Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-28 07:54 UTC

absinthe-graphql / absinthe

The GraphQL toolkit for Elixir

ElixirCustom license★ 4,399 stars⑂ 557 forkssince Oct 2015View on GitHub ↗

absinthe-graphql/absinthe holds a health index of 84 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Community & Adoption (92/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (48/100). It was last updated 44 days ago. 2 contributors account for most of its recent work.

84
overall / 100
Excellent

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.

84
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 71 is calibrated to 84 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

AbsintheOrganization
43 followers18 public repossince Jan 2016

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
Hexabsinthe1.11.0273,35012284 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

65Good · 21% of overall
How it's scored
18/36Push recencylast push 44 days ago
11.1/36Commit cadence16/52 weeks with commits
15.6/18Commit volume53 commits in the last year
8/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained10 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 8
Inputs used
commits_last_year53
human_commit_share0.95
days_since_last_push44
active_weeks_last_year16
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases26 releases published
36/36Release recencylatest release 84 days ago
12.6/27Release cadencea release every ~190 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count26
latest_release_tagv1.11.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release84
mean_days_between_releases190
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?

92Excellent · 17% of overall
How it's scored
59.1/60Stars4,399 stars
22.9/25Forks557 forks
10.2/15Watchers69 watchers
Inputs used
forks557
stars4,399
watchers69
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

94Exceptional
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
16.9/22.5Licenselicense file present, not a recognized license
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5Code of conduct
7.2/7.2Issue template
6.3/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges6
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateyes
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_servicesgithub.com, shields.io
has_pull_request_templateyes
How it's scored
72.5/80Monthly downloads273,350 downloads/month across hex
0/20Registry dependentsnot reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesabsinthe
dependents
ecosystemshex
total_downloads47,159,541
monthly_downloads273,350
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?

75Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
25.2/54Bus factor2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
15.1/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 33% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth99 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 36 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor2
contributors_sampled99
top_contributor_share0.328
How it's scored
37.7/42Issue resolution90% of issues closed
24.9/30PR acceptance746/900 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
7.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 16/27 approved changesets -- score normalized to 5
Inputs used
merged_prs746
open_issues54
closed_issues470
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio0.897
closed_unmerged_prs154
first_time_authors_30d0
first_time_prs_merged_30d0
first_time_prs_decided_30d0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backingorganization-owned
0/20Verified domain
11.8/25Owner reach43 followers of absinthe-graphql
21.3/25Track record18 public repos, account ~10 yr old
Inputs used
followers43
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_loginabsinthe-graphql
public_repos18
account_age_days3,863

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable1 package(s) on hex
35/35Publish recencylatest publish 84 days ago
20/20Version history122 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesabsinthe
ecosystemshex
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish84

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

71Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows4 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests20 out of 20 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage sitehttp://absinthe-graphql.org
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics7 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsgraphql, elixir, absinthe, relay, apollo-client, api, services
has_wikiyes
homepagehttp://absinthe-graphql.org
docs_sitehttp://absinthe-graphql.org
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

58Moderate · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protectionno data
2.5/2.5CI-Tests20 out of 20 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
3.8/7.5Code-ReviewFound 16/27 approved changesets -- score normalized to 5
2.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 36 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.2/2.5Licenselicense file detected
6/7.5Maintained10 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 8
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
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated15
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive3
scorecard_aggregate5.8
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.

48Weak · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
32.6/40Legible commit history58 of 95 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.611
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
How it's scored
12.6/18One-command bootstrapmix.exs (toolchain convention, no task runner)
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environmentlockfile
4/10Demonstrated agent practice2 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
8/8Automated maintenance5 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
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_languageno
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share0.02
toolchain_manifestsmix.exs
dependency_bot_commit_share0.05
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable codeElixir without a type-check config
54.9/55Manageable file sizes1/552 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageElixir
largest_source_bytes62,758
source_files_sampled552
oversized_source_files1
How it's scored
40/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto)priv/graphql/introspection.graphql, test/support/fixtures/fake_definition.graphql, test/support/fixtures/import_sdl_binary_fn.graphql, test/support/fixtures/import_sdl_path_option.graphql, test/support/fixtures/import_sdl_path_option_fn.graphql, test/support/fixtures/language/kitchen-sink.graphql, test/support/fixtures/language/schema-kitchen-sink.graphql, test/support/fixtures/language/schema-with-emojis.graphql
0/20MCP servernot applicable to this kind of software
0/40Runnable examples
Inputs used
example_dirs
has_mcp_signalno
api_schema_filespriv/graphql/introspection.graphql, test/support/fixtures/fake_definition.graphql, test/support/fixtures/import_sdl_binary_fn.graphql, test/support/fixtures/import_sdl_path_option.graphql, test/support/fixtures/import_sdl_path_option_fn.graphql, test/support/fixtures/language/kitchen-sink.graphql, test/support/fixtures/language/schema-kitchen-sink.graphql, test/support/fixtures/language/schema-with-emojis.graphql
interfaces_expected_of
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): MCP server. Remaining weights renormalized.

Key facts

4,399GitHub stars
99contributors
53commits, last 12 months
44days since last push
26releases
2bus factor
54open issues
Hexpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 557 ⇿
0Stars
557Forks
26Releases

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.

010020030040050060054772015-122021-042026-08
Major 0Minor 7Patch 17

Each point covers 10 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.8 / 10
5.8aggregate

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 · 2026-08-28 07:53 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
10CI-Tests20 out of 20 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
5Code-ReviewFound 16/27 approved changesets -- score normalized to 5
10Contributorsproject has 36 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
9Licenselicense file detected
8Maintained10 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 8
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
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 6
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Hexno_warnpriv/plts/project.pltmix.exs
Hexnimble_parsec~> 1.2.2 or ~> 1.3mix.exs
Hextelemetry~> 1.0 or ~> 0.4mix.exs
Hexdataloader~> 1.0.0 or ~> 2.0mix.exs
Hexdecimal~> 2.0 or ~> 3.0mix.exs
Hexopentelemetry_process_propagator~> 0.3 or ~> 0.2.1mix.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
Dependency advisories not assessed

Advisory matching could not run for this report: No resolved dependencies to assess

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 v0.34.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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