Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-28 00:26 UTC

teamcapybara / capybara

Acceptance test framework for web applications

RubyMIT★ 10,169 stars⑂ 1,471 forkssince Nov 2009View on GitHub ↗

teamcapybara/capybara holds a health index of 67 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Community & Adoption (92/100) and lowest on Vitality (42/100). It was last updated 45 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

67
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.

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

Ownership

teamcapybaraOrganization
30 followers2 public repossince Nov 2016

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
RubyGemscapybara3.40.0-151943 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

42Weak · 21% of overall
How it's scored
18/36Push recency — last push 45 days ago
6.2/36Commit cadence — 9/52 weeks with commits
14.8/18Commit volume — 43 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 26 commit(s) and 12 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year43
human_commit_share0.98
days_since_last_push45
active_weeks_last_year9
How it's scored
16.2/27Ships releases — 98 version tags (no GitHub releases)
0/36Release recency — latest release 943 days ago
12.6/27Release cadence — a release every ~121.3 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count98
latest_release_tag3.40.0
releases_from_tagsyes
days_since_latest_release943
mean_days_between_releases121.3
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?

92Excellent · 17% of overall
How it's scored
60/60Stars — 10,169 stars
25/25Forks — 1,471 forks
12.9/15Watchers — 208 watchers
Inputs used
forks1,471
stars10,169
watchers208
growth_stateorganic
growth_factor_pct100
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (MIT)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
7.2/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges2
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateyes
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicescoveralls.io, github.com
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
80/80Total downloads — 355,326,224 downloads all-time across rubygems
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagescapybara
dependents—
ecosystemsrubygems
total_downloads355,326,224
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?

59Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
9.5/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 58% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 99 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 123 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled99
top_contributor_share0.579
How it's scored
41.9/42Issue resolution — 100% of issues closed
19.7/30PR acceptance — 777/1,181 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
4.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 7/22 approved changesets -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
merged_prs777
open_issues5
closed_issues1,629
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio0.997
closed_unmerged_prs404
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.
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain
10.7/25Owner reach — 30 followers of teamcapybara
15.5/25Track record — 2 public repos, account ~9 yr old
Inputs used
followers30
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_loginteamcapybara
public_repos2
account_age_days3,572
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on rubygems
4/35Publish recency — latest publish 943 days ago
20/20Version history — 151 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagescapybara
ecosystemsrubygems
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish943

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

66Good · 19% of overall
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
2/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 1 out of 10 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 1
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — http://teamcapybara.github.io/capybara/
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 1 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicshacktoberfest
has_wikino
homepagehttp://teamcapybara.github.io/capybara/
docs_sitehttp://teamcapybara.github.io/capybara/
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

56Moderate · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — no data
0.2/2.5CI-Tests — 1 out of 10 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 1
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
2.2/7.5Code-Review — Found 7/22 approved changesets -- score normalized to 3
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 123 contributing companies or organizations
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 — 26 commit(s) and 12 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
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 — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated15
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive3
scorecard_aggregate5.6
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.

46Weak · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
22.3/40Legible commit history — 41 of 98 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.418
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — .rubocop.yml
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environment — Dockerfile
10/10Demonstrated agent practice — 5 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
8/8Automated maintenance — 2 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles—
has_dockerfileyes
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0.05
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0.02
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — Ruby without a type-check config
54.6/55Manageable file sizes — 2/263 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRuby
largest_source_bytes240,427
source_files_sampled263
oversized_source_files2

Key facts

10,169GitHub stars
99contributors
43commits, last 12 months
45days since last push
98releases
1bus factor
5open issues
RubyGemspackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • Star history carried forward from 2026-07-20: GitHub restricted the stargazers API to repository admins, so it can no longer be collected. The repository has 10169 stars today.
  • No resolved dependencies carried a version and a supported ecosystem

More detail

Star and fork history 10,167 ★ / 1,471 ⇿
10,167Stars
1,471Forks
98Releases

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.

Only the most recent history is shown — this repository exceeds the collection window, so the earliest history is not captured.

Star history is shown as collected on 2026-07-20. GitHub restricted the stargazers API to repository administrators in July 2026, so this series can no longer be extended; the current star total above remains live.

02,0004,0006,0008,00010,00012,00010,1671,471192013-052019-122026-08
Major 1Minor 51Patch 46

Each point covers 13 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.6 / 10
5.6aggregate

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 · 2026-08-28 00:26 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
1CI-Tests1 out of 10 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 1
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
3Code-ReviewFound 7/22 approved changesets -- score normalized to 3
10Contributorsproject has 123 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained26 commit(s) and 12 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
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 3
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
RubyGemsbundler—Gemfile
RubyGemsxpath—Gemfile
RubyGemsredcarpet—Gemfile
All dependencies 37

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 3 direct and 34 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
RubyGemsbundler—direct
RubyGemsredcarpet—direct
RubyGemsxpath—direct
RubyGemsaddressable—indirect
RubyGemsbenchmark—indirect
RubyGemscoveralls_reborn—indirect
RubyGemscucumber—indirect
RubyGemserubi—indirect
RubyGemsirb—indirect
RubyGemsjson—indirect
RubyGemslaunchy—indirect
RubyGemsmatrix—indirect
RubyGemsmini_mime—indirect
RubyGemsminitest—indirect
RubyGemsnokogiri—indirect
RubyGemsostruct—indirect
RubyGemspuma—indirect
RubyGemsracc—indirect
RubyGemsrack—indirect
RubyGemsrack-test—indirect
RubyGemsrackup—indirect
RubyGemsrake—indirect
RubyGemsregexp_parser—indirect
RubyGemsrspec—indirect
RubyGemsrspec-instafail—indirect
RubyGemsrubocop—indirect
RubyGemsrubocop-capybara—indirect
RubyGemsrubocop-minitest—indirect
RubyGemsrubocop-performance—indirect
RubyGemsrubocop-rake—indirect
RubyGemsrubocop-rspec—indirect
RubyGemsrubysl—indirect
RubyGemsselenium-webdriver—indirect
RubyGemsselenium_statistics—indirect
RubyGemssinatra—indirect
RubyGemsuglifier—indirect
RubyGemsyard—indirect
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.

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.