Public record
Software health reportschema 0.15.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-20 13:27 UTC

thoughtbot / shoulda-matchers

Simple one-liner tests for common Rails functionality

RubyMIT★ 3,584 stars⑂ 917 forkssince Dec 2010View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryhow this is determined
#ruby#rspec#rails#testing

thoughtbot/shoulda-matchers holds a health index of 90 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Community & Adoption (92/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (34/100). It was last updated 15 days ago. 2 contributors account for most of its recent work.

90
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.

90
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 76 is calibrated to 90 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

thoughtbot, inc.Organization
890 followers469 public repossince Apr 2008

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
RubyGemsshoulda-matchers8.0.1-6537 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

76Good · 21% of overall

Development activity

66Good
How it's scored
28.8/36Push recency — last push 15 days ago
12.5/36Commit cadence — 18/52 weeks with commits
14.2/18Commit volume — 37 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 14 commit(s) and 5 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year37
human_commit_share—
days_since_last_push15
active_weeks_last_year18

Release discipline

92Excellent
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 27 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 37 days ago
19.8/27Release cadence — a release every ~97.2 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count27
latest_release_tagv8.0.1
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release37
mean_days_between_releases97.2
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?

92Excellent · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

93Exceptional
How it's scored
57.7/60Stars — 3,584 stars
24.7/25Forks — 917 forks
10.4/15Watchers — 75 watchers
Inputs used
forks917
stars3,584
watchers75
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

85Excellent
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
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges—
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_services—
has_pull_request_templateno

Ecosystem adoption (downloads)

100Exceptional
How it's scored
80/80Total downloads — 265,222,740 downloads all-time across rubygems
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesshoulda-matchers
dependents—
ecosystemsrubygems
total_downloads265,222,740
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?

79Good · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

62Moderate
How it's scored
25.2/54Bus factor — 2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
13.5/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 40% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 100 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 88 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor2
contributors_sampled100
top_contributor_share0.402

Issue & PR responsiveness

68Good
How it's scored
40.1/42Issue resolution — 95% of issues closed
16.3/30PR acceptance — 506/932 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
3/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 8/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
Inputs used
merged_prs506
open_issues36
closed_issues742
prs_merged_7d—
prs_decided_7d—
prs_merged_30d—
prs_decided_30d—
issue_closed_ratio0.954
closed_unmerged_prs426
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

95Exceptional
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain — verified-domain status not read for this organization
21.2/25Owner reach — 890 followers of thoughtbot
25/25Track record — 469 public repos, account ~18 yr old
Inputs used
followers890
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified—
owner_loginthoughtbot
public_repos469
account_age_days6,674
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 37 days ago
20/20Version history — 65 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesshoulda-matchers
ecosystemsrubygems
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish37

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

88Excellent · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

80Excellent
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 4 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — .rubocop.yml
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
16/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 25 out of 28 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 8
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

100Exceptional
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://matchers.shoulda.io
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 4 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsruby, rspec, rails, testing
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://matchers.shoulda.io
docs_sitehttps://matchers.shoulda.io
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

50Moderate · 16% of overall

Security posture

50Moderate
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
2/2.5CI-Tests — 25 out of 28 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 8
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
1.5/7.5Code-Review — Found 8/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 88 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 — 14 commit(s) and 5 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
5/5Security-Policy — security policy file detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — no data
0/7.5Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0/7.5Vulnerabilities — 33 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate5
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.

34At Risk · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

1Critical
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
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_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Legible commit history. Remaining weights renormalized.

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

52Moderate
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — .rubocop.yml
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environment — lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no data
0/8Automated maintenance — no data
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesGemfile.lock
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share—
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Demonstrated agent practice, Automated maintenance. Remaining weights renormalized.

Code legibility for models

54Moderate
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — Ruby without a type-check config
54/55Manageable file sizes — 5/287 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRuby
largest_source_bytes135,267
source_files_sampled287
oversized_source_files5

Key facts

3,584GitHub stars
100contributors
37commits, last 12 months
15days since last push
27releases
2bus factor
36open issues
RubyGemspackage ecosystems

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.0 / 10
5.0aggregate

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 · 2026-07-20 13:27 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
8CI-Tests25 out of 28 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 8
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
2Code-ReviewFound 8/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
10Contributorsproject has 88 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained14 commit(s) and 5 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
10Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0Vulnerabilities33 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 16
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
RubyGemsappraisal2.5.0Gemfile
RubyGemsbundler~> 2.0Gemfile
RubyGemsmutex_m—Gemfile
RubyGemspry—Gemfile
RubyGemspry-byebug—Gemfile
RubyGemsrake13.3.1Gemfile
RubyGemsrspec~> 3.9Gemfile
RubyGemsrubocop—Gemfile
RubyGemsrubocop-packaging—Gemfile
RubyGemsrubocop-rails—Gemfile
RubyGemswarnings_logger—Gemfile
RubyGemszeus—Gemfile
RubyGemsfssm—Gemfile
RubyGemsredcarpet—Gemfile
RubyGemsrouge—Gemfile
RubyGemsyard—Gemfile
All dependencies 51

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 16 direct and 35 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
RubyGemsappraisal2.5.0direct
RubyGemsfssm0.2.10direct
RubyGemsmutex_m—direct
RubyGemsmutex_m0.2.0direct
RubyGemspry0.14.2direct
RubyGemspry-byebug3.10.1direct
RubyGemsrake13.3.1direct
RubyGemsredcarpet3.6.0direct
RubyGemsrouge4.2.0direct
RubyGemsrspec3.12.0direct
RubyGemsrubocop1.84.2direct
RubyGemsrubocop-packaging0.5.2direct
RubyGemsrubocop-rails2.23.1direct
RubyGemswarnings_logger0.1.1direct
RubyGemsyard0.9.34direct
RubyGemszeus0.16.0direct
RubyGemsactivesupport—indirect
RubyGemsactivesupport7.1.3indirect
RubyGemsast2.4.3indirect
RubyGemsbase640.2.0indirect
RubyGemsbigdecimal3.1.6indirect
RubyGemsbyebug11.1.3indirect
RubyGemscoderay1.1.3indirect
RubyGemsconcurrent-ruby1.2.3indirect
RubyGemsconnection_pool2.4.1indirect
RubyGemsdiff-lcs1.5.1indirect
RubyGemsdrb2.2.0indirect
RubyGemsi18n1.14.1indirect
RubyGemsjson2.18.1indirect
RubyGemslanguage_server-protocol3.17.0.5indirect
RubyGemslint_roller1.1.0indirect
RubyGemsmethod_source1.0.0indirect
RubyGemsminitest6.0.1indirect
RubyGemsparallel1.27.0indirect
RubyGemsparser3.3.10.2indirect
RubyGemsprism1.9.0indirect
RubyGemsracc1.8.1indirect
RubyGemsrack3.0.9indirect
RubyGemsrainbow3.1.1indirect
RubyGemsregexp_parser2.11.3indirect
RubyGemsrspec-core3.12.2indirect
RubyGemsrspec-expectations3.12.3indirect
RubyGemsrspec-mocks3.12.6indirect
RubyGemsrspec-support3.12.1indirect
RubyGemsrubocop-ast1.49.0indirect
RubyGemsruby-progressbar1.13.0indirect
RubyGemsruby2_keywords0.0.5indirect
RubyGemsthor1.3.0indirect
RubyGemstzinfo2.0.6indirect
RubyGemsunicode-display_width3.2.0indirect
RubyGemsunicode-emoji4.2.0indirect
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 thoughtbot/shoulda-matchers. Read them side by side →

96rubocop/rubocop-rspecCode style checking for RSpec files.Exceptional98chatwoot/chatwootOpen-source live-chat, email support, omni-channel desk. An alternative to Intercom, Zendesk, Salesforce Service Cloud etc. 🔥💬Exceptional98rails/railsRuby on RailsExceptional97primer/view_componentsViewComponents for the Primer Design SystemExceptional96solidusio/solidus🛒 Solidus, the open-source eCommerce framework for industry trailblazers.Exceptional96openfoodfoundation/openfoodnetworkConnect suppliers, distributors and consumers to trade local produce.Exceptional

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 v0.15.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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