Public record
Software health reportschema 0.31.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-18 02:31 UTC

xlgmokha / saml-kit

SAML 2.0 SDK for Ruby.

RubyMIT★ 8 stars⑂ 2 forkssince Dec 2017View on GitHub ↗
KindCommand-line toolLibraryhow this is determined

xlgmokha/saml-kit holds a health index of 48 out of 100, placing it in the Weak band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (74/100) and lowest on Sustainability & Governance (25/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

48
overall / 100
Weak

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.

48
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 49 is calibrated to 48 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

mo khanPersonal account
126 followers158 public repossince May 2009@supabase

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
RubyGemssaml-kitpoints to another repo — not scored1.5.0-650 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

54Moderate · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 0 days ago
0.7/36Commit cadence1/52 weeks with commits
9.4/18Commit volume10 commits in the last year
9/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained11 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 9
Inputs used
commits_last_year10
human_commit_share0.68
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year1
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases4 releases published
0/36Release recencylatest release 2,930 days ago
19.8/27Release cadencea release every ~54.7 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count4
latest_release_tagv1.0.16
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release2,930
mean_days_between_releases54.7
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?

34At Risk · 17% of overall
How it's scored
13.7/60Stars8 stars
0/25Forks2 forks
0/15Watchers0 watchers
Inputs used
forks2
stars8
watchers0
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (MIT)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
6.3/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges0
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services
has_pull_request_templateyes

Sustainability & Governance

Will the project survive its people — bus factor, responsiveness, who backs it, and package upkeep?

25At Risk · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 100% of commits
1.4/13.5Contributor breadth1 contributors
3/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled1
top_contributor_share1
How it's scored
0/42Issue resolutionno issues or no data
0/30PR acceptanceno decided pull requests or no data
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs0
open_issues0
closed_issues0
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio
closed_unmerged_prs0
first_time_authors_30d0
first_time_prs_merged_30d0
first_time_prs_decided_30d0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Issue resolution, PR acceptance, Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backingpersonal (user) account
0/20Verified domainnot applicable to user accounts
15.1/25Owner reach126 followers of xlgmokha
25/25Track record158 public repos, account ~17 yr old
Inputs used
followers126
owner_typeUser
is_verified
owner_loginxlgmokha
public_repos158
account_age_days6,315
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

74Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows1 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config.rubocop.yml
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Testsno data
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage sitehttps://rubygems.org/gems/saml-kit
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics6 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicssaml2, ruby, saml-metadata, saml-idp, saml-assertion, saml
has_wikino
homepagehttps://rubygems.org/gems/saml-kit
docs_sitehttps://rubygems.org/gems/saml-kit
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

62Moderate · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protectionno data
0/2.5CI-Testsno data
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-ReviewFound 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0.8/2.5Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
10/10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5Licenselicense file detected
6.8/7.5Maintained11 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 9
0/5Packagingno data
0/5Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0/5SASTno SAST tool detected
0/5Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releasesno data
0/7.5Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated14
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive4
scorecard_aggregate5.2
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, CI-Tests, Packaging, Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisoriesno direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisoriestransitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40No advisories left outstandingno advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories0
affected_packages0
assessed_packages73
unassessed_packages23
affected_by_severitynone
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 73 resolved dependencies against OSV. 23 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
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history67 of 68 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.985
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
10/10Reproducible environmentlockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno agent-authored commits among the last 100
8/8Automated maintenance32 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesdependency 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_configyes
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share0.32
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable codeRuby without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes0/98 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRuby
largest_source_bytes29,198
source_files_sampled98
oversized_source_files0
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto)not applicable to this kind of software
0/20MCP servernot applicable to this kind of software
40/40Runnable examplesexamples
Inputs used
example_dirsexamples
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

8GitHub stars
1contributors
10commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
4releases
1bus factor
0open issues
RubyGemspackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • rubygems package 'saml-kit' points at a different repository (https://github.com/saml-kit/saml-kit/); excluded from ecosystem scoring

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 2 ⇿
0Stars
2Forks

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.

111222212019-042022-122026-08

Each point covers 7 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.2 / 10
5.2aggregate

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 · 2026-08-18 02:30 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
n/aCI-Testsno pull request found
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
3Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
9Maintained11 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 9
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
0Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0SASTno SAST tool detected
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 96

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 96 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
RubyGemsactivemodelindirect
RubyGemsactivemodel8.1.3.1indirect
RubyGemsactivesupport8.1.3.1indirect
RubyGemsaddressable2.9.0indirect
RubyGemsast2.4.3indirect
RubyGemsbase64indirect
RubyGemsbase640.3.0indirect
RubyGemsbenchmark-malloc0.2.0indirect
RubyGemsbenchmark-perf0.6.0indirect
RubyGemsbenchmark-trend0.4.0indirect
RubyGemsbigdecimal4.1.2indirect
RubyGemsbuilder3.3.0indirect
RubyGemsbundlerindirect
RubyGemsbundler-auditindirect
RubyGemsbundler-audit0.9.2indirect
RubyGemscgiindirect
RubyGemscgi0.5.2indirect
RubyGemsconcurrent-ruby1.3.8indirect
RubyGemsconnection_pool3.0.2indirect
RubyGemscrack1.0.0indirect
RubyGemsdate3.4.1indirect
RubyGemsdiff-lcs1.6.1indirect
RubyGemsdocile1.4.1indirect
RubyGemsdrb2.2.3indirect
RubyGemserbindirect
RubyGemserb4.0.4.1indirect
RubyGemsffakerindirect
RubyGemsffaker2.24.0indirect
RubyGemsforwardableindirect
RubyGemsforwardable1.3.3indirect
RubyGemshashdiff1.1.2indirect
RubyGemsi18n1.15.2indirect
RubyGemsio-console0.8.0indirect
RubyGemsirbindirect
RubyGemsirb1.15.1indirect
RubyGemsjson2.21.2indirect
RubyGemslanguage_server-protocol3.17.0.4indirect
RubyGemslint_roller1.1.0indirect
RubyGemsloggerindirect
RubyGemslogger1.7.0indirect
RubyGemsmini_portile22.8.9indirect
RubyGemsminitest6.0.6indirect
RubyGemsnet-hippieindirect
RubyGemsnet-hippie1.2.0indirect
RubyGemsnokogiriindirect
RubyGemsnokogiri1.19.4indirect
RubyGemsparallel1.26.3indirect
RubyGemsparser3.3.7.3indirect
RubyGemspp0.6.2indirect
RubyGemsprettyprint0.2.0indirect
RubyGemsprism1.9.0indirect
RubyGemspsych5.2.3indirect
RubyGemspublic_suffix7.0.5indirect
RubyGemsracc1.8.1indirect
RubyGemsrainbow3.1.1indirect
RubyGemsrakeindirect
RubyGemsrake13.2.1indirect
RubyGemsrdoc6.13.0indirect
RubyGemsregexp_parser2.10.0indirect
RubyGemsreline0.6.0indirect
RubyGemsrexml3.4.4indirect
RubyGemsrspecindirect
RubyGemsrspec3.13.0indirect
RubyGemsrspec-benchmarkindirect
RubyGemsrspec-benchmark0.6.0indirect
RubyGemsrspec-core3.13.3indirect
RubyGemsrspec-expectations3.13.3indirect
RubyGemsrspec-mocks3.13.2indirect
RubyGemsrspec-support3.13.2indirect
RubyGemsrubocopindirect
RubyGemsrubocop1.75.1indirect
RubyGemsrubocop-ast1.43.0indirect
RubyGemsrubocop-rspecindirect
RubyGemsrubocop-rspec3.5.0indirect
RubyGemsruby-profindirect
RubyGemsruby-prof1.7.1indirect
RubyGemsruby-progressbar1.13.0indirect
RubyGemssecurerandomindirect
RubyGemssecurerandom0.4.1indirect
RubyGemssimplecovindirect
RubyGemssimplecov0.22.0indirect
RubyGemssimplecov-html0.13.1indirect
RubyGemssimplecov_json_formatter0.1.4indirect
RubyGemsstringio3.2.0indirect
RubyGemsthor1.3.2indirect
RubyGemstilt2.6.0indirect
RubyGemstzinfo2.0.6indirect
RubyGemsunicode-display_width3.1.4indirect
RubyGemsunicode-emoji4.2.0indirect
RubyGemsuriindirect
RubyGemsuri1.1.1indirect
RubyGemswebmockindirect
RubyGemswebmock3.25.1indirect
RubyGemsxml-kitindirect
RubyGemsxml-kit0.6.0indirect
RubyGemsxmldsig0.7.0indirect
Dependency advisories 0

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 73 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct. 23 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list.

No known advisories affect the assessed dependencies.

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 v0.31.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

How one result sits in the wider record: aggregate statisticsRubyGems.