Public record
Software health reportschema 0.11.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-17 12:18 UTC

yegor256 / xcop

Command Line Style Checker of XML Documents: to make sure they are always formatted nicely

Ruby · GherkinMIT★ 31 stars⑂ 8 forkssince Aug 2017View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryhow this is determined
#xml#ruby#static-analysis#xml-format#xslt#xsl#html

yegor256/xcop holds a health index of 75 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Vitality (85/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (35/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

75
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.

75
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 65 is calibrated to 75 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Yegor BugayenkoPersonal account
5,356 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
RubyGemsxcop0.10.3-260 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

85Excellent · 21% of overall

Development activity

85Excellent
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
20.8/36Commit cadence — 30/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 128 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 5 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year128
human_commit_share—
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year30

Release discipline

84Excellent
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 24 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 0 days ago
12.6/27Release cadence — a release every ~228.2 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count24
latest_release_tag0.10.3
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release0
mean_days_between_releases228.2
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?

49Weak · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

33At Risk
How it's scored
24/60Stars — 31 stars
7/25Forks — 8 forks
1.7/15Watchers — 3 watchers
Inputs used
forks8
stars31
watchers3
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

50Moderate
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_badges—
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services—
has_pull_request_templateno

Ecosystem adoption (downloads)

72Good
How it's scored
57.5/80Total downloads — 344,365 downloads all-time across rubygems
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesxcop
dependents—
ecosystemsrubygems
total_downloads344,365
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?

70Good · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

41Weak
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
10/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 55% of commits
12.2/13.5Contributor breadth — 9 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 10 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled9
top_contributor_share0.554

Issue & PR responsiveness

77Good
How it's scored
39.4/42Issue resolution — 94% of issues closed
25.8/30PR acceptance — 98/114 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
1.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 1/10 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
Inputs used
merged_prs98
open_issues3
closed_issues45
prs_merged_7d—
prs_decided_7d—
prs_merged_30d—
prs_decided_30d—
issue_closed_ratio0.938
closed_unmerged_prs16
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
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
25/25Owner reach — 5,356 followers of yegor256
25/25Track record — 215 public repos, account ~15 yr old
Inputs used
followers5,356
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginyegor256
public_repos215
account_age_days5,691
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 0 days ago
20/20Version history — 26 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesxcop
ecosystemsrubygems
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish0

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

76Good · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

84Excellent
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 — 25 out of 25 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

Documentation

65Good
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://www.yegor256.com/2017/08/29/xcop.html
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 7 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsxml, ruby, static-analysis, xml-format, xslt, xsl, html
has_wikino
homepagehttps://www.yegor256.com/2017/08/29/xcop.html
docs_sitehttps://www.yegor256.com/2017/08/29/xcop.html
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

46Weak · 16% of overall

Security posture

46Weak
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
0.8/7.5Code-Review — Found 1/10 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
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 5 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
1.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 8 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate4.6
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.

35Weak · 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)

52Moderate
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
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
lockfilesGemfile.lock
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 — 0/10 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRuby
largest_source_bytes11,595
source_files_sampled10
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

31GitHub stars
9contributors
128commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
24releases
1bus factor
3open issues
RubyGemspackage ecosystems

More detail

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 · 2026-07-17 12:18 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
1Code-ReviewFound 1/10 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
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 5 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
2Vulnerabilities8 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 14
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
RubyGemscucumber~>11.0Gemfile
RubyGemserb~>6.0Gemfile
RubyGemsloog>0Gemfile
RubyGemsminitest~>6.0Gemfile
RubyGemsminitest-reporters~>1.7Gemfile
RubyGemsrake~>13.2Gemfile
RubyGemsrubocop~>1.75Gemfile
RubyGemsrubocop-elegant~>0.5Gemfile
RubyGemsrubocop-minitest~>0.38Gemfile
RubyGemsrubocop-performance~>1.25Gemfile
RubyGemsrubocop-rake~>0.7Gemfile
RubyGemssimplecov~>0.22Gemfile
RubyGemssimplecov-cobertura~>3.1Gemfile
RubyGemsyard~>0.9Gemfile
All dependencies 60

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 14 direct and 46 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
RubyGemscucumber11.1.1direct
RubyGemserb6.0.5direct
RubyGemsloog0.8.0direct
RubyGemsminitest6.0.6direct
RubyGemsminitest-reporters1.8.0direct
RubyGemsrake13.4.2direct
RubyGemsrubocop1.88.2direct
RubyGemsrubocop-elegant0.7.1direct
RubyGemsrubocop-minitest0.39.1direct
RubyGemsrubocop-performance1.26.1direct
RubyGemsrubocop-rake0.7.1direct
RubyGemssimplecov0.22.0direct
RubyGemssimplecov-cobertura3.1.0direct
RubyGemsyard0.9.44direct
RubyGemsansi1.6.0indirect
RubyGemsast2.4.3indirect
RubyGemsbase640.3.0indirect
RubyGemsbigdecimal4.1.2indirect
RubyGemsbuilder3.3.0indirect
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
RubyGemsdiff-lcs1.6.2indirect
RubyGemsdiffer—indirect
RubyGemsdiffer0.1.2indirect
RubyGemsdocile1.4.1indirect
RubyGemsdrb2.2.3indirect
RubyGemsellipsized0.3.0indirect
RubyGemsffi1.17.4indirect
RubyGemsjson2.20.0indirect
RubyGemslanguage_server-protocol3.17.0.6indirect
RubyGemslint_roller1.1.0indirect
RubyGemslogger1.7.0indirect
RubyGemsmemoist31.0.0indirect
RubyGemsmini_mime1.1.5indirect
RubyGemsmulti_test1.1.0indirect
RubyGemsnokogiri—indirect
RubyGemsnokogiri1.19.3indirect
RubyGemsparallel2.1.0indirect
RubyGemsparser3.3.11.1indirect
RubyGemsprism1.9.0indirect
RubyGemsracc1.8.1indirect
RubyGemsrainbow—indirect
RubyGemsrainbow3.1.1indirect
RubyGemsregexp_parser2.12.0indirect
RubyGemsrexml3.4.4indirect
RubyGemsrubocop-ast1.49.1indirect
RubyGemsruby-progressbar1.13.0indirect
RubyGemssimplecov-html0.13.2indirect
RubyGemssimplecov_json_formatter0.1.4indirect
RubyGemsslop—indirect
RubyGemsslop4.10.1indirect
RubyGemssys-uname1.5.1indirect
RubyGemsunicode-display_width3.2.0indirect
RubyGemsunicode-emoji4.2.0indirect
RubyGemswin32ole1.9.3indirect
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 yegor256/xcop. Read them side by side →

97sparklemotion/nokogiriNokogiri (鋸) makes it easy and painless to work with XML and HTML from Ruby.Exceptional98rails/railsRuby on RailsExceptional96rubocop/rubocop-rspecCode style checking for RSpec files.Exceptional96Shopify/rubydexA high-performance static analysis toolkit for RubyExceptional92rubocop/rubocop-capybaraCode style checking for Capybara files.Excellent97Unstructured-IO/unstructuredConvert documents to structured data effortlessly. Unstructured is open-source ETL solution for transforming complex documents into clean, structured formats for language models. Visit our website to learn more about our enterprise grade Platform product for production grade workflows, partitioning, enrichments, chunking and embedding.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 v0.11.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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