# sporkmonger/addressable — health index 62/100 (Moderate)

> Inspection of the public repository sporkmonger/addressable by inspect.software. It holds a health index of 62 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. The index is a signal derived from publicly visible practice, not a warranty, a security audit, or an endorsement, and it is independent of payment.

- Repository: https://github.com/sporkmonger/addressable
- Report page: https://inspect.software/software/sporkmonger/addressable
- Full JSON report: https://inspect.software/api/repositories/sporkmonger/addressable/report
- Badge: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/inspect-software/badges/main/v1/s/sporkmonger/addressable.svg
- Inspected: 2026-07-21
- Methodology: metrics 1.13.0, report schema 0.26.0 (https://inspect.software/methodology.md)

## Category summary

| Category | Weight | Index | Band |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vitality | 22% | 35/100 | At risk |
| Community & Adoption | 18% | 74/100 | Good |
| Sustainability & Governance | 24% | 66/100 | Moderate |
| Engineering Quality | 20% | 65/100 | Moderate |
| Security | 16% | 73/100 | Good |
| AI Readiness | not counted | 39/100 | At risk |

## Repository facts

| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Description | Addressable is an alternative implementation to the URI implementation that is part of Ruby's standard library. It is flexible, offers heuristic parsing, and additionally provides extensive support for IRIs and URI templates. |
| Primary language | Ruby |
| License | Apache-2.0 |
| Stars | 1,611 |
| Forks | 279 |
| Created | 2008-06-05 |
| Last push | 2026-06-27 |
| Commits (last year) | 55 |
| Bus factor | 1 |
| Topics | uri, uri-template |

## Published packages

| Registry | Package | Latest | Monthly downloads |
|---|---|---|---|
| rubygems | addressable | 2.9.0 | — |

## Vitality — 35/100 (At risk)

Is the project alive — is code being written and are releases shipping? Weight: 22% of the overall index.

### Development activity — 58/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Push recency | partial | 28.8 / 36 | last push 24 days ago |
| Commit cadence | partial | 9 / 36 | 13/52 weeks with commits |
| Commit volume | partial | 15.7 / 18 | 55 commits in the last year |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained | partial | 4 / 10 | 5 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 4 |

### Release discipline — 1/100 (Critical)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ships releases | not met | 0 / 27 | no releases published |
| Release recency | not met | 0 / 36 | no releases |
| Release cadence | not met | 0 / 27 | no releases |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases | excluded | 0 / 10 | no releases found |

### Abandonment — 100/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Project is still maintained | met | 100 / 100 | last human commit 107 days ago |

## Community & Adoption — 74/100 (Good)

Does the project have users, downloads, attention, and a welcoming setup for contributors? Weight: 18% of the overall index.

### Popularity & adoption — 80/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stars | partial | 52 / 60 | 1,611 stars |
| Forks | partial | 20.4 / 25 | 279 forks |
| Watchers | partial | 8.1 / 15 | 30 watchers |

### Community health — 50/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| README | met | 22.5 / 22.5 | — |
| License | met | 22.5 / 22.5 | recognized license (Apache-2.0) |
| CONTRIBUTING guide | not met | 0 / 18 | — |
| Code of conduct | not met | 0 / 13.5 | — |
| Issue template | not met | 0 / 7.2 | — |
| PR template | not met | 0 / 6.3 | — |

### Ecosystem adoption (downloads) — 100/100 (Excellent)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Registry dependents. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Total downloads | met | 80 / 80 | 1,225,594,015 downloads all-time across rubygems |
| Registry dependents | excluded | 0 / 20 | not reported by this ecosystem |

## Sustainability & Governance — 66/100 (Moderate)

Will the project survive its people — bus factor, responsiveness, who backs it, and package upkeep? Weight: 24% of the overall index.

### Maintainer resilience (bus factor) — 41/100 (At risk)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bus factor | partial | 9 / 54 | 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits |
| Commit distribution | partial | 8.8 / 22.5 | top contributor authored 61% of commits |
| Contributor breadth | met | 13.5 / 13.5 | 99 contributors |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors | met | 10 / 10 | project has 45 contributing companies or organizations |

### Issue & PR responsiveness — 71/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue resolution | partial | 40.7 / 46.8 | 87% of issues closed |
| PR acceptance | partial | 28.5 / 38.2 | 216/290 decided PRs merged |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review | partial | 1.5 / 15 | Found 2/14 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1 |

### Ownership & stewardship — 64/100 (Moderate)

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

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership backing | partial | 10 / 30 | personal (user) account |
| Verified domain | excluded | 0 / 20 | not applicable to user accounts |
| Owner reach | partial | 16.2 / 25 | 181 followers of sporkmonger |
| Track record | met | 25 / 25 | 132 public repos, account ~18 yr old |

### Package maintenance — 100/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Published & resolvable | met | 25 / 25 | 1 package(s) on rubygems |
| Publish recency | met | 35 / 35 | latest publish 107 days ago |
| Version history | met | 20 / 20 | 48 published versions |
| Not deprecated | met | 20 / 20 | active, not deprecated or yanked |

## Engineering Quality — 65/100 (Moderate)

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place? Weight: 20% of the overall index.

### Engineering practices — 68/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| CI workflows | met | 24 / 24 | 3 workflow(s) |
| Tests present | met | 24 / 24 | — |
| Linter config | not met | 0 / 16 | — |
| Pre-commit hooks | not met | 0 / 9.6 | — |
| .editorconfig | not met | 0 / 6.4 | — |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests | met | 20 / 20 | 21 out of 21 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10 |

### Documentation — 60/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| README | met | 30 / 30 | — |
| Documentation directory | not met | 0 / 25 | — |
| Documentation / homepage site | not met | 0 / 15 | — |
| Repository description | met | 10 / 10 | — |
| Topics | met | 10 / 10 | 2 topics |
| Wiki | met | 10 / 10 | — |

## Security — 73/100 (Good)

Are visible security and supply-chain practices strong, with no malicious dependency and no unresolved high-risk jurisdiction exposure? Weight: 16% of the overall index.

### Security posture — 73/100 (Good)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Binary-Artifacts | met | 7.5 / 7.5 | no binaries found in the repo |
| Branch-Protection | excluded | 0 / 7.5 | 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 |
| CI-Tests | met | 2.5 / 2.5 | 21 out of 21 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10 |
| CII-Best-Practices | not met | 0 / 2.5 | no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected |
| Code-Review | partial | 0.8 / 7.5 | Found 2/14 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1 |
| Contributors | met | 2.5 / 2.5 | project has 45 contributing companies or organizations |
| Dangerous-Workflow | met | 10 / 10 | no dangerous workflow patterns detected |
| Dependency-Update-Tool | met | 7.5 / 7.5 | update tool detected |
| Fuzzing | not met | 0 / 5 | project is not fuzzed |
| License | met | 2.5 / 2.5 | license file detected |
| Maintained | partial | 3 / 7.5 | 5 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 4 |
| Packaging | met | 5 / 5 | packaging workflow detected |
| Pinned-Dependencies | met | 5 / 5 | all dependencies are pinned |
| SAST | met | 5 / 5 | SAST tool is run on all commits |
| Security-Policy | not met | 0 / 5 | security policy file not detected |
| Signed-Releases | excluded | 0 / 7.5 | no releases found |
| Token-Permissions | partial | 6.8 / 7.5 | detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions |
| Vulnerabilities | met | 7.5 / 7.5 | 0 existing vulnerabilities detected |

### High-Risk Jurisdiction Exposure — 100/100 (Excellent)

Only high-confidence self-published location evidence affects this multiplier. Ambiguous matches are review-only; country evidence is not proof of nationality, citizenship, legal registration, malicious intent, or sanctions status.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Policy exposure multiplier | met | 100 / 100 | no confirmed policy-scope location match |

## AI Readiness — 39/100 (At risk)

How well is the repo equipped to be developed and maintained with AI coding agents? An independent, experimental badge — weight 0.0, so it is surfaced on its own and does not affect the overall health score.

### Agent context & guidance — 34/100 (At risk)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agent instructions | not met | 0 / 45 | no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules |
| Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) | not met | 0 / 15 | — |
| Legible commit history | partial | 34.5 / 40 | 57 of 88 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body) |

### Verify loop (build / test / typecheck) — 40/100 (At risk)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| One-command bootstrap | not met | 0 / 18 | — |
| Automated tests | met | 22 / 22 | — |
| Lint / format config | not met | 0 / 11 | — |
| Static type checking | not met | 0 / 11 | — |
| Reproducible environment | not met | 0 / 10 | — |
| Demonstrated agent practice | not met | 0 / 10 | no agent-authored commits among the last 100 |
| Automated maintenance | met | 8 / 8 | 12 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies | met | 10 / 10 | all dependencies are pinned |

### Code legibility for models — 47/100 (At risk)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Type-checkable code | not met | 0 / 45 | Ruby without a type-check config |
| Manageable file sizes | partial | 47.1 / 55 | 3/21 source files over 60KB |

## Collection warnings

- No resolved dependencies carried a version and a supported ecosystem

## What this report is

inspect.software measures public repositories against a single published, versioned methodology and reports the result as a 1–100 health index. Findings are signals derived from what is visible in public repository data — they are not a security audit, a warranty, or an endorsement, and no result depends on payment.

- Methodology, formulas and weights: https://inspect.software/methodology.md
- What a result does and does not claim: https://inspect.software/wiki/signals-not-warranties.md
- Rating bands: https://inspect.software/wiki/scoring-bands.md
- Corrections: https://inspect.software/contact.md
- Index of all documents: https://inspect.software/llms.txt