Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-11 19:54 UTC

voxpupuli / beaker

Puppet Acceptance Testing Harness

RubyApache-2.0★ 370 stars⑂ 333 forkssince Aug 2013View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryCommand-line toolhow this is determined

voxpupuli/beaker holds a health index of 96 out of 100, placing it in the Exceptional band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (90/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (52/100). It was last updated 1 day ago. 4 contributors account for most of its recent work.

96
overall / 100
Exceptional

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.

96
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 83 is calibrated to 96 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Vox PupuliOrganization
209 followers392 public repossince Sep 2014

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
RubyGemsbeaker7.8.2-2521 day ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

85Excellent · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 1 days ago
17.3/36Commit cadence — 25/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 140 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year140
human_commit_share0.91
days_since_last_push1
active_weeks_last_year25
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 100 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 1 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~27.4 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count100
latest_release_tagv7.8.2
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release1
mean_days_between_releases27.4

Community & Adoption

Does the project have users, downloads, attention, and a welcoming setup for contributors?

82Excellent · 17% of overall
How it's scored
41.6/60Stars — 370 stars
21/25Forks — 333 forks
12.7/15Watchers — 197 watchers
Inputs used
forks333
stars370
watchers197
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 (Apache-2.0)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges7
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_servicescodecov.io, github.com, shields.io
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
69.8/80Total downloads — 5,227,028 downloads all-time across rubygems
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesbeaker
dependents—
ecosystemsrubygems
total_downloads5,227,028
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?

87Excellent · 23% of overall
How it's scored
43.2/54Bus factor — 4 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
18.9/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 16% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 99 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 41 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor4
contributors_sampled99
top_contributor_share0.162
How it's scored
39.6/42Issue resolution — 94% of issues closed
25.3/30PR acceptance — 1,576/1,866 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
15/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — all changesets reviewed
Inputs used
merged_prs1,576
open_issues9
closed_issues151
prs_merged_7d5
prs_decided_7d5
prs_merged_30d19
prs_decided_30d20
issue_closed_ratio0.944
closed_unmerged_prs290
first_time_authors_30d0
first_time_prs_merged_30d0
first_time_prs_decided_30d0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain
16.7/25Owner reach — 209 followers of voxpupuli
25/25Track record — 392 public repos, account ~12 yr old
Inputs used
followers209
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_loginvoxpupuli
public_repos392
account_age_days4,386

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on rubygems
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 1 days ago
20/20Version history — 252 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesbeaker
ecosystemsrubygems
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish1

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

90Excellent · 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
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 15 out of 15 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

100Exceptional
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/puppet-beaker
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 1 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicshacktoberfest
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/puppet-beaker
docs_sitehttps://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/puppet-beaker
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

77Good · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
3/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
2.5/2.5CI-Tests — 15 out of 15 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
7.5/7.5Code-Review — all changesets reviewed
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 41 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 — 30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5Packaging — packaging workflow detected
4/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 8
2/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 4
4.5/5Security-Policy — security policy file detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
7.5/7.5Token-Permissions — GitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated18
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive0
scorecard_aggregate7.7

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.

52Moderate · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
39.9/40Legible commit history — 68 of 91 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.747
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — .rubocop.yml
0/11Static type checking
0/10Reproducible environment
10/10Demonstrated agent practice — 11 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
8/8Automated maintenance — 9 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
8/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 8
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles—
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0.11
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0.09
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — Ruby without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/202 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRuby
largest_source_bytes32,462
source_files_sampled202
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

370GitHub stars
99contributors
140commits, last 12 months
1days since last push
100releases
4bus factor
9open 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 ★ / 333 ⇿
0Stars
333Forks
93Releases

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.

012525037532562013-082020-012026-06
Major 3Minor 77Patch 13

Each point covers 12 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 7.7 / 10
7.7aggregate

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 · 2026-09-11 19:54 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
4Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
10CI-Tests15 out of 15 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
10Code-Reviewall changesets reviewed
10Contributorsproject has 41 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
10Packagingpackaging workflow detected
8Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 8
4SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 4
9Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
0Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
10Token-PermissionsGitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 2
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
RubyGemsfaraday-retry~> 2.1Gemfile
RubyGemsgithub_changelog_generator~> 1.18Gemfile
All dependencies 31

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 2 direct and 29 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
RubyGemsfaraday-retry—direct
RubyGemsgithub_changelog_generator—direct
RubyGemsbase64—indirect
RubyGemsbcrypt_pbkdf—indirect
RubyGemsbeaker-hostgenerator—indirect
RubyGemsbeaker-rspec—indirect
RubyGemsbenchmark—indirect
RubyGemsed25519—indirect
RubyGemsfacter—indirect
RubyGemsfakefs—indirect
RubyGemshocon—indirect
RubyGemsin-parallel—indirect
RubyGemsinifile—indirect
RubyGemslogger—indirect
RubyGemsminitar—indirect
RubyGemsminitest—indirect
RubyGemsnet-scp—indirect
RubyGemsnet-ssh—indirect
RubyGemspstore—indirect
RubyGemspuppet-lint—indirect
RubyGemspuppetlabs_spec_helper—indirect
RubyGemsrake—indirect
RubyGemsreadline—indirect
RubyGemsrexml—indirect
RubyGemsrspec—indirect
RubyGemsrspec-github—indirect
RubyGemsrsync—indirect
RubyGemsserverspec—indirect
RubyGemsstringify-hash—indirect
RubyGemsthor—indirect
RubyGemsvoxpupuli-rubocop—indirect
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.