Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-10-20 07:29 UTC

theforeman / foreman-tasks

Tasks management engine and plugin for Foreman

JavaScript · RubyGPL-3.0★ 32 stars⑂ 101 forkssince Dec 2013View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryNetwork servicehow this is determined

theforeman/foreman-tasks holds a health index of 81 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Vitality (83/100) and lowest on Security (48/100). It was last updated 10 days ago. 2 contributors account for most of its recent work.

81
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.

81
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 69 is calibrated to 81 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

The ForemanOrganization · verified domain
195 followers240 public repossince Feb 2012

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
RubyGemsforeman-tasks13.2.4-22210 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

83Excellent · 21% of overall
How it's scored
28.8/36Push recency — last push 10 days ago
24.2/36Commit cadence — 35/52 weeks with commits
17.2/18Commit volume — 81 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 16 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year81
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push10
active_weeks_last_year35
How it's scored
16.2/27Ships releases — 96 version tags (no GitHub releases)
36/36Release recency — latest release 10 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~13.5 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count96
latest_release_tagv13.2.4
releases_from_tagsyes
days_since_latest_release10
mean_days_between_releases13.5
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?

55Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
24.2/60Stars — 32 stars
16.7/25Forks — 101 forks
4.7/15Watchers — 8 watchers
Inputs used
forks101
stars32
watchers8
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (GPL-3.0)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges0
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services—
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
61.1/80Total downloads — 750,402 downloads all-time across rubygems
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesforeman-tasks
dependents—
ecosystemsrubygems
total_downloads750,402
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?

80Excellent · 23% of overall
How it's scored
25.2/54Bus factor — 2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
13.7/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 39% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 65 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 49 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor2
contributors_sampled65
top_contributor_share0.391
How it's scored
0/42Issue resolution — no issues or no data
25.6/30PR acceptance — 716/838 decided PRs merged
8.7/13Newcomer PR acceptance — 2/3 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
9/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 18/28 approved changesets -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
merged_prs716
open_issues0
closed_issues0
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d4
prs_decided_30d5
issue_closed_ratio—
closed_unmerged_prs122
first_time_authors_30d1
first_time_prs_merged_30d2
first_time_prs_decided_30d3
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Issue resolution. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
20/20Verified domain
16.5/25Owner reach — 195 followers of theforeman
25/25Track record — 240 public repos, account ~14 yr old
Inputs used
followers195
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedyes
owner_logintheforeman
public_repos240
account_age_days5,360

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on rubygems
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 10 days ago
20/20Version history — 222 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesforeman-tasks
ecosystemsrubygems
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish10

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

76Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 4 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — .eslintrc, .rubocop.yml
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 18 out of 18 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
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — http://projects.theforeman.org/projects/foreman-tasks/
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 1 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicshacktoberfest
has_wikino
homepagehttp://projects.theforeman.org/projects/foreman-tasks/
docs_sitehttp://projects.theforeman.org/projects/foreman-tasks/
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

48Weak · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
2.5/2.5CI-Tests — 18 out of 18 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
4.5/7.5Code-Review — Found 18/28 approved changesets -- score normalized to 6
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 49 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained — 16 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
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_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate4.8
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.

49Weak · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
35.2/40Legible commit history — 66 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.66
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrap — locale/Makefile
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — .eslintrc, .rubocop.yml
0/11Static type checking
0/10Reproducible environment
6/10Demonstrated agent practice — 3 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
0/8Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
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_fileslocale/Makefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0.03
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — JavaScript without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/303 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageJavaScript
largest_source_bytes44,090
source_files_sampled303
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

32GitHub stars
65contributors
81commits, last 12 months
10days since last push
96releases
2bus factor
0open issues
npm, RubyGemspackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • Could not fetch npm package 'foreman-tasks' from its registry
  • No resolved dependencies carried a version and a supported ecosystem

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 101 ⇿
0Stars
101Forks
94Releases

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.

02040608010012010142013-122020-052026-09
Major 12Minor 17Patch 65

Each point covers 12 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.8 / 10
4.8aggregate

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 · 2026-10-20 07:28 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
10CI-Tests18 out of 18 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
6Code-ReviewFound 18/28 approved changesets -- score normalized to 6
10Contributorsproject has 49 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained16 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
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 1
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
npmc3^0.4.11package.json
All dependencies 18

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 1 direct and 17 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
npmc3^0.4.11direct
npm@babel/core^7.7.0indirect
npm@theforeman/builder>= 12.1.1indirect
npm@theforeman/eslint-plugin-foreman>= 12.1.1indirect
npm@theforeman/test>= 12.1.1indirect
npm@theforeman/vendor-dev>= 12.1.1indirect
npmbabel-eslint^10.0.3indirect
npmeslint^6.7.2indirect
npmjed^1.1.1indirect
npmprettier^1.13.5indirect
npmstylelint^9.3.0indirect
npmstylelint-config-standard^18.0.0indirect
npmsurge^0.20.3indirect
RubyGemsdynflow—indirect
RubyGemsfugit—indirect
RubyGemsget_process_mem—indirect
RubyGemssinatra—indirect
RubyGemssqlite3—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.