Public record
Software health reportschema 0.17.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-21 07:11 UTC

svyatov / sec_id

A Ruby toolkit for securities identifiers — validate, parse, normalize, detect, convert, generate, classify, and repair. Supports ISIN, CUSIP, CEI, SEDOL, FIGI, LEI, IBAN, CIK, OCC, WKN, Valoren, CFI, FISN, BIC, DTI, and UPI.

RubyMIT★ 8 stars⑂ 1 forksince Feb 2019View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryhow this is determined
#ruby#isin#cusip#sedol#iban#ruby-gem#validation#figi#cik#cei#lei#occ#valoren#wkn

svyatov/sec_id holds a health index of 80 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Vitality (83/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (53/100). It was last updated 5 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

80
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.

80
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 68 is calibrated to 80 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Leonid SvyatovPersonal account
33 followers25 public repossince Jun 2010

This repository is owned by a personal account. A single-owner project carries more continuity risk than an organization-backed one.

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
RubyGemssec_id7.1.0-185 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

83Excellent · 21% of overall

Development activity

72Good
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 5 days ago
7.6/36Commit cadence — 11/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 101 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 27 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year101
human_commit_share—
days_since_last_push5
active_weeks_last_year11

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 17 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 5 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~20.3 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count17
latest_release_tagv7.1.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release5
mean_days_between_releases20.3
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?

53Moderate · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

14Critical
How it's scored
13.7/60Stars — 8 stars
0/25Forks — 1 forks
0/15Watchers — 1 watchers
Inputs used
forks1
stars8
watchers1
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonbelow_threshold

Community health

92Excellent
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (MIT)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
6.3/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges—
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_services—
has_pull_request_templateyes

Ecosystem adoption (downloads)

60Moderate
How it's scored
47.8/80Total downloads — 40,246 downloads all-time across rubygems
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagessec_id
dependents—
ecosystemsrubygems
total_downloads40,246
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?

56Moderate · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

20At Risk
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
4.5/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 80% of commits
6.8/13.5Contributor breadth — 5 contributors
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled5
top_contributor_share0.799

Issue & PR responsiveness

66Good
How it's scored
42/42Issue resolution — 100% of issues closed
15.7/30PR acceptance — 76/145 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 2/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs76
open_issues0
closed_issues24
prs_merged_7d—
prs_decided_7d—
prs_merged_30d—
prs_decided_30d—
issue_closed_ratio1
closed_unmerged_prs69
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

54Moderate
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
11/25Owner reach — 33 followers of svyatov
22.3/25Track record — 25 public repos, account ~16 yr old
Inputs used
followers33
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginsvyatov
public_repos25
account_age_days5,874
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 5 days ago
20/20Version history — 18 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagessec_id
ecosystemsrubygems
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish5

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

80Excellent · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

84Excellent
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 1 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — .rubocop.yml
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 15 out of 15 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

75Good
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 14 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsruby, isin, cusip, sedol, iban, ruby-gem, validation, figi, cik, cei, lei, occ, valoren, wkn
has_wikino
homepage—
docs_site—
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
2.2/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
2.5/2.5CI-Tests — 15 out of 15 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 2/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
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 — 27 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
5/5SAST — SAST tool is run on all commits
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_aggregate7
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.

63Moderate · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

75Good
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructions — CLAUDE.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_filesCLAUDE.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes40,069
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Legible commit history. Remaining weights renormalized.

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

42Weak
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 data
5/8Automated maintenance — dependency automation configured, none observed in the sampled commits
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_share—
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Demonstrated agent practice. 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 — 0/91 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRuby
largest_source_bytes57,015
source_files_sampled91
oversized_source_files0

Machine-readable interfaces

100Exceptional
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — not applicable to this kind of software
0/20MCP server — not applicable to this kind of software
40/40Runnable examples — examples
Inputs used
example_dirsexamples
has_mcp_signalno
api_schema_files—
interfaces_expected_of—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto), MCP server. Remaining weights renormalized.

Key facts

8GitHub stars
5contributors
101commits, last 12 months
5days since last push
17releases
1bus factor
0open issues
RubyGemspackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • No resolved dependencies carried a version and a supported ecosystem

More detail

Star and fork history 8 ★ / 0 ⇿
8Stars

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.

02468822019-042022-112026-06

Each point covers 7 days.

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 · 2026-07-21 07:11 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
3Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
10CI-Tests15 out of 15 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 2/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0Contributorsproject has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained27 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
10SASTSAST tool is run on all commits
10Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
10Token-PermissionsGitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 13
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
RubyGemsrake>= 13Gemfile
RubyGemsactivemodel—Gemfile
RubyGemsrailties—Gemfile
RubyGemsbenchmark-ips~> 2.0Gemfile
RubyGemsrspec~> 3.9Gemfile
RubyGemsrspec_junit_formatter—Gemfile
RubyGemsrubocop~> 1.88.0Gemfile
RubyGemsrubocop-rspec~> 3.10.0Gemfile
RubyGemsrbs~> 4.0Gemfile
RubyGemssteep~> 2.0Gemfile
RubyGemsyard~> 0.9Gemfile
RubyGemssimplecov~> 0.22Gemfile
RubyGemssimplecov-cobertura—Gemfile
All dependencies 13

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 13 direct and 0 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
RubyGemsactivemodel—direct
RubyGemsbenchmark-ips—direct
RubyGemsrailties—direct
RubyGemsrake—direct
RubyGemsrbs—direct
RubyGemsrspec—direct
RubyGemsrspec_junit_formatter—direct
RubyGemsrubocop—direct
RubyGemsrubocop-rspec—direct
RubyGemssimplecov—direct
RubyGemssimplecov-cobertura—direct
RubyGemssteep—direct
RubyGemsyard—direct
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 svyatov/sec_id. Read them side by side →

97sparklemotion/nokogiriNokogiri (鋸) makes it easy and painless to work with XML and HTML from Ruby.Exceptional96licensee/licenseeA Ruby Gem to detect under what license a project is distributed.Exceptional94homebrew/ruby-macho🔩 A pure-Ruby library for parsing Mach-O files.Exceptional94caxlsx/caxlsx xlsx generation with charts, images, automated column width, customizable styles and full schema validation. Axlsx excels at helping you generate beautiful Office Open XML Spreadsheet documents without having to understand the entire ECMA specification. Check out the README for some examples of how easy it is. Best of all, you can validate your xlsx file before serialization so you know for sure that anything generated is going to load on your client's machine.Exceptional90test-kitchen/test-kitchenTest Kitchen is an integration tool for developing and testing infrastructure code and software on isolated target platformsExcellent88test-kitchen/kitchen-ec2A Test Kitchen Driver for Amazon EC2Excellent

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 v0.17.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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