Public record
Software health reportschema 0.11.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-16 13:09 UTC

sul-dlss / cocina-models

Cocina repository data model (implemented in Ruby)

RubyApache-2.0★ 3 stars⑂ 0 forkssince Apr 2019View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryhow this is determined
#infrastructure#gem#data-models

sul-dlss/cocina-models holds a health index of 90 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Vitality (99/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (43/100). It was last updated today. 3 contributors account for most of its recent work.

90
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.

90
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 76 is calibrated to 90 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Stanford University Digital LibraryOrganization
127 followers161 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
RubyGemscocina-models0.129.0-1950 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

99Exceptional · 21% of overall

Development activity

99Exceptional
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
35.3/36Commit cadence — 51/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 450 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 24 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year450
human_commit_share—
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year51

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 30 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 6 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~4.8 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count30
latest_release_tagv0.128.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release6
mean_days_between_releases4.8
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?

43Weak · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

11Critical
How it's scored
4.9/60Stars — 3 stars
0/25Forks — 0 forks
5.8/15Watchers — 12 watchers
Inputs used
forks0
stars3
watchers12
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 (Apache-2.0)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
6.3/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges—
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services—
has_pull_request_templateyes

Ecosystem adoption (downloads)

73Good
How it's scored
58.6/80Total downloads — 437,389 downloads all-time across rubygems
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagescocina-models
dependents—
ecosystemsrubygems
total_downloads437,389
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?

87Excellent · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

77Good
How it's scored
36/54Bus factor — 3 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
17.7/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 21% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 15 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 31 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor3
contributors_sampled15
top_contributor_share0.213

Issue & PR responsiveness

88Excellent
How it's scored
36/42Issue resolution — 86% of issues closed
28.3/30PR acceptance — 785/831 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
12/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 13/16 approved changesets -- score normalized to 8
Inputs used
merged_prs785
open_issues44
closed_issues266
prs_merged_7d—
prs_decided_7d—
prs_merged_30d—
prs_decided_30d—
issue_closed_ratio0.858
closed_unmerged_prs46
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

88Excellent
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain — verified-domain status not read for this organization
15.1/25Owner reach — 127 followers of sul-dlss
25/25Track record — 161 public repos, account ~16 yr old
Inputs used
followers127
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified—
owner_loginsul-dlss
public_repos161
account_age_days5,956
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 — 195 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagescocina-models
ecosystemsrubygems
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish0

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

76Good · 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

100Exceptional
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://jsonhero.io/j/rynNH3NLBhcf
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 3 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsinfrastructure, gem, data-models
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://jsonhero.io/j/rynNH3NLBhcf
docs_sitehttps://jsonhero.io/j/rynNH3NLBhcf
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

70Good · 16% of overall

Security posture

70Good
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
6/7.5Code-Review — Found 13/16 approved changesets -- score normalized to 8
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 31 contributing companies or organizations
0/10Dangerous-Workflow — no data
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 — 30 commit(s) and 24 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_aggregate7
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, Dangerous-Workflow, Packaging, Pinned-Dependencies, Signed-Releases, Token-Permissions. 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.

64Moderate · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

75Good
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructions — AGENTS.md
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
0/40Legible commit history — no data
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share—
agent_instruction_filesAGENTS.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes9,808
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Legible commit history. Remaining weights renormalized.

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

60Moderate
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 data
0/8Automated maintenance — no data
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_share—
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Demonstrated agent practice, Automated maintenance, 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
54.8/55Manageable file sizes — 1/283 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRuby
largest_source_bytes87,352
source_files_sampled283
oversized_source_files1

Key facts

3GitHub stars
15contributors
450commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
30releases
3bus factor
44open issues
RubyGemspackage ecosystems

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 7.0 / 10
7.0aggregate

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 · 2026-07-16 13:08 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
8Code-ReviewFound 13/16 approved changesets -- score normalized to 8
10Contributorsproject has 31 contributing companies or organizations
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 24 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 5
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
RubyGemscsv—Gemfile
RubyGemsdebug—Gemfile
RubyGemsrsolr—Gemfile
RubyGemsrspec_junit_formatter—Gemfile
RubyGemsruby-progressbar—Gemfile
All dependencies 95

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 5 direct and 90 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
RubyGemscsv3.3.5direct
RubyGemsdebug1.11.1direct
RubyGemsrsolr2.6.0direct
RubyGemsrspec_junit_formatter0.6.0direct
RubyGemsruby-progressbar1.13.0direct
RubyGemsactivesupport—indirect
RubyGemsactivesupport8.1.3indirect
RubyGemsast2.4.3indirect
RubyGemsattr_extras7.1.0indirect
RubyGemsbase640.3.0indirect
RubyGemsbigdecimal4.1.2indirect
RubyGemsbuilder3.3.0indirect
RubyGemsbundler—indirect
RubyGemscocina_display—indirect
RubyGemscocina_display2.9.0indirect
RubyGemsconcurrent-ruby1.3.7indirect
RubyGemsconnection_pool3.0.2indirect
RubyGemsdeprecation—indirect
RubyGemsdeprecation1.1.0indirect
RubyGemsdiff-lcs1.6.2indirect
RubyGemsdrb2.2.3indirect
RubyGemsdry-core1.2.0indirect
RubyGemsdry-inflector1.3.1indirect
RubyGemsdry-logic1.6.0indirect
RubyGemsdry-struct—indirect
RubyGemsdry-struct1.8.1indirect
RubyGemsdry-types—indirect
RubyGemsdry-types1.9.1indirect
RubyGemsedtf—indirect
RubyGemsedtf3.3.0indirect
RubyGemsequivalent-xml—indirect
RubyGemsequivalent-xml0.6.0indirect
RubyGemserb6.0.4indirect
RubyGemsfaraday2.14.3indirect
RubyGemsfaraday-net_http3.4.4indirect
RubyGemsgeo_coord0.2.0indirect
RubyGemsi18n—indirect
RubyGemsi18n1.15.2indirect
RubyGemsice_nine0.11.2indirect
RubyGemsio-console0.8.2indirect
RubyGemsirb1.18.0indirect
RubyGemsiso86010.13.0indirect
RubyGemsjaneway-jsonpath1.0.0indirect
RubyGemsjson2.21.1indirect
RubyGemsjsonschema_rs—indirect
RubyGemsjsonschema_rs0.47.0indirect
RubyGemslanguage_server-protocol3.17.0.6indirect
RubyGemslint_roller1.1.0indirect
RubyGemslogger1.7.0indirect
RubyGemsminitest6.0.6indirect
RubyGemsnet-http0.9.1indirect
RubyGemsnokogiri—indirect
RubyGemsnokogiri1.19.4indirect
RubyGemsoptimist3.2.1indirect
RubyGemsparallel2.1.0indirect
RubyGemsparser3.3.11.1indirect
RubyGemspatience_diff1.2.0indirect
RubyGemspp0.6.4indirect
RubyGemsprettyprint0.2.0indirect
RubyGemsprism1.9.0indirect
RubyGemsracc1.8.1indirect
RubyGemsrainbow3.1.1indirect
RubyGemsrake—indirect
RubyGemsrake13.4.2indirect
RubyGemsrbs4.0.3indirect
RubyGemsrdoc8.0.0indirect
RubyGemsregexp_parser2.12.0indirect
RubyGemsreline0.6.3indirect
RubyGemsrspec—indirect
RubyGemsrspec3.13.2indirect
RubyGemsrspec-core3.13.6indirect
RubyGemsrspec-expectations3.13.5indirect
RubyGemsrspec-mocks3.13.8indirect
RubyGemsrspec-support3.13.7indirect
RubyGemsrubocop—indirect
RubyGemsrubocop1.88.2indirect
RubyGemsrubocop-ast1.50.0indirect
RubyGemsrubocop-rake—indirect
RubyGemsrubocop-rake0.7.1indirect
RubyGemsrubocop-rspec—indirect
RubyGemsrubocop-rspec3.10.2indirect
RubyGemssecurerandom0.4.1indirect
RubyGemssimplecov—indirect
RubyGemssimplecov1.0.0indirect
RubyGemssuper_diff—indirect
RubyGemssuper_diff0.19.0indirect
RubyGemsthor—indirect
RubyGemsthor1.5.0indirect
RubyGemstsort0.2.0indirect
RubyGemstzinfo2.0.6indirect
RubyGemsunicode-display_width3.2.0indirect
RubyGemsunicode-emoji4.2.0indirect
RubyGemsuri1.1.1indirect
RubyGemszeitwerk—indirect
RubyGemszeitwerk2.8.2indirect
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/cocina-models. Read them side by side →

81sul-dlss/sdr-clientSDR API client (in Ruby)Excellent81sul-dlss/dor-services-clientA Ruby client for the RESTful HTTP APIs provided by the Digital Object Registry (DOR) APIExcellent81sul-dlss/datacite-rubyA Ruby client library for the DataCite REST APIExcellent80sul-dlss/cocina_displayHelpers for rendering Cocina metadataExcellent78sul-dlss/lyber-coreSULAIR Robot Framework and Infrastructure ToolsGood77sul-dlss/assembly-objectfilePerforms file operations necessary for accessioning of content by the Stanford University Digital LibraryGood

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 v0.11.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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