Public record
Software health reportschema 0.11.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-17 01:54 UTC

aryaminus / controlkeel

Agent control plane for governed AI coding: validate changes, enforce policy gates, track findings, proofs, and evals based on your habits.

ElixirCustom license★ 10 stars⑂ 0 forkssince Mar 2026View on GitHub ↗
KindNetwork servicehow this is determined

aryaminus/controlkeel holds a health index of 62 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Vitality (85/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (29/100). It was last updated 1 day ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

62
overall / 100
Moderate

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.

62
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 58 is calibrated to 62 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

sunimPersonal account
161 followers126 public repossince Dec 2015

This repository is owned by a personal account. A single-owner project carries more continuity risk than an organization-backed one.

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

85Excellent · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 1 days ago
12.5/36Commit cadence18/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume1,072 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained30 commit(s) and 10 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year1,072
human_commit_share
days_since_last_push1
active_weeks_last_year18

Release discipline

98Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases71 releases published
36/36Release recencylatest release 2 days ago
27/27Release cadencea release every ~0.9 days
8/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases5 out of the last 5 releases have a total of 5 signed artifacts.
Inputs used
releases_count71
latest_release_tagv0.3.70
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release2
mean_days_between_releases0.9

Community & Adoption

Does the project have users, downloads, attention, and a welcoming setup for contributors?

29At Risk · 17% of overall
How it's scored
15.5/60Stars10 stars
0/25Forks0 forks
0/15Watchers0 watchers
Inputs used
forks0
stars10
watchers0
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
16.9/22.5Licenselicense file present, not a recognized license
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

Sustainability & Governance

Will the project survive its people — bus factor, responsiveness, who backs it, and package upkeep?

52Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
6.3/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 72% of commits
4.1/13.5Contributor breadth3 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 6 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled3
top_contributor_share0.719
How it's scored
33.6/42Issue resolution80% of issues closed
26.2/30PR acceptance21/24 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 2/21 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs21
open_issues2
closed_issues8
prs_merged_7d
prs_decided_7d
prs_merged_30d
prs_decided_30d
issue_closed_ratio0.8
closed_unmerged_prs3
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
15.9/25Owner reach161 followers of aryaminus
25/25Track record126 public repos, account ~10 yr old
Inputs used
followers161
owner_typeUser
is_verified
owner_loginaryaminus
public_repos126
account_age_days3,863
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

81Excellent · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows5 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests3 out of 3 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

Documentation

100Exceptional
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage sitehttps://controlkeel.com
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics19 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsagents, ai-governance, code-review, compliance, devsecops, elixir, llm, mcp, model-context-protocol, phoenix, policy-as-code, security, skills, tooling, benchmark, observability, ai-agents, compliance-as-code, evals
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://controlkeel.com
docs_sitehttps://controlkeel.com
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

32At Risk · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
2.5/2.5CI-Tests3 out of 3 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
0/7.5Code-ReviewFound 2/21 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
2.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 6 contributing companies or organizations
0/10Dangerous-Workflowdangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.2/2.5Licenselicense file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained30 commit(s) and 10 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5Packagingpackaging workflow detected
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
6/7.5Signed-Releases5 out of the last 5 releases have a total of 5 signed artifacts.
0/7.5Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0/7.5Vulnerabilities35 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated18
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive0
scorecard_aggregate3.2

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.

65Good · 4% of overall
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructionsAGENTS.md
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
0/40Legible commit historyno data
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share
agent_instruction_filesAGENTS.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes9,300
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Legible commit history. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checkingassets/tsconfig.json, packages/npm/controlkeel-sdk/tsconfig.json
10/10Reproducible environmentDockerfile, lockfile
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, package-lock.json
has_dockerfileyes
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configsassets/tsconfig.json, packages/npm/controlkeel-sdk/tsconfig.json
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
27/45Type-checkable codeElixir with type-check config (assets/tsconfig.json, packages/npm/controlkeel-sdk/tsconfig.json)
54.3/55Manageable file sizes10/750 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageElixir
largest_source_bytes237,087
source_files_sampled750
oversized_source_files10

Key facts

10GitHub stars
3contributors
1,072commits, last 12 months
1days since last push
71releases
1bus factor
2open issues
Hexpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Could not fetch hex package 'controlkeel' from its registry
  • GitHub dependency-graph SBOM unavailable (404); the dependency graph may be disabled for this repository

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 3.2 / 10
3.2aggregate

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 01:54 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
10CI-Tests3 out of 3 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 2/21 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
10Contributorsproject has 6 contributing companies or organizations
0Dangerous-Workflowdangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
9Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 10 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
10Packagingpackaging workflow 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
8Signed-Releases5 out of the last 5 releases have a total of 5 signed artifacts.
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0Vulnerabilities35 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 22
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Hexphoenix~> 1.8.5mix.exs
Hexphoenix_ecto~> 4.5mix.exs
Hexecto_sql~> 3.13mix.exs
Hexecto_sqlite3>= 0.0.0mix.exs
Hexpostgrex>= 0.0.0mix.exs
Hexphoenix_html~> 4.1mix.exs
Hexphoenix_live_view~> 1.1.0mix.exs
Hexphoenix_live_dashboard~> 0.8.3mix.exs
Hexesbuild~> 0.10mix.exs
Hextailwind~> 0.3mix.exs
Hexheroiconstailwindlabs/heroiconsmix.exs
Hexreq~> 0.5mix.exs
Hexchromic_pdf~> 1.17mix.exs
Hextelemetry_metrics~> 1.0mix.exs
Hextelemetry_poller~> 1.0mix.exs
Hexgettext~> 1.0mix.exs
Hexjason~> 1.2mix.exs
Hexyaml_elixir~> 2.11mix.exs
Hexdns_cluster~> 0.2.0mix.exs
Hexbandit~> 1.5mix.exs
Hexwebsockex~> 0.4.3mix.exs
Hexburrito~> 1.5.0mix.exs
All dependencies not collected

The resolved dependency set could not be collected for this report: GitHub dependency-graph SBOM unavailable (404); the dependency graph may be disabled for this repository

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 statistics.