Public record
Software health reportschema 0.15.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-20 13:42 UTC

zzak / sdoc

Standalone sdoc generator

JavaScript · RubyCustom license★ 0 stars⑂ 0 forkssince Apr 2023forkView on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryhow this is determined

zzak/sdoc holds a health index of 28 out of 100, placing it in the At Risk band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (55/100) and lowest on Vitality (5/100). It was last updated 245 days ago. 2 contributors account for most of its recent work.

28
overall / 100
At Risk

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.

28
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 34 is calibrated to 28 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

zzakPersonal account
892 followers253 public repossince May 2010

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
RubyGemssdoc2.6.5-57274 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

5Critical · 21% of overall

Development activity

7Critical
How it's scored
3.6/36Push recency — last push 245 days ago
0.7/36Commit cadence — 1/52 weeks with commits
2.7/18Commit volume — 1 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
commits_last_year1
human_commit_share—
days_since_last_push245
active_weeks_last_year1

Release discipline

1Critical
How it's scored
0/27Ships releases — no releases published
0/36Release recency — no releases
0/27Release cadence — no releases
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count0
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
0/60Stars — 0 stars
0/25Forks — 0 forks
0/15Watchers — 0 watchers
Inputs used
forks0
stars0
watchers0
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

19Critical
How it's scored
0/22.5README
16.9/22.5License — license file present, not a recognized license
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeno
has_licenseno
readme_badges—
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services—
has_pull_request_templateno

Ecosystem adoption (downloads)

100Exceptional
How it's scored
80/80Total downloads — 80,428,039 downloads all-time across rubygems
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagessdoc
dependents—
ecosystemsrubygems
total_downloads80,428,039
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?

55Moderate · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

63Moderate
How it's scored
25.2/54Bus factor — 2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
14.6/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 35% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 62 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 44 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor2
contributors_sampled62
top_contributor_share0.35

Issue & PR responsiveness

1Critical
How it's scored
0/42Issue resolution — no issues or no data
0/30PR acceptance — no decided pull requests or no data
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs0
open_issues0
closed_issues0
prs_merged_7d—
prs_decided_7d—
prs_merged_30d—
prs_decided_30d—
issue_closed_ratio—
closed_unmerged_prs0
first_time_authors_30d—
first_time_prs_merged_30d—
first_time_prs_decided_30d—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Issue resolution, PR acceptance, Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.

Ownership & stewardship

70Good
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
21.2/25Owner reach — 892 followers of zzak
25/25Track record — 253 public repos, account ~16 yr old
Inputs used
followers892
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginzzak
public_repos253
account_age_days5,909
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

91Excellent
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on rubygems
26/35Publish recency — latest publish 274 days ago
20/20Version history — 57 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagessdoc
ecosystemsrubygems
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish274

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

42Weak · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

60Moderate
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 1 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — no data
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests. Remaining weights renormalized.

Documentation

15Critical
How it's scored
0/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — http://api.rubyonrails.org/
0/10Repository description
0/10Topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics—
has_wikino
homepagehttp://api.rubyonrails.org/
docs_sitehttp://api.rubyonrails.org/
has_readmeno
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionno

Security

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

33At Risk · 16% of overall

Security posture

33At Risk
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
0/2.5CI-Tests — no data
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-Review — Found 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 44 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
2.2/2.5License — license file detected
0/7.5Maintained — 0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
0/5Packaging — no data
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0/5SAST — no SAST tool detected
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_evaluated15
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive3
scorecard_aggregate3.3
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): CI-Tests, 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.

28At Risk · 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)

39Weak
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environment — devcontainer
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
lockfiles—
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontaineryes
has_linter_configno
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

52Moderate
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — JavaScript without a type-check config
52.4/55Manageable file sizes — 1/21 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageJavaScript
largest_source_bytes140,254
source_files_sampled21
oversized_source_files1

Key facts

0GitHub stars
62contributors
1commits, last 12 months
245days since last push
0releases
2bus factor
0open issues
RubyGemspackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Community profile unavailable

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 3.3 / 10
3.3aggregate

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 13:42 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
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
10Contributorsproject has 44 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
9Licenselicense file detected
0Maintained0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
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
Direct dependencies 8
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
RubyGemsrack~> 3.0Gemfile
RubyGemsrake—Gemfile
RubyGemshoe—Gemfile
RubyGemsminitest—Gemfile
RubyGemspuma—Gemfile
RubyGemsrdoc—Gemfile
RubyGemsimportmap-rails—Gemfile
RubyGemsrailties—Gemfile
All dependencies 0

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

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
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 zzak/sdoc. Read them side by side →

100apache/arrowApache Arrow is the universal columnar format and multi-language toolbox for fast data interchange and in-memory analyticsExceptional99opf/openprojectOpenProject is the leading open source project management software for product, project and portfolio management. A powerful Jira alternative with agile planning, issue tracking, roadmaps, Gantt charts, time tracking, collaboration features, and more. Available on premises or in the cloud. ⭐Star us on GitHubExceptional99newrelic/newrelic-ruby-agentNew Relic RPM Ruby AgentExceptional99stripe/stripe-react-nativeReact Native library for Stripe.Exceptional99fluent/fluentdFluentd: Unified Logging Layer (project under CNCF)Exceptional99ruby/rubygemsLibrary packaging and distribution for Ruby.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 v0.15.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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