proxy-agent	`8.0.5`	indirect
npm	spdx-exceptions	`2.5.0`	indirect
npm	spdx-expression-parse	`4.0.0`	indirect
npm	spdx-license-ids	`3.0.21`	indirect
npm	sprintf-js	`1.1.3`	indirect
npm	ssri	`13.0.1`	indirect
npm	string-width	`4.2.3`	indirect
npm	strip-ansi	`6.0.1`	indirect
npm	supports-preserve-symlinks-flag	`1.0.0`	indirect
npm	tar	`7.5.13`	indirect
npm	tinyglobby	`0.2.15`	indirect
npm	type-fest	`4.41.0`	indirect
npm	validate-npm-package-name	`7.0.2`	indirect
npm	which	`6.0.1`	indirect
npm	wrap-ansi	`7.0.0`	indirect
npm	write-file-atomic	`5.0.0`	indirect
npm	y18n	`5.0.8`	indirect
npm	yallist	`4.0.0`	indirect
npm	yallist	`5.0.0`	indirect
npm	yargs	`17.7.2`	indirect
npm	yargs-parser	`21.1.1`	indirect
RubyGems	ast	`2.4.2`	indirect
RubyGems	attr_extras	`—`	indirect
RubyGems	attr_extras	`6.2.5`	indirect
RubyGems	date	`3.4.1`	indirect
RubyGems	diff-lcs	`—`	indirect
RubyGems	diff-lcs	`1.5.1`	indirect
RubyGems	erb	`6.0.4`	indirect
RubyGems	io-console	`0.8.1`	indirect
RubyGems	irb	`1.15.2`	indirect
RubyGems	json	`2.7.2`	indirect
RubyGems	language_server-protocol	`3.17.0.3`	indirect
RubyGems	optimist	`3.1.0`	indirect
RubyGems	parallel	`1.26.3`	indirect
RubyGems	parser	`3.3.5.0`	indirect
RubyGems	patience_diff	`—`	indirect
RubyGems	patience_diff	`1.2.0`	indirect
RubyGems	pp	`0.6.3`	indirect
RubyGems	prettyprint	`0.2.0`	indirect
RubyGems	psych	`5.2.6`	indirect
RubyGems	racc	`1.8.1`	indirect
RubyGems	rainbow	`3.1.1`	indirect
RubyGems	rdoc	`6.15.0`	indirect
RubyGems	regexp_parser	`2.9.2`	indirect
RubyGems	reline	`0.6.2`	indirect
RubyGems	rubocop-ast	`1.32.3`	indirect
RubyGems	ruby-progressbar	`1.13.0`	indirect
RubyGems	stringio	`3.1.7`	indirect
RubyGems	thor	`1.4.0`	indirect
RubyGems	tsort	`0.2.0`	indirect
RubyGems	unicode-display_width	`2.6.0`	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.

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.

Software health index

Score profile

Ownership

Package ecosystems

Metrics by category

Key facts

Data collection warnings

More detail

Feedback

Related records