Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-12 19:25 UTC

whomwah / rqrcode

A Ruby library that encodes QR Codes

RubyMIT★ 2,000 stars⑂ 241 forkssince Apr 2008View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryCommand-line toolhow this is determined

whomwah/rqrcode holds a health index of 63 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Community & Adoption (75/100) and lowest on Vitality (42/100). It was last updated 103 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

Duncan RobertsonPersonal account
177 followers74 public repossince Mar 2008@kyan

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
RubyGemsrqrcode3.2.0-34246 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

42Weak · 21% of overall
How it's scored
9.9/36Push recency — last push 103 days ago
5.5/36Commit cadence — 8/52 weeks with commits
13.1/18Commit volume — 28 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
commits_last_year28
human_commit_share0.99
days_since_last_push103
active_weeks_last_year8
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 10 releases published
16.2/36Release recency — latest release 246 days ago
12.6/27Release cadence — a release every ~263.7 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count10
latest_release_tagv3.2.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release246
mean_days_between_releases263.7
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?

75Good · 17% of overall
How it's scored
53.5/60Stars — 2,000 stars
19.8/25Forks — 241 forks
8.2/15Watchers — 31 watchers
Inputs used
forks241
stars2,000
watchers31
growth_stateorganic
growth_factor_pct100
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_badges2
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesgithub.com, shields.io
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
80/80Total downloads — 128,930,448 downloads all-time across rubygems
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesrqrcode
dependents—
ecosystemsrubygems
total_downloads128,930,448
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?

65Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
9.8/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 57% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 36 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 6 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled36
top_contributor_share0.566
How it's scored
42/42Issue resolution — 100% of issues closed
21.5/30PR acceptance — 73/102 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 1/11 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs73
open_issues0
closed_issues65
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio1
closed_unmerged_prs29
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
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
16.2/25Owner reach — 177 followers of whomwah
25/25Track record — 74 public repos, account ~18 yr old
Inputs used
followers177
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginwhomwah
public_repos74
account_age_days6,767
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on rubygems
26/35Publish recency — latest publish 246 days ago
20/20Version history — 34 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesrqrcode
ecosystemsrubygems
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish246

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

58Moderate · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 1 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
16/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 8 out of 10 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 8
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

50Moderate
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 3 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsqrcode, qrcode-generator, 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?

57Moderate · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — no data
2/2.5CI-Tests — 8 out of 10 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
0/7.5Code-Review — Found 1/11 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 6 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
0/7.5Maintained — 0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
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
6.8/7.5Vulnerabilities — 1 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated15
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive3
scorecard_aggregate4.6
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, Packaging, Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories1
affected_packages1
assessed_packages31
unassessed_packages9
affected_by_severitylow 1
direct_affected_packages0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories, No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 31 resolved dependencies against OSV. 9 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list. This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so the repository dependency graph was assessed instead. That graph mixes development and test pins with shipped dependencies, so only the declared runtime dependencies are scored; transitive findings are reported as context and excluded from the score. Reachability is not analyzed.

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.

56Moderate · 4% of overall
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructions — AGENTS.md
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
33.4/40Legible commit history — 62 of 99 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.626
agent_instruction_filesAGENTS.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes1,940
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environment — lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
8/8Automated maintenance — 1 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
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_configno
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0.01
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — Ruby without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/22 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRuby
largest_source_bytes56,581
source_files_sampled22
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

2,000GitHub stars
36contributors
28commits, last 12 months
103days since last push
10releases
1bus factor
0open issues
RubyGemspackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • Star history carried forward from 2026-07-13: GitHub restricted the stargazers API to repository admins, so it can no longer be collected. The repository has 2000 stars today.

More detail

Star and fork history 1,998 ★ / 241 ⇿
1,998Stars
241Forks
10Releases

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.

Only the most recent history is shown — this repository exceeds the collection window, so the earliest history is not captured.

Star history is shown as collected on 2026-07-13. GitHub restricted the stargazers API to repository administrators in July 2026, so this series can no longer be extended; the current star total above remains live.

04008001,2001,6002,0001,998215612009-032017-112026-08
Major 3Minor 3Patch 3

Each point covers 16 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.6 / 10
4.6aggregate

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 · 2026-09-12 19:24 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
n/aBranch-Protectioninternal error: error during branchesHandler.setup: internal error: some github tokens can't read classic branch protection rules: https://github.com/ossf/scorecard-action/blob/main/docs/authentication/fine-grained-auth-token.md
8CI-Tests8 out of 10 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 8
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 1/11 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
10Contributorsproject has 6 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
0Maintained0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
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
9Vulnerabilities1 existing vulnerabilities detected
All dependencies 40

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 40 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
RubyGemsast2.4.3indirect
RubyGemsbenchmark-ips—indirect
RubyGemsbenchmark-ips2.14.0indirect
RubyGemsbundler—indirect
RubyGemschunky_png—indirect
RubyGemschunky_png1.4.0indirect
RubyGemsdiff-lcs1.6.2indirect
RubyGemsjson2.19.2indirect
RubyGemslanguage_server-protocol3.17.0.5indirect
RubyGemslint_roller1.1.0indirect
RubyGemsmemory_profiler—indirect
RubyGemsmemory_profiler1.1.0indirect
RubyGemsparallel1.27.0indirect
RubyGemsparser3.3.10.0indirect
RubyGemsprism1.7.0indirect
RubyGemsracc1.8.1indirect
RubyGemsrainbow3.1.1indirect
RubyGemsrake—indirect
RubyGemsrake13.3.1indirect
RubyGemsregexp_parser2.11.3indirect
RubyGemsrqrcode_core—indirect
RubyGemsrqrcode_core2.1.0indirect
RubyGemsrspec—indirect
RubyGemsrspec3.13.2indirect
RubyGemsrspec-core3.13.6indirect
RubyGemsrspec-expectations3.13.5indirect
RubyGemsrspec-mocks3.13.7indirect
RubyGemsrspec-support3.13.6indirect
RubyGemsrubocop1.81.7indirect
RubyGemsrubocop-ast1.49.0indirect
RubyGemsrubocop-performance1.26.1indirect
RubyGemsruby-progressbar1.13.0indirect
RubyGemsstackprof—indirect
RubyGemsstackprof0.2.27indirect
RubyGemsstandard—indirect
RubyGemsstandard1.52.0indirect
RubyGemsstandard-custom1.0.2indirect
RubyGemsstandard-performance1.9.0indirect
RubyGemsunicode-display_width3.2.0indirect
RubyGemsunicode-emoji4.2.0indirect
Dependency advisories 1

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 31 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 1 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct. 9 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
json2.19.2indirectlow12.19.9

An advisory means the version recorded in the dependency graph falls inside an advisory’s affected range. Reachability is not analysed, and the graph includes development and test pins — a finding may concern tooling rather than shipped software.

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.