community.general
The community.general collection is a part of the Ansible package and includes many modules and plugins supported by Ansible community which are not part of more specialized community collections.
Health score
82 / 100
Strong evidence across everything we could observe.
- Excellent (this collection)
- Good
- Fair
- Poor
- Not scored
Observed 8 of 8 signal groups.
Four are needed before a score is published.
4 needed
Category subscores
- Security
- 0%
- Trust
- 100%
- Quality
- 89%
- Maintenance
- 85%
- ansible-core compatibility
- 100%
| Signal | Verdict | What we found | Points | Proved by |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Signals we could observe | ||||
| security.dependency_boundedness | Not met | 0 of 1 dependencies bounded | 0 / 1 | Published artifact |
| trust.ansible_membership | Passed | ships in 12 ansible package majors | 2 / 2 | ansible-build-data |
| trust.link_claims | Passed | 4 of 4 link URLs declared | 1 / 1 | Published artifact |
| quality.docs | Passed | readme, 41 doc files | 3 / 3 | Published artifact |
| quality.changelog | Partly met | changelog.yaml, 0 fragments | 1.6 / 2 | Published artifact |
| quality.license_quality | Partly met | REUSE LICENSES/ directory, no SPDX id | 0.55 / 1 | Published artifact |
| quality.tests | Passed | plugins-only: 786 unit, 1644 integration, 12 sanity, 0 molecule | 3 / 3 | Published artifact |
| quality.ci | Partly met | 3 workflow files, 0 other CI files | 1.6 / 2 | Published artifact |
| maintenance.release_recency | Passed | last release 24 days ago | 3 / 3 | Galaxy index |
| maintenance.changelog_recency | Partly met | 0 unreleased changelog fragments | 0.4 / 1 | Published artifact |
| compat.requires_ansible | Passed | >=2.18.0 | 3 / 3 | Published artifact |
| compat.membership_currency | Passed | ships in ansible 14 (current is 12) | 1 / 1 | ansible-build-data |
No repository evidence yet. ansible.care has not read any collection's Git repository, so every signal above was proved from a published artifact or from Ansible’s own build data. Tests and CI in particular can be proved present this way but never proved absent — so when we cannot see them, we leave them out of the score rather than counting them against you.
What is costing points
Each of these is a signal we observed and could not fully credit.
- security.dependency_boundedness
Give every collection dependency you declare in `galaxy.yml` an upper or pinned bound — `<`, `<=`, `==` or `~=` — so that installing your collection cannot silently pull in an arbitrary future release of somebody else’s. If your collection declares no dependencies at all this rule already awards full marks and there is nothing here to change. If we reported a dependency we could not read, the fix is the syntax of its version range rather than the dependency itself.
- quality.changelog
Ship a `changelogs/changelog.yaml` — the structured form `antsibull-changelog` generates and the `ansible` package consumes — rather than only a hand-maintained `CHANGELOG.md`, and write a fragment into `changelogs/fragments/` as each change lands rather than reconstructing release notes at release time. Both have to be inside the published tarball to be observable: a changelog that lives only in your Git repository is one we cannot read. This is the single highest-leverage change for most collections, because the same missing file is what holds down both changelog rules in this rubric. If you already publish `changelog.yaml` with fragments, this rule is answered.
- quality.license_quality
Declare a machine-readable SPDX identifier in `galaxy.yml`’s `license` field rather than relying on a `LICENSE` file alone: an identifier is what a consuming organisation’s policy tooling reads without a human opening the file. A `LICENSES/` directory following REUSE ranks above a bare root licence file and below the identifier. One exception worth stating: we record the identifier you publish rather than validating it against the SPDX list, so a wrong identifier will earn these marks and mislead your users at the same time — if no SPDX identifier fits your licence, publish the file instead.
What would strengthen this score
These signals can only add points in the current scoring version — they are never counted against you.
- quality.ci
Publish your CI configuration inside the artifact. `.github/workflows/` is what we count most precisely, and other CI config files earn partial credit when your automation runs somewhere we cannot enumerate as exactly. `build_ignore` commonly strips `.github/`, again on the packaging documentation’s own advice, so an absence here is a gap in what we could read rather than a statement that your collection has no CI. In this scoring version this rule can only add points: an unobserved CI signal leaves your calculation rather than scoring zero, so this is worth doing for the credit and never to avoid a deduction.
Links
Authors
- Ansible (https://github.com/ansible)