Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-18 01:12 UTC

sul-dlss / assembly-objectfile

Performs file operations necessary for accessioning of content by the Stanford University Digital Library

RubyCustom license★ 0 stars⑂ 1 forksince Nov 2013View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryCommand-line toolhow this is determined
#gem#infrastructure

sul-dlss/assembly-objectfile holds a health index of 78 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (85/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (37/100). It was last updated 3 days ago. 3 contributors account for most of its recent work.

78
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.

78
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 67 is calibrated to 78 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Stanford University Digital LibraryOrganization
135 followers160 public repossince Mar 2010

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
RubyGemsassembly-objectfile2.4.0-4035 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

76Good · 21% of overall

Development activity

98Exceptional
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 3 days ago
33.9/36Commit cadence — 49/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 121 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year121
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push3
active_weeks_last_year49

Release discipline

44Weak
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 8 releases published
0/36Release recency — latest release 1,219 days ago
12.6/27Release cadence — a release every ~196 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count8
latest_release_tagv2.2.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release1,219
mean_days_between_releases196
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?

37Weak · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

6Critical
How it's scored
0/60Stars — 0 stars
0/25Forks — 1 forks
6/15Watchers — 13 watchers
Inputs used
forks1
stars0
watchers13
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

51Moderate
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
16.9/22.5License — license file present, not a recognized license
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
6.3/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges3
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesbadge.fury.io, circleci.com, codecov.io
has_pull_request_templateyes

Ecosystem adoption (downloads)

66Good
How it's scored
52.8/80Total downloads — 119,933 downloads all-time across rubygems
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesassembly-objectfile
dependents—
ecosystemsrubygems
total_downloads119,933
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?

85Excellent · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

76Good
How it's scored
36/54Bus factor — 3 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
16/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 29% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 14 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 35 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor3
contributors_sampled14
top_contributor_share0.29

Issue & PR responsiveness

98Exceptional
How it's scored
42/42Issue resolution — 100% of issues closed
29.7/30PR acceptance — 289/292 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
13.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 13/14 approved changesets -- score normalized to 9
Inputs used
merged_prs289
open_issues0
closed_issues24
prs_merged_7d1
prs_decided_7d1
prs_merged_30d4
prs_decided_30d4
issue_closed_ratio1
closed_unmerged_prs3
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

70Good
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain
15.3/25Owner reach — 135 followers of sul-dlss
25/25Track record — 160 public repos, account ~16 yr old
Inputs used
followers135
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_loginsul-dlss
public_repos160
account_age_days6,020

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on rubygems
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 35 days ago
20/20Version history — 40 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesassembly-objectfile
ecosystemsrubygems
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish35

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

66Good · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

60Moderate
How it's scored
0/24CI workflows
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — .rubocop.yml
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 13 out of 13 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_cino
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

75Good
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://www.rubydoc.info/gems/assembly-objectfile/2.4.0
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 2 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsgem, infrastructure
has_wikiyes
homepage—
docs_sitehttps://www.rubydoc.info/gems/assembly-objectfile/2.4.0
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

58Moderate
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — no data
2.5/2.5CI-Tests — 13 out of 13 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
6.8/7.5Code-Review — Found 13/14 approved changesets -- score normalized to 9
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 35 contributing companies or organizations
0/10Dangerous-Workflow — no data
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.2/2.5License — license file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packaging — no data
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — no data
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 — no data
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated12
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive6
scorecard_aggregate5.8
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, Dangerous-Workflow, Packaging, Pinned-Dependencies, Signed-Releases, Token-Permissions. 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_packages54
unassessed_packages11
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 54 resolved dependencies against OSV. 11 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.

41Weak · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

24At Risk
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
24/40Legible commit history — 45 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.45
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

48Weak
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 agent-authored commits among the last 100
0/8Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — no data
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesGemfile.lock
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies. 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 — 0/6 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRuby
largest_source_bytes16,939
source_files_sampled6
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

0GitHub stars
14contributors
121commits, last 12 months
3days since last push
8releases
3bus factor
0open issues
RubyGemspackage ecosystems

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.8 / 10
5.8aggregate

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 · 2026-09-18 01:12 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
n/aBranch-Protectioninternal 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
10CI-Tests13 out of 13 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
9Code-ReviewFound 13/14 approved changesets -- score normalized to 9
10Contributorsproject has 35 contributing companies or organizations
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
9Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
n/aPinned-Dependenciesno dependencies found
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
n/aToken-PermissionsNo tokens found
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 1
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
RubyGemsdebug—Gemfile
All dependencies 65

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 1 direct and 64 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
RubyGemsdebug1.11.1direct
RubyGemsactivesupport—indirect
RubyGemsactivesupport8.1.3.1indirect
RubyGemsast2.4.3indirect
RubyGemsbase640.3.0indirect
RubyGemsbigdecimal4.1.3indirect
RubyGemsconcurrent-ruby1.3.8indirect
RubyGemsconnection_pool3.0.2indirect
RubyGemsdiff-lcs1.6.2indirect
RubyGemsdrb2.2.3indirect
RubyGemserb6.0.7indirect
RubyGemsi18n1.15.2indirect
RubyGemsio-console0.9.3indirect
RubyGemsirb1.18.0indirect
RubyGemsjson3.0.2indirect
RubyGemslanguage_server-protocol3.17.0.6indirect
RubyGemslint_roller1.1.0indirect
RubyGemslogger1.7.0indirect
RubyGemsmime-types—indirect
RubyGemsmime-types3.7.0indirect
RubyGemsmime-types-data3.2026.0701indirect
RubyGemsmini_exiftool—indirect
RubyGemsmini_exiftool2.14.0indirect
RubyGemsminitest6.0.6indirect
RubyGemsostruct0.6.3indirect
RubyGemsparallel2.2.0indirect
RubyGemsparser3.3.12.0indirect
RubyGemspp0.6.4indirect
RubyGemsprettyprint0.2.0indirect
RubyGemsprism1.9.0indirect
RubyGemspstore0.2.1indirect
RubyGemsracc1.8.1indirect
RubyGemsrainbow3.1.1indirect
RubyGemsrake—indirect
RubyGemsrake13.4.2indirect
RubyGemsrbs4.2.0indirect
RubyGemsrdoc8.0.0indirect
RubyGemsregexp_parser2.12.0indirect
RubyGemsreline0.7.0indirect
RubyGemsrspec—indirect
RubyGemsrspec3.13.2indirect
RubyGemsrspec-core3.13.6indirect
RubyGemsrspec-expectations3.13.5indirect
RubyGemsrspec-mocks3.13.8indirect
RubyGemsrspec-support3.13.7indirect
RubyGemsrubocop—indirect
RubyGemsrubocop1.91.0indirect
RubyGemsrubocop-ast1.50.0indirect
RubyGemsrubocop-capybara—indirect
RubyGemsrubocop-capybara3.0.0indirect
RubyGemsrubocop-factory_bot—indirect
RubyGemsrubocop-factory_bot2.28.0indirect
RubyGemsrubocop-rspec—indirect
RubyGemsrubocop-rspec3.10.2indirect
RubyGemsrubocop-rspec_rails—indirect
RubyGemsrubocop-rspec_rails2.32.0indirect
RubyGemsruby-progressbar1.13.0indirect
RubyGemssecurerandom0.4.1indirect
RubyGemssimplecov—indirect
RubyGemssimplecov1.3.0indirect
RubyGemstsort0.2.0indirect
RubyGemstzinfo2.0.6indirect
RubyGemsunicode-display_width3.2.0indirect
RubyGemsunicode-emoji4.2.0indirect
RubyGemsuri1.1.1indirect
Dependency advisories 0

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 54 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct. 11 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

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 sul-dlss/assembly-objectfile. Read them side by side →

90sul-dlss/cocina-modelsCocina repository data model (implemented in Ruby)Excellent83sul-dlss/dor-services-clientA Ruby client for the RESTful HTTP APIs provided by the Digital Object Registry (DOR) APIExcellent80sul-dlss/cocina_displayHelpers for rendering Cocina metadataExcellent80sul-dlss/datacite-rubyA Ruby client library for the DataCite REST APIExcellent80sul-dlss/sdr-clientSDR API client (in Ruby)Excellent80sul-dlss/lyber-coreSULAIR Robot Framework and Infrastructure ToolsExcellent

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 v0.34.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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