Public record
Software health reportschema 0.16.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-20 15:09 UTC

whitesmith / rubycritic

A Ruby code quality reporter

RubyMIT★ 3,502 stars⑂ 234 forkssince Oct 2013View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryhow this is determined
#ruby#static-analysis#quality-reporter#metrics#best-practices

whitesmith/rubycritic holds a health index of 84 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Community & Adoption (85/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (40/100). It was last updated 25 days ago. 2 contributors account for most of its recent work.

84
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.

84
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 71 is calibrated to 84 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

WhitesmithOrganization
17 followers109 public repossince Sep 2013

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
RubyGemsrubycritic5.0.0-83174 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

61Moderate · 21% of overall

Development activity

60Moderate
How it's scored
28.8/36Push recency — last push 25 days ago
7.6/36Commit cadence — 11/52 weeks with commits
13.8/18Commit volume — 33 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 5 commit(s) and 13 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year33
human_commit_share—
days_since_last_push25
active_weeks_last_year11

Release discipline

62Moderate
How it's scored
16.2/27Ships releases — 83 version tags (no GitHub releases)
27/36Release recency — latest release 174 days ago
12.6/27Release cadence — a release every ~151.3 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count83
latest_release_tagv5.0.0
releases_from_tagsyes
days_since_latest_release174
mean_days_between_releases151.3
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?

85Excellent · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

86Excellent
How it's scored
57.5/60Stars — 3,502 stars
19.7/25Forks — 234 forks
9.1/15Watchers — 44 watchers
Inputs used
forks234
stars3,502
watchers44
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

77Good
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (MIT)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
6.3/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges—
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services—
has_pull_request_templateyes

Ecosystem adoption (downloads)

94Exceptional
How it's scored
75/80Total downloads — 16,391,281 downloads all-time across rubygems
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesrubycritic
dependents—
ecosystemsrubygems
total_downloads16,391,281
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?

78Good · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

61Moderate
How it's scored
25.2/54Bus factor — 2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
12.4/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 45% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 96 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 58 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor2
contributors_sampled96
top_contributor_share0.449

Issue & PR responsiveness

80Excellent
How it's scored
34.8/42Issue resolution — 83% of issues closed
24.2/30PR acceptance — 307/381 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
10.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 23/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 7
Inputs used
merged_prs307
open_issues33
closed_issues160
prs_merged_7d—
prs_decided_7d—
prs_merged_30d—
prs_decided_30d—
issue_closed_ratio0.829
closed_unmerged_prs74
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

80Excellent
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain — verified-domain status not read for this organization
9/25Owner reach — 17 followers of whitesmith
25/25Track record — 109 public repos, account ~12 yr old
Inputs used
followers17
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified—
owner_loginwhitesmith
public_repos109
account_age_days4,697
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 174 days ago
20/20Version history — 83 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesrubycritic
ecosystemsrubygems
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish174

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

84Excellent · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

90Excellent
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 1 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — .rubocop.yml
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 25 out of 25 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

75Good
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 5 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsruby, static-analysis, quality-reporter, metrics, best-practices
has_wikino
homepage—
docs_site—
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

49Weak · 16% of overall

Security posture

49Weak
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
2.5/2.5CI-Tests — 25 out of 25 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
5.2/7.5Code-Review — Found 23/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 7
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 58 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
7.5/7.5Maintained — 5 commit(s) and 13 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
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_aggregate4.9
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.

40Weak · 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)

40Weak
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — .rubocop.yml
0/11Static type checking
0/10Reproducible environment
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
lockfiles—
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

55Moderate
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — Ruby without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/131 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRuby
largest_source_bytes7,326
source_files_sampled131
oversized_source_files0

Machine-readable interfaces

100Exceptional
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — not applicable to this kind of software
0/20MCP server — not applicable to this kind of software
40/40Runnable examples — samples
Inputs used
example_dirssamples
has_mcp_signalno
api_schema_files—
interfaces_expected_of—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto), MCP server. Remaining weights renormalized.

Key facts

3,502GitHub stars
96contributors
33commits, last 12 months
25days since last push
83releases
2bus factor
33open issues
RubyGemspackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • No resolved dependencies carried a version and a supported ecosystem

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.9 / 10
4.9aggregate

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 · 2026-07-20 15:08 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
10CI-Tests25 out of 25 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
7Code-ReviewFound 23/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 7
10Contributorsproject has 58 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained5 commit(s) and 13 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
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 30

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 30 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
RubyGemsbundler—indirect
RubyGemsbyebug—indirect
RubyGemsdiff-lcs—indirect
RubyGemsfakefs—indirect
RubyGemsflay—indirect
RubyGemsflog—indirect
RubyGemsjar-dependencies—indirect
RubyGemslaunchy—indirect
RubyGemsmdl—indirect
RubyGemsminitest—indirect
RubyGemsminitest-around—indirect
RubyGemsminitest-mock—indirect
RubyGemsmocha—indirect
RubyGemsostruct—indirect
RubyGemsparser—indirect
RubyGemsprism—indirect
RubyGemspry-debugger-jruby—indirect
RubyGemsrainbow—indirect
RubyGemsrake—indirect
RubyGemsrdoc—indirect
RubyGemsreek—indirect
RubyGemsrexml—indirect
RubyGemsrubocop—indirect
RubyGemsrubocop-minitest—indirect
RubyGemsrubocop-performance—indirect
RubyGemsrubocop-rake—indirect
RubyGemsruby_parser—indirect
RubyGemssimplecov—indirect
RubyGemstty-which—indirect
RubyGemsvirtus—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.

Related records

Inspected repositories sharing catalogue tags or ecosystems with whitesmith/rubycritic. Read them side by side →

96rubocop/rubocop-rspecCode style checking for RSpec files.Exceptional96Shopify/rubydexA high-performance static analysis toolkit for RubyExceptional92rubocop/rubocop-capybaraCode style checking for Capybara files.Excellent97semgrep/semgrepLightweight static analysis for many languages. Find bug variants with patterns that look like source code.Exceptional99opf/openprojectOpenProject is the leading open source project management software for product, project and portfolio management. A powerful Jira alternative with agile planning, issue tracking, roadmaps, Gantt charts, time tracking, collaboration features, and more. Available on premises or in the cloud. ⭐Star us on GitHubExceptional99fluent/fluentdFluentd: Unified Logging Layer (project under CNCF)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 v0.16.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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