Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-11 23:24 UTC

zendesk / zendesk_api_client_rb

Official Ruby Zendesk API Client

RubyApache-2.0★ 407 stars⑂ 182 forkssince Dec 2011View on GitHub ↗

zendesk/zendesk_api_client_rb holds a health index of 73 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (77/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (34/100). It was last updated 50 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

73
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.

73
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 64 is calibrated to 73 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

ZendeskOrganization · verified domain
835 followers889 public repossince May 2008

This repository is backed by an organization — shared, accountable stewardship that can outlive any single maintainer.

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
RubyGemszendesk_api3.1.2-150297 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

53Moderate · 21% of overall
How it's scored
18/36Push recency — last push 50 days ago
7.6/36Commit cadence — 11/52 weeks with commits
14.5/18Commit volume — 40 commits in the last year
1/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 2 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 1
Inputs used
commits_last_year40
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push50
active_weeks_last_year11
How it's scored
16.2/27Ships releases — 94 version tags (no GitHub releases)
36/36Release recency — latest release 50 days ago
12.6/27Release cadence — a release every ~125.3 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count94
latest_release_tagv3.1.2
releases_from_tagsyes
days_since_latest_release50
mean_days_between_releases125.3
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?

73Good · 17% of overall
How it's scored
42.3/60Stars — 407 stars
18.8/25Forks — 182 forks
14.6/15Watchers — 418 watchers
Inputs used
forks182
stars407
watchers418
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (Apache-2.0)
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_servicesbadge.fury.io, github.com
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
79.6/80Total downloads — 45,313,142 downloads all-time across rubygems
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packageszendesk_api
dependents—
ecosystemsrubygems
total_downloads45,313,142
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?

77Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
9.7/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 57% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 82 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 9 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled82
top_contributor_share0.571
How it's scored
38.1/42Issue resolution — 91% of issues closed
23/30PR acceptance — 230/300 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
15/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — all changesets reviewed
Inputs used
merged_prs230
open_issues28
closed_issues276
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio0.908
closed_unmerged_prs70
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
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
20/20Verified domain
21/25Owner reach — 835 followers of zendesk
25/25Track record — 889 public repos, account ~18 yr old
Inputs used
followers835
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedyes
owner_loginzendesk
public_repos889
account_age_days6,682
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on rubygems
26/35Publish recency — latest publish 297 days ago
20/20Version history — 150 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packageszendesk_api
ecosystemsrubygems
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish297

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

71Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 2 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 12 out of 12 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — http://developer.zendesk.com/
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 2 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsruby, zendesk
has_wikiyes
homepagehttp://developer.zendesk.com/
docs_sitehttp://developer.zendesk.com/
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

50Moderate · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — no data
2.5/2.5CI-Tests — 12 out of 12 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
7.5/7.5Code-Review — all changesets reviewed
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 9 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
0.8/7.5Maintained — 2 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 1
0/5Packaging — no data
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
2.5/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 5
5/5Security-Policy — security policy file detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — no data
0/7.5Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0/7.5Vulnerabilities — 49 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated15
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive3
scorecard_aggregate4.8
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, Packaging, Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
11.4/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories — 3 affected: addressable 2.8.7 (high 7.5), yard 0.9.37 (moderate 5.3), json 2.13.2 (low 3.7)
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
30.3/40No advisories left outstanding — 2 advisory-carrying package(s) unaddressed past 90 days; oldest published 156 days ago
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories49
affected_packages14
assessed_packages73
unassessed_packages7
affected_by_severitycritical 1, high 7, moderate 3, low 3
direct_affected_packages3
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 73 resolved dependencies against OSV. 7 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.

34At Risk · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
24/40Legible commit history — 45 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.45
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environment — lockfile
2/10Demonstrated agent practice — 1 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
0/8Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
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_share0.01
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — Ruby without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/129 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRuby
largest_source_bytes34,387
source_files_sampled129
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

407GitHub stars
82contributors
40commits, last 12 months
50days since last push
94releases
1bus factor
28open 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 ★ / 182 ⇿
0Stars
182Forks
93Releases

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.

0408012016020017242012-052019-052026-05
Major 2Minor 35Patch 56

Each point covers 13 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.8 / 10
4.8aggregate

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 · 2026-09-11 23:23 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
10CI-Tests12 out of 12 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
10Code-Reviewall changesets reviewed
10Contributorsproject has 9 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
1Maintained2 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 1
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
0Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
5SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 5
10Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0Vulnerabilities49 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 9
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
RubyGemsjruby-openssl—Gemfile
RubyGemsmini_mime—Gemfile
RubyGemsrake—Gemfile
RubyGemsaddressable>= 2.8.0Gemfile
RubyGemsyard—Gemfile
RubyGemsjson>= 2.3.0Gemfile
RubyGemsscrub_rb—Gemfile
RubyGemsstandard—Gemfile
RubyGemsbump—Gemfile
All dependencies 80

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 10 direct and 70 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
RubyGemsaddressable2.8.7direct
RubyGemsbump0.10.0direct
RubyGemsjruby-openssl0.15.5direct
RubyGemsjson2.13.2direct
RubyGemsmini_mime—direct
RubyGemsmini_mime1.1.5direct
RubyGemsrake13.3.1direct
RubyGemsscrub_rb1.0.1direct
RubyGemsstandard1.51.1direct
RubyGemsyard0.9.37direct
RubyGemsactionpack7.2.2.1indirect
RubyGemsactionview7.2.2.1indirect
RubyGemsactivesupport7.2.2.1indirect
RubyGemsast2.4.3indirect
RubyGemsbase64—indirect
RubyGemsbase640.3.0indirect
RubyGemsbenchmark0.4.1indirect
RubyGemsbigdecimal3.2.2indirect
RubyGemsbuilder3.3.0indirect
RubyGemsbyebug12.0.0indirect
RubyGemsconcurrent-ruby1.3.5indirect
RubyGemsconnection_pool2.5.3indirect
RubyGemscrack1.0.0indirect
RubyGemscrass1.0.6indirect
RubyGemsdiff-lcs1.6.2indirect
RubyGemsdrb2.2.3indirect
RubyGemserubi1.13.1indirect
RubyGemsfaraday—indirect
RubyGemsfaraday2.13.4indirect
RubyGemsfaraday-multipart—indirect
RubyGemsfaraday-multipart1.2.0indirect
RubyGemsfaraday-net_http3.4.1indirect
RubyGemshashdiff1.2.0indirect
RubyGemshashie—indirect
RubyGemshashie5.0.0indirect
RubyGemsi18n1.14.7indirect
RubyGemsinflection—indirect
RubyGemsinflection1.0.0indirect
RubyGemslanguage_server-protocol3.17.0.5indirect
RubyGemslint_roller1.1.0indirect
RubyGemslogger1.7.0indirect
RubyGemsloofah2.24.1indirect
RubyGemsmini_portile22.8.9indirect
RubyGemsminitest5.27.0indirect
RubyGemsmultipart-post—indirect
RubyGemsmultipart-post2.4.1indirect
RubyGemsnet-http0.6.0indirect
RubyGemsnokogiri1.19.0indirect
RubyGemsparallel1.27.0indirect
RubyGemsparser3.3.10.0indirect
RubyGemsprism1.6.0indirect
RubyGemspublic_suffix6.0.2indirect
RubyGemsracc1.8.1indirect
RubyGemsrack3.1.16indirect
RubyGemsrack-session2.1.1indirect
RubyGemsrack-test2.2.0indirect
RubyGemsrails-dom-testing2.3.0indirect
RubyGemsrails-html-sanitizer1.6.2indirect
RubyGemsrainbow3.1.1indirect
RubyGemsregexp_parser2.11.3indirect
RubyGemsrexml3.4.1indirect
RubyGemsrspec3.10.0indirect
RubyGemsrspec-core3.10.1indirect
RubyGemsrspec-expectations3.10.2indirect
RubyGemsrspec-mocks3.10.2indirect
RubyGemsrspec-support3.10.3indirect
RubyGemsrubocop1.80.2indirect
RubyGemsrubocop-ast1.47.1indirect
RubyGemsrubocop-performance1.25.0indirect
RubyGemsruby-progressbar1.13.0indirect
RubyGemssecurerandom0.4.1indirect
RubyGemsstandard-custom1.0.2indirect
RubyGemsstandard-performance1.8.0indirect
RubyGemstzinfo2.0.6indirect
RubyGemsunicode-display_width3.2.0indirect
RubyGemsunicode-emoji4.2.0indirect
RubyGemsuri1.0.3indirect
RubyGemsuseragent0.16.11indirect
RubyGemsvcr6.4.0indirect
RubyGemswebmock3.25.1indirect
Dependency advisories 14

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: 14 carry known advisories, of which 3 are direct. 7 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
rack-session2.1.1indirectcritical12.1.2
addressable2.8.7directhigh12.9.0
activesupport7.2.2.1indirecthigh38.1.2.1
concurrent-ruby1.3.5indirecthigh31.3.7
faraday2.13.4indirecthigh32.14.3
nokogiri1.19.0indirecthigh111.19.4
rack3.1.16indirecthigh193.2.6
uri1.0.3indirecthigh11.0.4
yard0.9.37directmoderate20.9.44
loofah2.24.1indirectmoderate12.25.2
rexml3.4.1indirectmoderate13.4.2
json2.13.2directlow12.19.9
actionview7.2.2.1indirectlow18.1.2.1
rails-html-sanitizer1.6.2indirectlow11.7.1

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.