# tj/terminal-table — health index 57/100 (Moderate)

> Inspection of the public repository tj/terminal-table by inspect.software. It holds a health index of 57 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. The index is a signal derived from publicly visible practice, not a warranty, a security audit, or an endorsement, and it is independent of payment.

- Repository: https://github.com/tj/terminal-table
- Report page: https://inspect.software/software/tj/terminal-table
- Full JSON report: https://inspect.software/api/repositories/tj/terminal-table/report
- Badge: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/inspect-software/badges/main/v1/t/tj/terminal-table.svg
- Inspected: 2026-07-21
- Methodology: metrics 1.13.0, report schema 0.26.0 (https://inspect.software/methodology.md)

## Category summary

| Category | Weight | Index | Band |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vitality | 22% | 40/100 | At risk |
| Community & Adoption | 18% | 73/100 | Good |
| Sustainability & Governance | 24% | 75/100 | Good |
| Engineering Quality | 20% | 51/100 | Moderate |
| Security | 16% | 45/100 | At risk |
| AI Readiness | not counted | 33/100 | At risk |

## Repository facts

| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Description | Ruby ASCII Table Generator, simple and feature rich. |
| Primary language | Ruby |
| License | MIT |
| Stars | 1,572 |
| Forks | 124 |
| Created | 2009-01-07 |
| Last push | 2026-06-22 |
| Latest release | v4.0.0 |
| Commits (last year) | 4 |
| Bus factor | 2 |

## Published packages

| Registry | Package | Latest | Monthly downloads |
|---|---|---|---|
| rubygems | terminal-table | 4.0.0 | — |

## Vitality — 40/100 (At risk)

Is the project alive — is code being written and are releases shipping? Weight: 22% of the overall index.

### Development activity — 37/100 (At risk)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Push recency | partial | 28.8 / 36 | last push 29 days ago |
| Commit cadence | partial | 2.1 / 36 | 3/52 weeks with commits |
| Commit volume | partial | 6.3 / 18 | 4 commits in the last year |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained | not met | 0 / 10 | 0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0 |

### Release discipline — 44/100 (At risk)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ships releases | met | 27 / 27 | 9 releases published |
| Release recency | partial | 7.2 / 36 | latest release 540 days ago |
| Release cadence | partial | 5.4 / 27 | a release every ~437.7 days |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases | excluded | 0 / 10 | no releases found |

### Abandonment — 100/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Project is still maintained | met | 100 / 100 | no human commit for 239 days, with nothing left unanswered |

## Community & Adoption — 73/100 (Good)

Does the project have users, downloads, attention, and a welcoming setup for contributors? Weight: 18% of the overall index.

### Popularity & adoption — 76/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stars | partial | 51.8 / 60 | 1,572 stars |
| Forks | partial | 17.4 / 25 | 124 forks |
| Watchers | partial | 7.2 / 15 | 21 watchers |

### Community health — 50/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| README | met | 22.5 / 22.5 | — |
| License | met | 22.5 / 22.5 | recognized license (MIT) |
| CONTRIBUTING guide | not met | 0 / 18 | — |
| Code of conduct | not met | 0 / 13.5 | — |
| Issue template | not met | 0 / 7.2 | — |
| PR template | not met | 0 / 6.3 | — |

### Ecosystem adoption (downloads) — 100/100 (Excellent)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Registry dependents. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Total downloads | met | 80 / 80 | 404,099,311 downloads all-time across rubygems |
| Registry dependents | excluded | 0 / 20 | not reported by this ecosystem |

## Sustainability & Governance — 75/100 (Good)

Will the project survive its people — bus factor, responsiveness, who backs it, and package upkeep? Weight: 24% of the overall index.

### Maintainer resilience (bus factor) — 65/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bus factor | partial | 25.2 / 54 | 2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits |
| Commit distribution | partial | 16.2 / 22.5 | top contributor authored 28% of commits |
| Contributor breadth | met | 13.5 / 13.5 | 33 contributors |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors | met | 10 / 10 | project has 25 contributing companies or organizations |

### Issue & PR responsiveness — 83/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue resolution | partial | 44.6 / 46.8 | 96% of issues closed |
| PR acceptance | partial | 30.7 / 38.2 | 61/76 decided PRs merged |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review | partial | 7.5 / 15 | Found 8/16 approved changesets -- score normalized to 5 |

### Ownership & stewardship — 75/100 (Good)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership backing | partial | 10 / 30 | personal (user) account |
| Verified domain | excluded | 0 / 20 | not applicable to user accounts |
| Owner reach | met | 25 / 25 | 51,840 followers of tj |
| Track record | met | 25 / 25 | 296 public repos, account ~17 yr old |

### Package maintenance — 79/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Published & resolvable | met | 25 / 25 | 1 package(s) on rubygems |
| Publish recency | partial | 14 / 35 | latest publish 540 days ago |
| Version history | met | 20 / 20 | 22 published versions |
| Not deprecated | met | 20 / 20 | active, not deprecated or yanked |

## Engineering Quality — 51/100 (Moderate)

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place? Weight: 20% of the overall index.

### Engineering practices — 52/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| CI workflows | met | 24 / 24 | 1 workflow(s) |
| Tests present | met | 24 / 24 | — |
| Linter config | not met | 0 / 16 | — |
| Pre-commit hooks | not met | 0 / 9.6 | — |
| .editorconfig | not met | 0 / 6.4 | — |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests | partial | 4 / 20 | 2 out of 10 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 2 |

### Documentation — 50/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| README | met | 30 / 30 | — |
| Documentation directory | not met | 0 / 25 | — |
| Documentation / homepage site | not met | 0 / 15 | — |
| Repository description | met | 10 / 10 | — |
| Topics | not met | 0 / 10 | — |
| Wiki | met | 10 / 10 | — |

## Security — 45/100 (At risk)

Are visible security and supply-chain practices strong, with no malicious dependency and no unresolved high-risk jurisdiction exposure? Weight: 16% of the overall index.

### Security posture — 45/100 (At risk)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging, Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Binary-Artifacts | met | 7.5 / 7.5 | no binaries found in the repo |
| Branch-Protection | not met | 0 / 7.5 | branch protection not enabled on development/release branches |
| CI-Tests | partial | 0.5 / 2.5 | 2 out of 10 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 2 |
| CII-Best-Practices | not met | 0 / 2.5 | no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected |
| Code-Review | partial | 3.8 / 7.5 | Found 8/16 approved changesets -- score normalized to 5 |
| Contributors | met | 2.5 / 2.5 | project has 25 contributing companies or organizations |
| Dangerous-Workflow | met | 10 / 10 | no dangerous workflow patterns detected |
| Dependency-Update-Tool | met | 7.5 / 7.5 | update tool detected |
| Fuzzing | not met | 0 / 5 | project is not fuzzed |
| License | met | 2.5 / 2.5 | license file detected |
| Maintained | not met | 0 / 7.5 | 0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0 |
| Packaging | excluded | 0 / 5 | packaging workflow not detected |
| Pinned-Dependencies | not met | 0 / 5 | dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0 |
| SAST | not met | 0 / 5 | SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0 |
| Security-Policy | not met | 0 / 5 | security policy file not detected |
| Signed-Releases | excluded | 0 / 7.5 | no releases found |
| Token-Permissions | not met | 0 / 7.5 | detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions |
| Vulnerabilities | met | 7.5 / 7.5 | 0 existing vulnerabilities detected |

### High-Risk Jurisdiction Exposure — 100/100 (Excellent)

Only high-confidence self-published location evidence affects this multiplier. Ambiguous matches are review-only; country evidence is not proof of nationality, citizenship, legal registration, malicious intent, or sanctions status.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Policy exposure multiplier | met | 100 / 100 | no confirmed policy-scope location match |

## AI Readiness — 33/100 (At risk)

How well is the repo equipped to be developed and maintained with AI coding agents? An independent, experimental badge — weight 0.0, so it is surfaced on its own and does not affect the overall health score.

### Agent context & guidance — 22/100 (Critical)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agent instructions | not met | 0 / 45 | no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules |
| Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) | not met | 0 / 15 | — |
| Legible commit history | partial | 22.3 / 40 | 41 of 98 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body) |

### Verify loop (build / test / typecheck) — 30/100 (At risk)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| One-command bootstrap | not met | 0 / 18 | — |
| Automated tests | met | 22 / 22 | — |
| Lint / format config | not met | 0 / 11 | — |
| Static type checking | not met | 0 / 11 | — |
| Reproducible environment | not met | 0 / 10 | — |
| Demonstrated agent practice | not met | 0 / 10 | no agent-authored commits among the last 100 |
| Automated maintenance | met | 8 / 8 | 2 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies | not met | 0 / 10 | dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0 |

### Code legibility for models — 55/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Type-checkable code | not met | 0 / 45 | Ruby without a type-check config |
| Manageable file sizes | met | 55 / 55 | 0/25 source files over 60KB |

### Machine-readable interfaces — 40/100 (At risk)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) | not met | 0 / 40 | — |
| MCP server | not met | 0 / 20 | — |
| Runnable examples | met | 40 / 40 | examples |

## Collection warnings

- No resolved dependencies carried a version and a supported ecosystem

## What this report is

inspect.software measures public repositories against a single published, versioned methodology and reports the result as a 1–100 health index. Findings are signals derived from what is visible in public repository data — they are not a security audit, a warranty, or an endorsement, and no result depends on payment.

- Methodology, formulas and weights: https://inspect.software/methodology.md
- What a result does and does not claim: https://inspect.software/wiki/signals-not-warranties.md
- Rating bands: https://inspect.software/wiki/scoring-bands.md
- Corrections: https://inspect.software/contact.md
- Index of all documents: https://inspect.software/llms.txt