Record in aggregate · metrics 2.10.0

The state of Hex.

Aggregate statistics across every inspected repository publishing to Hex — how health distributes, where the download volume sits, and which practices are common or rare, measured against the whole record.

Inspected repositories
1,469 of 1,470 indexed
Monthly downloads under inspection
323M registry-reported
Median health index
50 Moderate
Good or better
22% index 65 and above

Health-index distribution

Latest health index of every inspected repository, in five-point intervals over the 1–100 scale.

Where the download volume sits

Combined monthly downloads by band, against repository counts.

29% of the monthly download volume under inspection flows through repositories below the good band — and the top 1% most-downloaded repositories carry 62% of the entire volume.

Repositories
29%29%18%
Download volume
34%30%
BandRepositoriesDownloads / moVolume share
Exceptional10111M34%
Excellent10995.8M30%
Good19822.2M6.9%
Moderate42747M15%
Weak43028.5M8.8%
At Risk26818M5.6%
Critical27635.8K0.2%

Score shapes

The distribution behind each category median, in ten-point bins — where the record clusters, and where a category separates repositories or saturates.

Vitality46
1100
Community & Adoption49
1100
Sustainability & Governance61
1100
Engineering Quality56
1100
Security38
1100
AI Readiness40
1100

Category profile

Median category score across the scope. Ticks mark the whole-record median. Categories are documented in the methodology wiki.

Vitality
46
Community & Adoption
49
Sustainability & Governance
61
Engineering Quality
56
Security
38
AI Readinessunweighted
40

The state of practice

Share of inspected repositories where the practice is publicly evident. Reports that predate a signal are excluded from its basis, never counted as missing.

Engineering & community practice

README
98% of 1,469
Automated tests
97% of 1,469
License detected
91% of 1,469
CI workflows
82% of 1,469
Documentation directory
21% of 1,469
Contributing guide
19% of 1,469
Code of conduct
16% of 1,469
Security policy
4.4% of 1,469
Linter configuration
2.7% of 1,469

Agent-era signals

One-command bootstrap
17% of 1,469
AI agent instructions
12% of 1,469
llms.txt
7.1% of 1,469

Signals read by the unweighted AI Readiness category.

Does popularity mean health?

Median health index (dot) and the middle half of repositories (band) per popularity bracket, on the shared 1–100 scale.

By GitHub stars

Under 100 stars 964
45 · 35–57
100 – 999 418
54 · 44–67
1,000 – 9,999 83
75 · 57–86
10,000 and more 4
94 · 80–96

By monthly downloads

Under 10K / month 701
45 · 35–57
10K – 1M 584
53 · 41–67
1M – 100M 46
62 · 48–80
100M and more 0

Security under the microscope

Average OpenSSF Scorecard result per check across the scope, weakest first, on Scorecard's 0–10 scale. Check results are mostly all-or-nothing, so the average tracks how much of the record passes. Checks Scorecard reports inconclusive are excluded from scoring, never counted as zero; each row's tooltip carries its basis.

CII-Best-Practices
0.0
SAST
0.4
Signed-Releases
0.4
Branch-Protection
0.6
Pinned-Dependencies
0.8
Fuzzing
1.1
Security-Policy
1.4
Token-Permissions
1.6
Code-Review
2.2
Dependency-Update-Tool
2.4
Maintained
3.2
CI-Tests
3.8
Contributors
6.5
Vulnerabilities
6.9
License
9.0
Binary-Artifacts
10.0
Dangerous-Workflow
10.0
Packaging
10.0

Red flags

Findings that adjust a rating downward rather than scoring into it. Each is reported as a count, as a share of the whole record, and as a rate among the repositories where it could be determined at all.

Abandonment
15611% of the record · 11% of 1,470 assessed
High-risk jurisdiction exposure
120.8% of the record · 0.9% of 1,398 assessed
Malicious dependencies
1<0.1% of the record · 0.6% of 161 assessed
Inorganic growth
1<0.1% of the record · 2.6% of 39 assessed

A red flag needs its own evidence, so its basis is smaller than the record. Growth authenticity is assessed only where day-by-day history was collected; dependency findings only where a dependency graph resolved. Repositories the evidence cannot answer for are left out of the basis rather than counted as passing.

The pulse

How recently each inspected repository last saw a push, at inspection time.

Half of the inspected repositories saw a push within 58 days of inspection.

Push recency
39%18%27%
Last pushRepositoriesShare
Pushed within 30 days57539%
31 – 90 days26818%
91 – 365 days39427%
Over a year23216%

Stewardship & resilience

Who stands behind the inspected repositories, and how many people the code depends on. Both are read by the governance category.

788Organization-stewarded median 56
681Personal accounts median 42

Maintainer bus factor

82% of inspected repositories depend on a single maintainer for the majority of their commits — including 26 with over a million monthly downloads.

1 maintainer
1,190
2 maintainers
190
3–5 maintainers
75
6+ maintainers
4

The dependency iceberg

Declared direct dependencies against the full resolved graph (direct plus transitive), across the 1,127 reports with a collected dependency graph.

The median repository declares 0 direct dependencies — and resolves to 0 packages in total.

Resolved packages per repository

0
961
1 – 5
11
6 – 20
22
21 – 50
32
51 – 200
48
201 – 500
22
501 – 1,000
18
Over 1,000
13

License landscape

The most common detected licenses across the scope (SPDX identifiers).

MIT
654
Apache-2.0
421
Custom license
205
No license detected
137
BSD-2-Clause
12
BSD-3-Clause
11
ISC
9
AGPL-3.0
6
GPL-3.0
4
GPL-2.0
2

Most relied upon

The most-downloaded repositories under inspection publishing to Hex — the records the figures above weigh heaviest. The rest is covered by the full catalogue · tag index.

npm · Hex
81Excellenthealth index
supabase/phoenix
Peace of mind from prototype to production
Elixir · JavaScript★ 3↓ 66.9M/moAug 27, 2026
MITAug 27, 2026 · metrics 2.10.0
npm · PyPI · Hex +2
99Exceptionalhealth index
taskforcesh/bullmq
BullMQ - Message Queue and Batch processing for NodeJS, Python, .NET, Elixir, Rust and PHP based on Redis or PostgreSQL
TypeScript · Rust · Elixir★ 9,336↓ 36.1M/moAug 27, 2026
MITAug 27, 2026 · metrics 2.10.0
npm · Packagist · Hex +4
95Exceptionalhealth index
cucumber/messages
A message protocol for representing results and other information from Cucumber
C# · PHP · Java★ 41↓ 34.8M/moAug 22, 2026
MITAug 22, 2026 · metrics 2.10.0
npm · PyPI · Packagist +4
96Exceptionalhealth index
cucumber/gherkin
A parser and compiler for the Gherkin language.
C★ 400↓ 32.5M/moAug 27, 2026
MITAug 27, 2026 · metrics 2.10.0
PyPI · crates.io · Go +1
91Excellenthealth index
ethereum/c-kzg-4844
A minimal implementation of the Polynomial Commitments API for EIP-4844 and EIP-7594, written in C.
C · Rust★ 174↓ 7.4M/moAug 27, 2026
Apache-2.0Aug 27, 2026 · metrics 2.10.0
npm · Hex
93Exceptionalhealth index
phoenixframework/phoenix
Peace of mind from prototype to production
Elixir · JavaScript★ 23.1K↓ 6.1M/moAug 5, 2026
MITAug 5, 2026 · metrics 2.10.0

Reading these figures

  • Every figure is computed from the latest published inspection of each repository, under the versioned methodology (currently metrics 2.10.0). See the methodology · band scale.
  • Statistics describe the inspected record — software admitted for inspection, not a random sample of all open source. Admission follows the public-interest criteria.
  • Download figures come from package registries; registries that publish no monthly number (Maven Central, Go, NuGet, RubyGems) contribute no volume rather than zero. Coverage per ecosystem is documented in supported ecosystems.
  • Where a signal is unavailable in a report — an uncollected dependency graph, an inconclusive Scorecard check, a report predating a signal — the repository is excluded from that figure's basis, never counted against it.
  • Health indices are signals of publicly visible practice, not audits or warranties — how to read them is covered by the health index.
  • Figures computed 2026-09-11 07:30 UTC; the aggregate is recomputed hourly. The underlying data is available as JSON.