Public record
Software health reportschema 0.27.0 · metrics 2.5.0 · 2026-07-29 04:07 UTC

WhatsApp / tree-sitter-erlang

Tree-sitter Grammar for Erlang

Erlang · JavaScriptApache-2.0★ 98 stars⑂ 23 forkssince Oct 2022View on GitHub ↗

WhatsApp/tree-sitter-erlang holds a health index of 77 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Vitality (74/100) and lowest on Engineering Quality (57/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

77
overall / 100
Good

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.

77
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 66 is calibrated to 77 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

WhatsAppOrganization
2,922 followers32 public repossince Sep 2013

This repository is backed by an organization — shared, accountable stewardship that can outlive any single maintainer.

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
crates.iotree-sitter-erlang0.20.040,907210 days agoerlangincrementalparsingtext-editors
npmtree-sitter-erlangpoints to another repo — not scored0.0.1-security871482 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

74Good · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
7.6/36Commit cadence — 11/52 weeks with commits
13.1/18Commit volume — 28 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 15 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year28
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year11
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 7 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 0 days ago
12.6/27Release cadence — a release every ~189.7 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count7
latest_release_tag0.20
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release0
mean_days_between_releases189.7
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?

69Good · 17% of overall
How it's scored
32.2/60Stars — 98 stars
11.2/25Forks — 23 forks
7.1/15Watchers — 20 watchers
Inputs used
forks23
stars98
watchers20
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

85Excellent
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (Apache-2.0)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_services
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
61.5/80Monthly downloads — 40,907 downloads/month across crates
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagestree-sitter-erlang
dependents
ecosystemscrates
total_downloads264,450
monthly_downloads40,907
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?

66Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
5.3/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 76% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 13 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 6 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled13
top_contributor_share0.763
How it's scored
35/42Issue resolution — 83% of issues closed
2.5/30PR acceptance — 1/12 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
13.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 29/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 9
Inputs used
merged_prs1
open_issues1
closed_issues5
prs_merged_7d
prs_decided_7d
prs_merged_30d
prs_decided_30d
issue_closed_ratio0.833
closed_unmerged_prs11
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
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain
24.9/25Owner reach — 2,922 followers of WhatsApp
23.1/25Track record — 32 public repos, account ~12 yr old
Inputs used
followers2,922
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified
owner_loginWhatsApp
public_repos32
account_age_days4,693

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on crates
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 0 days ago
20/20Version history — 21 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagestree-sitter-erlang
ecosystemscrates
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish0

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

57Moderate · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 1 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — no data
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
0/10Topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics
has_wikino
homepage
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

62Moderate · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
2.2/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
0/2.5CI-Tests — no data
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
6.8/7.5Code-Review — Found 29/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 9
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 6 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
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained — 15 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packaging — no data
1.5/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 3
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_aggregate5.3
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): ci_tests, packaging, signed_releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories0
affected_packages0
assessed_packages44
unassessed_packages5
affected_by_severitynone
direct_affected_packages0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories, No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 44 resolved dependencies against OSV. 5 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list. This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so the repository dependency graph was assessed instead. That graph mixes development and test pins with shipped dependencies, so only the declared runtime dependencies are scored; transitive findings are reported as context and excluded from the score. Reachability is not analyzed.

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.

58Moderate · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history — 97 of 98 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
legible_history_share0.99
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrap — Makefile
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checking — bindings/python/tree_sitter_erlang/py.typed
10/10Reproducible environment — lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 98
0/8Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
3/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilespackage-lock.json
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_filesMakefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configsbindings/python/tree_sitter_erlang/py.typed
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifestsCargo.toml, go.mod
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
27/45Type-checkable code — Erlang with type-check config (bindings/python/tree_sitter_erlang/py.typed)
52.5/55Manageable file sizes — 1/22 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageErlang
largest_source_bytes2,183,550
source_files_sampled22
oversized_source_files1

Key facts

98GitHub stars
13contributors
28commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
7releases
1bus factor
1open issues
crates.io, Go, npm, PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • Could not fetch go package 'github.com/tree-sitter/tree-sitter-erlang' from its registry
  • npm package 'tree-sitter-erlang' points at a different repository (npm/security-holder); excluded from ecosystem scoring
  • Could not fetch pypi package 'tree-sitter-erlang' from its registry
  • deps.dev does not index crates:tree-sitter-erlang@0.20.0; advisories assessed against the repository dependency graph instead

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 23 ⇿
0Stars
23Forks
6Releases

When each star and fork was added, collected from GitHub and bucketed by day. Cumulative growth sits directly above the daily additions it is made of, so the two read against each other: steady organic accretion looks nothing like an abrupt, short-lived burst. Where that difference is measurable, it is reported as growth authenticity.

048121620242312022-112024-092026-07
Major 0Minor 1Patch 0

Each point covers 4 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.3 / 10
5.3aggregate

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 · 2026-07-29 04:07 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
3Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
n/aCI-Testsno pull request found
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
9Code-ReviewFound 29/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 9
10Contributorsproject has 6 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained15 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
3Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 3
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 6
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
crates.iotree-sitter-language0.1.0Cargo.toml
Gogithub.com/tree-sitter/go-tree-sitterv0.23.1go.mod
npmtree-sitter-cli^0.23.0package.json
npmprettier^2.2.1package.json
npmnode-addon-api^7.1.0package.json
npmnode-gyp-build^4.8.0package.json
All dependencies 49

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 7 direct and 42 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
crates.iotree-sitter-languagedirect
Gogithub.com/tree-sitter/go-tree-sitterv0.23.1direct
npmnode-addon-api7.1.0direct
npmnode-addon-api8.3.0direct
npmnode-gyp-build4.8.4direct
npmprettier2.8.8direct
npmtree-sitter-cli0.23.2direct
crates.ioccindirect
crates.iotree-sitterindirect
npmb4a1.6.7indirect
npmbare-events2.5.4indirect
npmbare-fs4.1.5indirect
npmbare-os3.6.1indirect
npmbare-path3.0.0indirect
npmbare-stream2.6.5indirect
npmbase64-js1.5.1indirect
npmbl4.1.0indirect
npmbuffer5.7.1indirect
npmchownr1.1.4indirect
npmend-of-stream1.4.4indirect
npmfast-fifo1.3.2indirect
npmfs-constants1.0.0indirect
npmieee7541.2.1indirect
npminherits2.0.4indirect
npmlru-cache6.0.0indirect
npmminimist1.2.8indirect
npmmkdirp-classic0.5.3indirect
npmnode-abi3.56.0indirect
npmnpm-run-path3.1.0indirect
npmonce1.4.0indirect
npmpath-key3.1.1indirect
npmprebuildify6.0.1indirect
npmpump3.0.0indirect
npmreadable-stream3.6.2indirect
npmsafe-buffer5.2.1indirect
npmsemver7.6.0indirect
npmstreamx2.22.1indirect
npmstring_decoder1.3.0indirect
npmtar-fs2.1.4indirect
npmtar-fs3.1.1indirect
npmtar-stream2.2.0indirect
npmtar-stream3.1.7indirect
npmtext-decoder1.2.3indirect
npmtree-sitter0.22.4indirect
npmutil-deprecate1.0.2indirect
npmwrappy1.0.2indirect
npmyallist4.0.0indirect
PyPIsetuptoolsindirect
PyPItree-sitterindirect
Dependency advisories 0

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 44 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct. 5 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list.

No known advisories affect the assessed dependencies.

An advisory means the version recorded in the dependency graph falls inside an advisory’s affected range. Reachability is not analysed, and the graph includes development and test pins — a finding may concern tooling rather than shipped software.

Raw JSON report machine-readable

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 v2.5.0, schema v0.27.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

How one result sits in the wider record: aggregate statisticscrates.io, npm.