Public record
Software health reportschema 0.15.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-20 13:08 UTC

tisba / faraday-follow-redirects

Faraday middleware to follow redirects

RubyMIT★ 38 stars⑂ 11 forkssince Feb 2022View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryhow this is determined
#faraday#ruby-gem#http-client#ruby

tisba/faraday-follow-redirects holds a health index of 63 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (73/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (39/100). It was last updated 18 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

63
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.

63
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 59 is calibrated to 63 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Sebastian CohnenPersonal account
102 followers81 public repossince Apr 2009

This repository is owned by a personal account. A single-owner project carries more continuity risk than an organization-backed one.

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
RubyGemsfaraday-follow_redirects0.5.0-5205 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

55Moderate · 21% of overall

Development activity

59Moderate
How it's scored
28.8/36Push recency — last push 18 days ago
11.8/36Commit cadence — 17/52 weeks with commits
15.1/18Commit volume — 47 commits in the last year
3/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 4 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
commits_last_year47
human_commit_share—
days_since_last_push18
active_weeks_last_year17

Release discipline

50Moderate
How it's scored
16.2/27Ships releases — 5 version tags (no GitHub releases)
16.2/36Release recency — latest release 206 days ago
12.6/27Release cadence — a release every ~350.2 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count5
latest_release_tagv0.5.0
releases_from_tagsyes
days_since_latest_release206
mean_days_between_releases350.2
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?

56Moderate · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

34At Risk
How it's scored
25.4/60Stars — 38 stars
8.3/25Forks — 11 forks
0/15Watchers — 1 watchers
Inputs used
forks11
stars38
watchers1
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

50Moderate
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (MIT)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges—
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services—
has_pull_request_templateno

Ecosystem adoption (downloads)

100Exceptional
How it's scored
80/80Total downloads — 66,907,429 downloads all-time across rubygems
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesfaraday-follow_redirects
dependents—
ecosystemsrubygems
total_downloads66,907,429
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?

61Moderate · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

28At Risk
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
9.8/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 56% of commits
9.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 7 contributors
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled7
top_contributor_share0.563

Issue & PR responsiveness

75Good
How it's scored
42/42Issue resolution — 100% of issues closed
23.6/30PR acceptance — 63/80 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/11 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs63
open_issues0
closed_issues4
prs_merged_7d—
prs_decided_7d—
prs_merged_30d—
prs_decided_30d—
issue_closed_ratio1
closed_unmerged_prs17
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

62Moderate
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
14.5/25Owner reach — 102 followers of tisba
25/25Track record — 81 public repos, account ~17 yr old
Inputs used
followers102
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_logintisba
public_repos81
account_age_days6,301
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

91Excellent
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on rubygems
26/35Publish recency — latest publish 205 days ago
20/20Version history — 5 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesfaraday-follow_redirects
ecosystemsrubygems
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish205

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

73Good · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

88Excellent
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 2 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — .rubocop.yml
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
18/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 18 out of 19 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

50Moderate
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 4 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsfaraday, ruby-gem, http-client, ruby
has_wikino
homepage—
docs_site—
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

53Moderate · 16% of overall

Security posture

53Moderate
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
2.2/2.5CI-Tests — 18 out of 19 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-Review — Found 0/11 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
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
2.2/7.5Maintained — 4 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 3
0/5Packaging — no data
3.5/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 7
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
6.8/7.5Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
6.8/7.5Vulnerabilities — 1 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate5.3
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.

39Weak · 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)

61Moderate
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
5/8Automated maintenance — dependency automation configured, none observed in the sampled commits
7/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 7
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_share0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Demonstrated agent practice. Remaining weights renormalized.

Code legibility for models

55Moderate
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — Ruby without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/8 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRuby
largest_source_bytes13,423
source_files_sampled8
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

38GitHub stars
7contributors
47commits, last 12 months
18days since last push
5releases
1bus factor
0open issues
RubyGemspackage ecosystems

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.3 / 10
5.3aggregate

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 13:07 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
9CI-Tests18 out of 19 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 0/11 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0Contributorsproject has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
3Maintained4 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 3
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
7Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 7
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
9Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
9Vulnerabilities1 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 11
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
RubyGemsappraisal—Gemfile
RubyGemsbundler—Gemfile
RubyGemsrake—Gemfile
RubyGemsrspec—Gemfile
RubyGemsrubocop—Gemfile
RubyGemsrubocop-packaging—Gemfile
RubyGemsrubocop-performance—Gemfile
RubyGemsrubocop-rake—Gemfile
RubyGemsrubocop-rspec—Gemfile
RubyGemssimplecov—Gemfile
RubyGemswebmock—Gemfile
All dependencies 45

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 10 direct and 35 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
RubyGemsappraisal2.5.0direct
RubyGemsrake13.3.1direct
RubyGemsrspec3.13.2direct
RubyGemsrubocop1.86.0direct
RubyGemsrubocop-packaging0.6.0direct
RubyGemsrubocop-performance1.26.1direct
RubyGemsrubocop-rake0.7.1direct
RubyGemsrubocop-rspec3.9.0direct
RubyGemssimplecov0.22.0direct
RubyGemswebmock3.26.2direct
RubyGemsaddressable2.9.0indirect
RubyGemsast2.4.3indirect
RubyGemsbigdecimal4.1.0indirect
RubyGemscrack1.0.1indirect
RubyGemsdiff-lcs1.6.2indirect
RubyGemsdocile1.4.1indirect
RubyGemsfaraday—indirect
RubyGemsfaraday2.14.2indirect
RubyGemsfaraday-net_http3.4.2indirect
RubyGemshashdiff1.2.1indirect
RubyGemsjson2.19.5indirect
RubyGemslanguage_server-protocol3.17.0.5indirect
RubyGemslint_roller1.1.0indirect
RubyGemslogger1.7.0indirect
RubyGemsnet-http0.9.1indirect
RubyGemsparallel1.28.0indirect
RubyGemsparser3.3.11.1indirect
RubyGemsprism1.9.0indirect
RubyGemspublic_suffix7.0.5indirect
RubyGemsracc1.8.1indirect
RubyGemsrainbow3.1.1indirect
RubyGemsregexp_parser2.12.0indirect
RubyGemsrexml3.4.4indirect
RubyGemsrspec-core3.13.6indirect
RubyGemsrspec-expectations3.13.5indirect
RubyGemsrspec-mocks3.13.8indirect
RubyGemsrspec-support3.13.7indirect
RubyGemsrubocop-ast1.49.1indirect
RubyGemsruby-progressbar1.13.0indirect
RubyGemssimplecov-html0.13.2indirect
RubyGemssimplecov_json_formatter0.1.4indirect
RubyGemsthor1.5.0indirect
RubyGemsunicode-display_width3.2.0indirect
RubyGemsunicode-emoji4.2.0indirect
RubyGemsuri1.1.1indirect
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 tisba/faraday-follow-redirects. Read them side by side →

97sparklemotion/nokogiriNokogiri (鋸) makes it easy and painless to work with XML and HTML from Ruby.Exceptional96licensee/licenseeA Ruby Gem to detect under what license a project is distributed.Exceptional94Adyen/adyen-ruby-api-libraryAdyen API Library for RubyExceptional94homebrew/ruby-macho🔩 A pure-Ruby library for parsing Mach-O files.Exceptional94caxlsx/caxlsx xlsx generation with charts, images, automated column width, customizable styles and full schema validation. Axlsx excels at helping you generate beautiful Office Open XML Spreadsheet documents without having to understand the entire ECMA specification. Check out the README for some examples of how easy it is. Best of all, you can validate your xlsx file before serialization so you know for sure that anything generated is going to load on your client's machine.Exceptional90test-kitchen/test-kitchenTest Kitchen is an integration tool for developing and testing infrastructure code and software on isolated target platformsExcellent

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.