Public record
Software health reportschema 0.11.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-17 08:53 UTC

TattdCodeMonkey / crc

CRC library in elixir

C++MIT★ 28 stars⑂ 15 forkssince Nov 2015View on GitHub ↗

TattdCodeMonkey/crc holds a health index of 48 out of 100, placing it in the Weak band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (62/100) and lowest on Vitality (34/100). It was last updated 118 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

48
overall / 100
Weak

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.

48
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 49 is calibrated to 48 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Rodney NorrisPersonal account
32 followers46 public repossince Jul 2012@elastic

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
Hexcrc0.10.633,05226257 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

34At Risk · 21% of overall
How it's scored
9.9/36Push recencylast push 118 days ago
3.5/36Commit cadence5/52 weeks with commits
9.7/18Commit volume11 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
commits_last_year11
human_commit_share
days_since_last_push118
active_weeks_last_year5
How it's scored
16.2/27Ships releases20 version tags (no GitHub releases)
16.2/36Release recencylatest release 257 days ago
12.6/27Release cadencea release every ~310.4 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count20
latest_release_tagv0.10.6
releases_from_tagsyes
days_since_latest_release257
mean_days_between_releases310.4
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?

49Weak · 17% of overall
How it's scored
23.2/60Stars28 stars
9.6/25Forks15 forks
0/15Watchers2 watchers
Inputs used
forks15
stars28
watchers2
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (MIT)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
60.3/80Monthly downloads33,052 downloads/month across hex
0/20Registry dependentsnot reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagescrc
dependents
ecosystemshex
total_downloads1,472,930
monthly_downloads33,052
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?

62Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
4.5/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 80% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth14 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled14
top_contributor_share0.798
How it's scored
31.5/42Issue resolution75% of issues closed
29/30PR acceptance29/30 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
3/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 4/14 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
Inputs used
merged_prs29
open_issues6
closed_issues18
prs_merged_7d
prs_decided_7d
prs_merged_30d
prs_decided_30d
issue_closed_ratio0.75
closed_unmerged_prs1
first_time_authors_30d
first_time_prs_merged_30d
first_time_prs_decided_30d
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backingpersonal (user) account
0/20Verified domainnot applicable to user accounts
10.9/25Owner reach32 followers of TattdCodeMonkey
24.2/25Track record46 public repos, account ~14 yr old
Inputs used
followers32
owner_typeUser
is_verified
owner_loginTattdCodeMonkey
public_repos46
account_age_days5,116
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable1 package(s) on hex
26/35Publish recencylatest publish 257 days ago
20/20Version history26 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagescrc
ecosystemshex
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish257

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

56Moderate · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows1 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
6/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests3 out of 8 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

60Moderate
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics3 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicscrc, elixir, nerves
has_wikiyes
homepage
docs_site
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

43Weak · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protectionno data
0.8/2.5CI-Tests3 out of 8 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 3
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
1.5/7.5Code-ReviewFound 4/14 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
2.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
10/10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
5/5Fuzzingproject is fuzzed
2.5/2.5Licenselicense file detected
0/7.5Maintained0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
0/5Packagingno data
0/5Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0/5SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releasesno data
0/7.5Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
6.8/7.5Vulnerabilities1 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated15
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive3
scorecard_aggregate4.3
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, 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.

52Moderate · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
0/40Legible commit historyno 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.
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrapc_src/Makefile
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checkingC++ (statically typed)
10/10Reproducible environmentlockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno data
0/8Automated maintenanceno data
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesmix.lock
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_filesc_src/Makefile
has_devcontainerno
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.
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable codeC++ (statically typed)
51/55Manageable file sizes3/41 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageC++
largest_source_bytes112,188
source_files_sampled41
oversized_source_files3

Key facts

28GitHub stars
14contributors
11commits, last 12 months
118days since last push
20releases
1bus factor
6open issues
Hexpackage ecosystems

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.3 / 10
4.3aggregate

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 · 2026-07-17 08:53 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
3CI-Tests3 out of 8 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 3
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
2Code-ReviewFound 4/14 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
10Contributorsproject has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
10Fuzzingproject is fuzzed
10Licenselicense 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
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
9Vulnerabilities1 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 1
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Hexelixir_make~> 0.6mix.exs
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.

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 v0.11.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

How one result sits in the wider record: aggregate statisticsHex.