Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-13 12:03 UTC

yegor256 / sibit

Simplified Command-Line Bitcoin Client and a Ruby library for making Bitcoin payments and checking address balances

RubyMIT★ 27 stars⑂ 11 forkssince Apr 2019View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryCommand-line toolhow this is determined

yegor256/sibit holds a health index of 81 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Vitality (92/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (47/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

81
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.

81
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 69 is calibrated to 81 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Yegor BugayenkoPersonal account
5,328 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

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
RubyGemssibit0.34.3-1048 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

92Excellent · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
22.8/36Commit cadence — 33/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 281 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 19 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year281
human_commit_share0.53
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year33

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 100 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 8 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~26.4 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count100
latest_release_tag0.34.3
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release8
mean_days_between_releases26.4
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?

47Weak · 17% of overall
How it's scored
23/60Stars — 27 stars
8.3/25Forks — 11 forks
0/15Watchers — 2 watchers
Inputs used
forks11
stars27
watchers2
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
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_badges4
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesbadge.fury.io, github.com, shields.io
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
53.7/80Total downloads — 147,461 downloads all-time across rubygems
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagessibit
dependents—
ecosystemsrubygems
total_downloads147,461
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?

67Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
1.2/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 95% of commits
10.8/13.5Contributor breadth — 8 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 10 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled8
top_contributor_share0.946
How it's scored
41.4/42Issue resolution — 99% of issues closed
23.1/30PR acceptance — 148/192 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/11 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs148
open_issues2
closed_issues141
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d1
prs_decided_30d1
issue_closed_ratio0.986
closed_unmerged_prs44
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
25/25Owner reach — 5,328 followers of yegor256
25/25Track record — 215 public repos, account ~15 yr old
Inputs used
followers5,328
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginyegor256
public_repos215
account_age_days5,749
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 8 days ago
20/20Version history — 104 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagessibit
ecosystemsrubygems
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish8

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

76Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 10 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — .rubocop.yml
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 21 out of 21 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
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://www.yegor256.com/2019/05/07/sibit-bitcoin-command-line-client.html
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 5 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsbitcoin, bitcoin-client, ruby, cryptocurrency, blockchain
has_wikino
homepagehttps://www.yegor256.com/2019/05/07/sibit-bitcoin-command-line-client.html
docs_sitehttps://www.yegor256.com/2019/05/07/sibit-bitcoin-command-line-client.html
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

61Moderate · 16% of overall
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 — 21 out of 21 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
0/7.5Code-Review — Found 0/11 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 10 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 19 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_aggregate5.1
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): 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
advisories0
affected_packages0
assessed_packages81
unassessed_packages10
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 81 resolved dependencies against OSV. 10 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.

58Moderate · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
15/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) — llms.txt served by the project website (https://www.yegor256.com/llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history — 46 of 53 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtyes
llms_txt_urlhttps://www.yegor256.com/llms.txt
legible_history_share0.868
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 environment — lockfile
10/10Demonstrated agent practice — 5 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
8/8Automated maintenance — 47 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_configyes
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0.05
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0.47
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — Ruby without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/55 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRuby
largest_source_bytes19,165
source_files_sampled55
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

27GitHub stars
8contributors
281commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
100releases
1bus factor
2open issues
RubyGemspackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 11 ⇿
0Stars
11Forks
79Releases

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.

0246810121142019-052022-122026-07
Major 0Minor 22Patch 57

Each point covers 7 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.1 / 10
5.1aggregate

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 · 2026-09-13 12:03 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
10CI-Tests21 out of 21 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 0/11 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
10Contributorsproject has 10 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 19 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
Direct dependencies 19
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
RubyGemsaruba~>2.2Gemfile
RubyGemscucumber~>11.0Gemfile
RubyGemsdonce~>0.2Gemfile
RubyGemslogger~>1.7Gemfile
RubyGemsminitest~>6.0Gemfile
RubyGemsminitest-reporters~>1.7Gemfile
RubyGemsnokogiri~>1.18Gemfile
RubyGemsos~>1.1Gemfile
RubyGemsqbash~>0.0Gemfile
RubyGemsrake~>13.2Gemfile
RubyGemsrdoc~>8.0Gemfile
RubyGemsrubocop~>1.72Gemfile
RubyGemsrubocop-elegant~>0.5Gemfile
RubyGemsrubocop-minitest~>0.38Gemfile
RubyGemsrubocop-performance~>1.25Gemfile
RubyGemsrubocop-rake~>0.7Gemfile
RubyGemssimplecov~>0.22Gemfile
RubyGemssimplecov-cobertura~>3.0Gemfile
RubyGemswebmock~>3.23Gemfile
All dependencies 91

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 19 direct and 72 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
RubyGemsaruba2.4.1direct
RubyGemscucumber11.1.1direct
RubyGemsdonce0.7.0direct
RubyGemslogger1.7.0direct
RubyGemsminitest6.0.6direct
RubyGemsminitest-reporters1.8.0direct
RubyGemsnokogiri1.19.4direct
RubyGemsos1.1.4direct
RubyGemsqbash0.8.4direct
RubyGemsrake13.4.2direct
RubyGemsrdoc8.0.0direct
RubyGemsrubocop1.91.0direct
RubyGemsrubocop-elegant0.8.0direct
RubyGemsrubocop-minitest0.40.0direct
RubyGemsrubocop-performance1.27.0direct
RubyGemsrubocop-rake0.7.1direct
RubyGemssimplecov0.22.0direct
RubyGemssimplecov-cobertura3.2.0direct
RubyGemswebmock3.26.4direct
RubyGemsaddressable2.9.0indirect
RubyGemsansi1.6.0indirect
RubyGemsast2.4.3indirect
RubyGemsbacktrace—indirect
RubyGemsbacktrace0.4.1indirect
RubyGemsbase640.3.0indirect
RubyGemsbigdecimal4.1.2indirect
RubyGemsbuilder3.3.0indirect
RubyGemscontracts0.17.3indirect
RubyGemscrack1.0.1indirect
RubyGemscucumber-ci-environment11.0.0indirect
RubyGemscucumber-core16.2.0indirect
RubyGemscucumber-cucumber-expressions19.0.1indirect
RubyGemscucumber-gherkin39.1.0indirect
RubyGemscucumber-html-formatter23.1.0indirect
RubyGemscucumber-messages32.3.1indirect
RubyGemscucumber-tag-expressions8.1.0indirect
RubyGemsdecoor—indirect
RubyGemsdecoor0.1.0indirect
RubyGemsdiff-lcs1.6.2indirect
RubyGemsdocile1.4.1indirect
RubyGemsdrb2.2.3indirect
RubyGemselapsed—indirect
RubyGemselapsed0.3.1indirect
RubyGemsellipsized—indirect
RubyGemsellipsized0.3.0indirect
RubyGemserb6.0.6indirect
RubyGemsffi1.17.4indirect
RubyGemshashdiff1.2.1indirect
RubyGemsio-console0.8.2indirect
RubyGemsirb1.18.0indirect
RubyGemsiri—indirect
RubyGemsiri0.11.8indirect
RubyGemsjson—indirect
RubyGemsjson2.21.2indirect
RubyGemslanguage_server-protocol3.17.0.6indirect
RubyGemslint_roller1.1.0indirect
RubyGemsloog—indirect
RubyGemsloog0.8.0indirect
RubyGemsmemoist31.0.0indirect
RubyGemsmini_mime1.1.5indirect
RubyGemsmulti_test1.1.0indirect
RubyGemsopenssl—indirect
RubyGemsopenssl3.3.3indirect
RubyGemsparallel2.2.0indirect
RubyGemsparser3.3.12.0indirect
RubyGemspp0.6.4indirect
RubyGemsprettyprint0.2.0indirect
RubyGemsprism1.9.0indirect
RubyGemspublic_suffix7.0.5indirect
RubyGemsracc1.8.1indirect
RubyGemsrainbow3.1.1indirect
RubyGemsrbs4.0.3indirect
RubyGemsregexp_parser2.12.0indirect
RubyGemsreline0.6.3indirect
RubyGemsretriable3.8.0indirect
RubyGemsretriable_proxy—indirect
RubyGemsretriable_proxy1.0.2indirect
RubyGemsrexml3.4.4indirect
RubyGemsrspec-expectations3.13.5indirect
RubyGemsrspec-support3.13.7indirect
RubyGemsrubocop-ast1.50.0indirect
RubyGemsruby-progressbar1.13.0indirect
RubyGemssimplecov-html0.13.2indirect
RubyGemssimplecov_json_formatter0.1.4indirect
RubyGemssys-uname1.5.1indirect
RubyGemstago0.7.0indirect
RubyGemsthor—indirect
RubyGemsthor1.5.0indirect
RubyGemstsort0.2.0indirect
RubyGemsunicode-display_width3.2.0indirect
RubyGemsunicode-emoji4.2.0indirect
Dependency advisories 0

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 81 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct. 10 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 v0.34.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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