Software health reportschema 0.16.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-20 14:43 UTC

yegor256 / ellipsized

A Ruby function that replaces a piece of text with ellipsis in order to make it fit into certain number of characters

RubyMIT★ 2 stars⑂ 2 forkssince May 2025View on GitHub ↗

#ellipsis #ruby #ruby-gem #string-manipulation

yegor256/ellipsized holds a health index of 69 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Vitality (76/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (32/100). It was last updated 1 day ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

overall / 100

Good

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.

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)

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 62 is calibrated to 69 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Yegor BugayenkoPersonal account

5,353 followers215 public repossince Dec 2010@zerocracy

This repository is owned by a personal account. A single-owner project carries more continuity risk than an organization-backed one.

Package ecosystems

Registry	Package	Version	Downloads / mo	Versions	Last publish
RubyGems	ellipsized	0.3.0	-	6	408 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

76Good · 21% of overall

Development activity

82Excellent

How it's scored

36/36	Push recency — last push 1 days ago
18.7/36	Commit cadence — 27/52 weeks with commits
17.8/18	Commit volume — 95 commits in the last year
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 18 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10

Inputs used

commits_last_year	95
human_commit_share	—
days_since_last_push	1
active_weeks_last_year	27

Release discipline

68Good

How it's scored

27/27	Ships releases — 6 releases published
7.2/36	Release recency — latest release 408 days ago
27/27	Release cadence — a release every ~3.5 days
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data

Inputs used

releases_count	6
latest_release_tag	0.3.0
releases_from_tags	no
days_since_latest_release	408
mean_days_between_releases	3.5

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?

32At Risk · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

1Critical

How it's scored

0/60	Stars — 2 stars
0/25	Forks — 2 forks
0/15	Watchers — 2 watchers

Inputs used

forks	2
stars	2
watchers	2
growth_state	unverified
growth_factor_pct	100
growth_unverified_reason	no_history

Community health

50Moderate

How it's scored

22.5/22.5	README
22.5/22.5	License — recognized license (MIT)
0/18	CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5	Code of conduct
0/7.2	Issue template
0/6.3	PR template

Inputs used

has_readme	yes
has_license	yes
readme_badges	—
has_contributing	no
has_issue_template	no
has_code_of_conduct	no
readme_badge_services	—
has_pull_request_template	no

Ecosystem adoption (downloads)

58Moderate

How it's scored

46.6/80	Total downloads — 30,859 downloads all-time across rubygems
0/20	Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem

Inputs used

packages	ellipsized
dependents	—
ecosystems	rubygems
total_downloads	30,859
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?

64Moderate · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

36Weak

How it's scored

9/54	Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
9.8/22.5	Commit distribution — top contributor authored 56% of commits
6.8/13.5	Contributor breadth — 5 contributors
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 13 contributing companies or organizations

Inputs used

bus_factor	1
contributors_sampled	5
top_contributor_share	0.563

Issue & PR responsiveness

74Good

How it's scored

38.5/42	Issue resolution — 92% of issues closed
24.6/30	PR acceptance — 87/106 decided PRs merged
0/13	Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
1.5/15	OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 1/10 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1

Inputs used

merged_prs	87
open_issues	1
closed_issues	11
prs_merged_7d	—
prs_decided_7d	—
prs_merged_30d	—
prs_decided_30d	—
issue_closed_ratio	0.917
closed_unmerged_prs	19
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

75Good

How it's scored

10/30	Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20	Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
25/25	Owner reach — 5,353 followers of yegor256
25/25	Track record — 215 public repos, account ~15 yr old

Inputs used

followers	5,353
owner_type	User
is_verified	—
owner_login	yegor256
public_repos	215
account_age_days	5,694

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

Package maintenance

79Good

How it's scored

25/25	Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on rubygems
14/35	Publish recency — latest publish 408 days ago
20/20	Version history — 6 published versions
20/20	Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked

Inputs used

packages	ellipsized
ecosystems	rubygems
any_deprecated	no
min_days_since_publish	408

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

76Good · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

84Excellent

How it's scored

24/24	CI workflows — 10 workflow(s)
24/24	Tests present
16/16	Linter config — .rubocop.yml
0/9.6	Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4	.editorconfig
20/20	OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 16 out of 16 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10

Inputs used

has_ci	yes
has_tests	yes
has_editorconfig	no
has_linter_config	yes
has_precommit_config	no

Documentation

65Good

How it's scored

30/30	README
0/25	Documentation directory
15/15	Documentation / homepage site — https://rubygems.org/gems/ellipsized
10/10	Repository description
10/10	Topics — 4 topics
0/10	Wiki

Inputs used

topics	ellipsis, ruby, ruby-gem, string-manipulation
has_wiki	no
homepage	https://rubygems.org/gems/ellipsized
docs_site	https://rubygems.org/gems/ellipsized
has_readme	yes
has_docs_dir	no
has_description	yes

Security

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

62Moderate · 16% of overall

Security posture

52Moderate

How it's scored

7.5/7.5	Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5	Branch-Protection — branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
2.5/2.5	CI-Tests — 16 out of 16 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5	CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0.8/7.5	Code-Review — Found 1/10 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
2.5/2.5	Contributors — project has 13 contributing companies or organizations
10/10	Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5	Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
0/5	Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5	License — license file detected
7.5/7.5	Maintained — 18 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5	Packaging — no data
0/5	Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0/5	SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5	Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5	Signed-Releases — no data
0/7.5	Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5	Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected

Inputs used

source	openssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated	16
scorecard_version	v5.5.0
checks_inconclusive	2
scorecard_aggregate	5.2

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

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional

How it's scored

35/35	Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25	Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40	No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date

Inputs used

source	osv
advisories	0
affected_packages	0
assessed_packages	49
unassessed_packages	0
affected_by_severity	none
direct_affected_packages	0

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories, No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 49 resolved dependencies against OSV. 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.

35Weak · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

1Critical

How it's scored

0/45	Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15	Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
0/40	Legible commit history — no data

Inputs used

has_llms_txt	no
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)

52Moderate

How it's scored

0/18	One-command bootstrap
22/22	Automated tests
11/11	Lint / format config — .rubocop.yml
0/11	Static type checking
10/10	Reproducible environment — lockfile
0/10	Demonstrated agent practice — no data
0/8	Automated maintenance — no data
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

has_nix	no
has_tests	yes
lockfiles	Gemfile.lock
has_dockerfile	no
typed_language	no
bootstrap_files	—
has_devcontainer	no
has_linter_config	yes
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

0/45	Type-checkable code — Ruby without a type-check config
55/55	Manageable file sizes — 0/3 source files over 60KB

Inputs used

primary_language	Ruby
largest_source_bytes	7,604
source_files_sampled	3
oversized_source_files	0

Key facts

2GitHub stars

5contributors

95commits, last 12 months

1days since last push

6releases

1bus factor

1open issues

RubyGemspackage ecosystems

More detail

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 · 2026-07-20 14:42 UTC

10	Binary-Artifacts	no binaries found in the repo
0	Branch-Protection	branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
10	CI-Tests	16 out of 16 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0	CII-Best-Practices	no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
1	Code-Review	Found 1/10 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
10	Contributors	project has 13 contributing companies or organizations
10	Dangerous-Workflow	no dangerous workflow patterns detected
10	Dependency-Update-Tool	update tool detected
0	Fuzzing	project is not fuzzed
10	License	license file detected
10	Maintained	18 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/a	Packaging	packaging workflow not detected
0	Pinned-Dependencies	dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0	SAST	SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0	Security-Policy	security policy file not detected
n/a	Signed-Releases	no releases found
0	Token-Permissions	detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10	Vulnerabilities	0 existing vulnerabilities detected

Direct dependencies 18

Registry	Package	Version constraint	Manifest
RubyGems	donce	`~>0.3`	Gemfile
RubyGems	iri	`~>0.11`	Gemfile
RubyGems	loog	`~>0.6`	Gemfile
RubyGems	minitest	`~>6.0`	Gemfile
RubyGems	minitest-reporters	`~>1.7`	Gemfile
RubyGems	os	`~>1.1`	Gemfile
RubyGems	rake	`~>13.2`	Gemfile
RubyGems	random-port	`~>0.7`	Gemfile
RubyGems	rdoc	`~>7.0`	Gemfile
RubyGems	rubocop	`~>1.64`	Gemfile
RubyGems	rubocop-elegant	`~>0.5`	Gemfile
RubyGems	rubocop-minitest	`~>0.38`	Gemfile
RubyGems	rubocop-performance	`~>1.25`	Gemfile
RubyGems	rubocop-rake	`~>0.7`	Gemfile
RubyGems	simplecov	`~>0.22`	Gemfile
RubyGems	simplecov-cobertura	`~>3.0`	Gemfile
RubyGems	waitutil	`~>0.2`	Gemfile
RubyGems	yard	`~>0.9`	Gemfile

All dependencies 49

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 18 direct and 31 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

Registry	Package	Version	Relation
RubyGems	donce	`0.7.0`	direct
RubyGems	iri	`0.11.8`	direct
RubyGems	loog	`0.8.0`	direct
RubyGems	minitest	`6.0.6`	direct
RubyGems	minitest-reporters	`1.8.0`	direct
RubyGems	os	`1.1.4`	direct
RubyGems	rake	`13.4.2`	direct
RubyGems	random-port	`0.8.2`	direct
RubyGems	rdoc	`7.2.0`	direct
RubyGems	rubocop	`1.86.2`	direct
RubyGems	rubocop-elegant	`0.5.1`	direct
RubyGems	rubocop-minitest	`0.39.1`	direct
RubyGems	rubocop-performance	`1.26.1`	direct
RubyGems	rubocop-rake	`0.7.1`	direct
RubyGems	simplecov	`0.22.0`	direct
RubyGems	simplecov-cobertura	`3.1.0`	direct
RubyGems	waitutil	`0.2.1`	direct
RubyGems	yard	`0.9.44`	direct
RubyGems	ansi	`1.6.0`	indirect
RubyGems	ast	`2.4.3`	indirect
RubyGems	backtrace	`0.4.1`	indirect
RubyGems	builder	`3.3.0`	indirect
RubyGems	date	`3.5.1`	indirect
RubyGems	docile	`1.4.1`	indirect
RubyGems	drb	`2.2.3`	indirect
RubyGems	elapsed	`0.3.1`	indirect
RubyGems	erb	`6.0.4`	indirect
RubyGems	json	`2.19.5`	indirect
RubyGems	language_server-protocol	`3.17.0.5`	indirect
RubyGems	lint_roller	`1.1.0`	indirect
RubyGems	logger	`1.7.0`	indirect
RubyGems	parallel	`2.1.0`	indirect
RubyGems	parser	`3.3.11.1`	indirect
RubyGems	prism	`1.9.0`	indirect
RubyGems	psych	`5.3.1`	indirect
RubyGems	qbash	`0.8.4`	indirect
RubyGems	racc	`1.8.1`	indirect
RubyGems	rainbow	`3.1.1`	indirect
RubyGems	regexp_parser	`2.12.0`	indirect
RubyGems	rexml	`3.4.4`	indirect
RubyGems	rubocop-ast	`1.49.1`	indirect
RubyGems	ruby-progressbar	`1.13.0`	indirect
RubyGems	simplecov-html	`0.13.2`	indirect
RubyGems	simplecov_json_formatter	`0.1.4`	indirect
RubyGems	stringio	`3.2.0`	indirect
RubyGems	tago	`0.7.0`	indirect
RubyGems	tsort	`0.2.0`	indirect
RubyGems	unicode-display_width	`3.2.0`	indirect
RubyGems	unicode-emoji	`4.2.0`	indirect

Dependency advisories 0

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 49 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct.

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.

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.

Software health index

Score profile

Ownership

Package ecosystems

Metrics by category

Key facts

More detail

Feedback

Related records