Public record
Software health reportschema 0.31.0 · metrics 2.5.0 · 2026-08-05 10:34 UTC

theforeman / foreman_salt

Foreman plug-in for Salt

Ruby · JavaScriptGPL-3.0★ 71 stars⑂ 44 forkssince Aug 2014View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryNetwork servicehow this is determined

theforeman/foreman_salt holds a health index of 60 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (78/100) and lowest on Security (39/100). It was last updated today. 2 contributors account for most of its recent work.

60
overall / 100
Moderate

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.

60
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 57 is calibrated to 60 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

The ForemanOrganization
188 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_salt17.0.6-630 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

44Weak · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
3.5/36Commit cadence — 5/52 weeks with commits
8.6/18Commit volume — 8 commits in the last year
1/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 2 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 1
Inputs used
commits_last_year8
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year5
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 13 releases published
0/36Release recency — latest release 774 days ago
5.4/27Release cadence — a release every ~370 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count13
latest_release_tag16.0.3
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release774
mean_days_between_releases370
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?

54Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
29.9/60Stars — 71 stars
13.6/25Forks — 44 forks
6.2/15Watchers — 14 watchers
Inputs used
forks44
stars71
watchers14
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_badges3
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesgithub.com, shields.io
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
52.8/80Total downloads — 119,547 downloads all-time across rubygems
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesforeman_salt
dependents
ecosystemsrubygems
total_downloads119,547
monthly_downloads
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?

78Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
25.2/54Bus factor — 2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
13.3/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 41% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 40 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 25 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor2
contributors_sampled40
top_contributor_share0.407
How it's scored
0/42Issue resolution — no issues or no data
28/30PR acceptance — 207/222 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
10.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 20/27 approved changesets -- score normalized to 7
Inputs used
merged_prs207
open_issues0
closed_issues0
prs_merged_7d1
prs_decided_7d1
prs_merged_30d1
prs_decided_30d1
issue_closed_ratio
closed_unmerged_prs15
first_time_authors_30d0
first_time_prs_merged_30d0
first_time_prs_decided_30d0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Issue resolution, newcomer_pr_acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain
16.4/25Owner reach — 188 followers of theforeman
25/25Track record — 239 public repos, account ~14 yr old
Inputs used
followers188
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified
owner_logintheforeman
public_repos239
account_age_days5,284

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

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

65Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 2 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — .rubocop.yml
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
4/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 6 out of 21 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 2
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

60Moderate
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 1 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicshacktoberfest
has_wikiyes
homepage
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

39Weak · 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
0.5/2.5CI-Tests — 6 out of 21 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 2
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
5.2/7.5Code-Review — Found 20/27 approved changesets -- score normalized to 7
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 25 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
0.8/7.5Maintained — 2 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 1
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_aggregate3.9
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.

41Weak · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
19.7/40Legible commit history — 37 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
legible_history_share0.37
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrap — locale/Makefile
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — .rubocop.yml
0/11Static type checking
0/10Reproducible environment
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
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
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — Ruby without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/104 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRuby
largest_source_bytes26,468
source_files_sampled104
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

71GitHub stars
40contributors
8commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
13releases
2bus factor
0open issues
RubyGemspackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • No resolved dependencies carried a version and a supported ecosystem

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 44 ⇿
0Stars
44Forks
13Releases

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.

010203040504432014-082020-032025-10
Major 4Minor 3Patch 6

Each point covers 11 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 3.9 / 10
3.9aggregate

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 · 2026-08-05 10:33 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
2CI-Tests6 out of 21 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 2
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
7Code-ReviewFound 20/27 approved changesets -- score normalized to 7
10Contributorsproject has 25 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
1Maintained2 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 1
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 4

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 4 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
RubyGemsdefaceindirect
RubyGemsforeman-tasksindirect
RubyGemsforeman_remote_executionindirect
RubyGemstheforeman-rubocopindirect
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

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 v2.5.0, schema v0.31.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

How one result sits in the wider record: aggregate statisticsRubyGems.