damex.plex
plex collection
Health score
64 / 100
Usable, but the maintenance or quality evidence is thin.
- Excellent
- Good
- Fair (this collection)
- Poor
- Not scored
Observed 7 of 8 signal groups.
Four are needed before a score is published.
4 needed
Category subscores
- Security
- 0%
- Trust
- 30%
- Quality
- 56%
- 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 3 dependencies bounded | 0 / 1 | Published artifact |
| trust.link_claims | Partly met | 1 of 4 link URLs declared | 0.3 / 1 | Published artifact |
| quality.docs | Partly met | readme, 0 doc files | 1.5 / 3 | Published artifact |
| quality.changelog | Partly met | CHANGELOG.md only, 0 fragments | 0.9 / 2 | Published artifact |
| quality.license_quality | Partly met | license file declared, no SPDX id | 0.45 / 1 | Published artifact |
| quality.ci | Partly met | 2 workflow files, 0 other CI files | 1.6 / 2 | Published artifact |
| maintenance.release_recency | Passed | last release 99 days ago | 3 / 3 | Galaxy index |
| maintenance.changelog_recency | Partly met | 0 unreleased changelog fragments | 0.4 / 1 | Published artifact |
| compat.requires_ansible | Passed | >=2.19.0 | 3 / 3 | Published artifact |
| Signals we could not observeNot observed — these are left out of the score rather than counted against it. | ||||
| trust.ansible_membership | Not observed | not shipped in the ansible package | excluded from this score | ansible-build-data |
| quality.tests | Not observed | no test evidence in the published artifact | excluded from this score | Published artifact |
| compat.membership_currency | Not observed | not shipped in the ansible package | excluded from this score | 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.
- 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.docs
Ship your README and your `docs/` directory INSIDE the published tarball, not only in your Git repository — we do not read repositories at all yet, so a file that exists only there is a file we cannot see. If your `build_ignore` excludes `docs/`, that exclusion is why we observed nothing. Beyond the README this rule counts documentation FILES, so splitting a long README into per-module and per-role pages is what moves it; adding filler pages to raise a count would satisfy the arithmetic and help nobody.
- 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.
- trust.link_claims
Declare the link fields your collection actually has in `galaxy.yml` — `repository`, `documentation`, `homepage` and `issues` — and correct any we reported as unparseable, which is usually a stray character rather than a wrong address. This is a metadata edit: we never fetch what is behind these URLs, so nothing about your hosting is being graded. Do not invent a URL to fill a field — a scaffolding placeholder left where it was born is shown on your page as the placeholder it is, and an honestly empty field reads better than a link that goes nowhere.
- 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
- Roman Kuzmitskii <ansible@damex.org>