Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-16 03:10 UTC

theforeman / foreman_puppet

JavaScript · RubyGPL-3.0★ 9 stars⑂ 33 forkssince Jun 2020View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryNetwork servicehow this is determined

theforeman/foreman_puppet holds a health index of 75 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (77/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (46/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

75
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.

75
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 65 is calibrated to 75 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

The ForemanOrganization · verified domain
190 followers239 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_puppet11.1.0-590 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

67Good · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
11.1/36Commit cadence — 16/52 weeks with commits
13.9/18Commit volume — 34 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 21 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year34
human_commit_share0.96
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year16
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 14 releases published
7.2/36Release recency — latest release 677 days ago
19.8/27Release cadence — a release every ~69.2 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count14
latest_release_tagv8.0.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release677
mean_days_between_releases69.2
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?

46Weak · 17% of overall
How it's scored
14.6/60Stars — 9 stars
12.5/25Forks — 33 forks
3.9/15Watchers — 6 watchers
Inputs used
forks33
stars9
watchers6
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_badges2
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesshields.io
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
52.6/80Total downloads — 116,340 downloads all-time across rubygems
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesforeman_puppet
dependents—
ecosystemsrubygems
total_downloads116,340
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?

77Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
10.6/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 53% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 31 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 24 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled31
top_contributor_share0.529
How it's scored
34.7/42Issue resolution — 83% of issues closed
27.5/30PR acceptance — 311/339 decided PRs merged
13/13Newcomer PR acceptance — 5/5 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
9/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 17/25 approved changesets -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
merged_prs311
open_issues20
closed_issues95
prs_merged_7d3
prs_decided_7d3
prs_merged_30d10
prs_decided_30d10
issue_closed_ratio0.826
closed_unmerged_prs28
first_time_authors_30d2
first_time_prs_merged_30d5
first_time_prs_decided_30d5
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
20/20Verified domain
16.4/25Owner reach — 190 followers of theforeman
25/25Track record — 239 public repos, account ~14 yr old
Inputs used
followers190
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedyes
owner_logintheforeman
public_repos239
account_age_days5,326

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 — 59 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesforeman_puppet
ecosystemsrubygems
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish0

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

72Good · 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 — 21 out of 21 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

55Moderate
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://theforeman.org/plugins/foreman_puppet/
0/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 4 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsforeman, provisioning, puppet, hacktoberfest
has_wikino
homepagehttps://theforeman.org/plugins/foreman_puppet/
docs_sitehttps://theforeman.org/plugins/foreman_puppet/
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionno

Security

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

61Moderate · 16% of overall
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 — 21 out of 21 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 17/25 approved changesets -- score normalized to 6
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 24 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 — 21 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_evaluated15
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive3
scorecard_aggregate6.1
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)
21.7/40Legible commit history — 39 of 96 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.406
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
2/10Demonstrated agent practice — 1 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
8/8Automated maintenance — 4 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_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_fileslocale/Makefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0.01
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0.04
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — JavaScript without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/271 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageJavaScript
largest_source_bytes47,927
source_files_sampled271
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

9GitHub stars
31contributors
34commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
14releases
1bus factor
20open 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_puppet' from its registry
  • No resolved dependencies carried a version and a supported ecosystem

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 33 ⇿
0Stars
33Forks
14Releases

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.

01325383332020-072023-072026-08
Major 3Minor 5Patch 6

Each point covers 6 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 6.1 / 10
6.1aggregate

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 · 2026-09-16 03:10 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
n/aBranch-Protectioninternal error: error during GetBranch(4.1-stable): error during branchesHandler.query: 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-Tests21 out of 21 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 17/25 approved changesets -- score normalized to 6
10Contributorsproject has 24 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained21 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
All dependencies 13

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

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
npm@babel/core^7.7.0indirect
npm@sheerun/mutationobserver-shim^0.3.3indirect
npm@theforeman/builder>= 10.1.0indirect
npm@theforeman/eslint-plugin-foreman>= 10.1.0indirect
npm@theforeman/find-foreman>= 10.1.0indirect
npm@theforeman/test>= 10.1.0indirect
npm@theforeman/vendor-dev>= 10.1.0indirect
npmbabel-eslint^10.0.3indirect
npmeslint^6.7.2indirect
npmjed^1.1.1indirect
npmprettier^1.19.1indirect
npmstylelint^9.3.0indirect
npmstylelint-config-standard^18.0.0indirect
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.