Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-09 15:48 UTC

ash-project / ash

A declarative, extensible framework for building Elixir applications.

ElixirCustom license★ 2,486 stars⑂ 422 forkssince Oct 2019View on GitHub ↗

ash-project/ash holds a health index of 34 out of 100, placing it in the At Risk band. It scores highest on Vitality (99/100) and lowest on Security (45/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

34
overall / 100
At Risk

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.

34
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 74 is calibrated to 88 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02). High-Risk Jurisdiction Policy applies a 75% multiplier to weighted overall health and gives it an At Risk ceiling of 34.

Ownership

Ash FrameworkOrganization
388 followers61 public repossince Dec 2019

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
Hexash3.33.1124,7749011 day ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

99Exceptional · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
34.6/36Commit cadence — 50/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 784 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year784
human_commit_share0.98
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year50

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 76 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 8 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~7.7 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count76
latest_release_tagv3.32.2
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release8
mean_days_between_releases7.7
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?

85Excellent · 17% of overall
How it's scored
55.1/60Stars — 2,486 stars
21.9/25Forks — 422 forks
8.2/15Watchers — 31 watchers
Inputs used
forks422
stars2,486
watchers31
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

86Excellent
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
16.9/22.5License — license file present, not a recognized license
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
6.3/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseno
readme_badges5
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_servicesgithub.com, shields.io, www.bestpractices.dev
has_pull_request_templateyes
How it's scored
67.9/80Monthly downloads — 124,774 downloads/month across hex
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesash
dependents—
ecosystemshex
total_downloads1,929,652
monthly_downloads124,774
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?

66Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
4/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 82% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 99 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 46 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled99
top_contributor_share0.821
How it's scored
37.9/42Issue resolution — 90% of issues closed
26.7/30PR acceptance — 1,591/1,786 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — 0/1 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
1.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 3/28 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
Inputs used
merged_prs1,591
open_issues103
closed_issues964
prs_merged_7d3
prs_decided_7d3
prs_merged_30d41
prs_decided_30d44
issue_closed_ratio0.903
closed_unmerged_prs195
first_time_authors_30d1
first_time_prs_merged_30d0
first_time_prs_decided_30d1
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain
18.6/25Owner reach — 388 followers of ash-project
25/25Track record — 61 public repos, account ~6 yr old
Inputs used
followers388
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_loginash-project
public_repos61
account_age_days2,471

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on hex
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 1 days ago
20/20Version history — 901 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesash
ecosystemshex
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish1

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

74Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 4 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
8/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 2 out of 5 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 4
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 site — https://www.ash-hq.org
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 4 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicselixir, framework, dsl, ash
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://www.ash-hq.org
docs_sitehttps://www.ash-hq.org
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

45Weak · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
3.8/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
1/2.5CI-Tests — 2 out of 5 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 4
1.2/2.5CII-Best-Practices — badge detected: Passing
0.8/7.5Code-Review — Found 3/28 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 46 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
5/5Fuzzing — project is fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packaging — no data
4.5/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 9
5/5SAST — SAST tool is run on all commits
5/5Security-Policy — security policy file detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — no data
7.5/7.5Token-Permissions — GitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
4.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 4 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate8.2
high_risk_jurisdiction_cap34
high_risk_jurisdiction_multiplier75
security_posture_after_multiplier62
security_posture_before_jurisdiction82
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging, Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized. High-Risk Jurisdiction Policy applies a 75% multiplier and gives Security posture an At risk ceiling of 34.
How it's scored
26.6/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories — 1 affected: igniter 0.8.3 (unknown)
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
40/40No advisories left outstanding — no advisory has been public longer than 90 days
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories4
affected_packages3
assessed_packages61
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severityhigh 1, unknown 2
direct_affected_packages1
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 61 resolved dependencies against OSV. 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.

54Moderate · 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 — 98 of 98 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share1
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
How it's scored
12.6/18One-command bootstrap — mix.exs (toolchain convention, no task runner)
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environment — lockfile
2/10Demonstrated agent practice — 1 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
8/8Automated maintenance — 2 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
9/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 9
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesmix.lock
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0.01
toolchain_manifestsmix.exs
dependency_bot_commit_share0.02
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — Elixir without a type-check config
53.8/55Manageable file sizes — 23/1,019 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageElixir
largest_source_bytes264,466
source_files_sampled1,019
oversized_source_files23

Key facts

2,486GitHub stars
99contributors
784commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
76releases
1bus factor
103open 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 ★ / 422 ⇿
0Stars
422Forks
76Releases

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.

0100200300400500422122020-082023-082026-09
Major 0Minor 21Patch 55

Each point covers 6 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 8.2 / 10
8.2aggregate

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 · 2026-09-09 15:47 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
5Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
4CI-Tests2 out of 5 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 4
5CII-Best-Practicesbadge detected: Passing
1Code-ReviewFound 3/28 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
10Contributorsproject has 46 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
10Fuzzingproject is fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
9Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 9
10SASTSAST tool is run on all commits
10Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
10Token-PermissionsGitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
6Vulnerabilities4 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 14
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Hexspark>= 2.6.0mix.exs
Hexecto~> 3.14mix.exs
Hexets~> 0.8mix.exs
Hexdecimal~> 2.0 or ~> 3.0mix.exs
Hexjason>= 1.0.0mix.exs
Hextelemetry~> 1.1mix.exs
Hexreactor~> 1.0mix.exs
Hexplug>= 0.0.0mix.exs
Hexsplode~> 0.3mix.exs
Hexstream_data~> 1.0mix.exs
Hexcrux~> 0.1 and >= 0.1.2mix.exs
Hexpicosat_elixir~> 0.2mix.exs
Hexsimple_sat~> 0.1 and >= 0.1.1mix.exs
Hexigniter~> 0.6 and >= 0.6.29mix.exs
All dependencies 61

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 14 direct and 47 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
Hexcrux0.1.4direct
Hexdecimal3.1.1direct
Hexecto3.14.2direct
Hexets0.9.0direct
Hexigniter0.8.3direct
Hexjason1.4.5direct
Hexpicosat_elixir0.2.3direct
Hexplug1.20.3direct
Hexreactor1.0.6direct
Hexsimple_sat0.1.4direct
Hexspark2.7.2direct
Hexsplode0.3.2direct
Hexstream_data1.4.0direct
Hextelemetry1.4.2direct
Hexbenchee1.5.1indirect
Hexbunt1.0.0indirect
Hexcredo1.7.19indirect
Hexdeep_merge1.0.2indirect
Hexdialyxir1.4.7indirect
Hexearmark_parser1.4.46indirect
Hexeflame1.0.1indirect
Hexelixir_make0.10.0indirect
Hexerlex0.2.9indirect
Hexex_ast0.13.1indirect
Hexex_check0.16.0indirect
Hexex_doc0.40.3indirect
Hexfile_system1.1.1indirect
Hexfinch0.23.0indirect
Hexgit_cli0.3.0indirect
Hexgit_ops2.12.2indirect
Hexglob_ex0.1.12indirect
Hexham0.3.2indirect
Hexhpax1.0.4indirect
Hexiterex0.1.2indirect
Hexmakeup1.2.2indirect
Hexmakeup_diff0.1.1indirect
Hexmakeup_elixir1.0.1indirect
Hexmakeup_erlang1.1.0indirect
Hexmime2.0.7indirect
Hexmimic2.4.0indirect
Hexmint1.9.3indirect
Hexmix_audit2.1.5indirect
Hexmix_test_watch1.4.0indirect
Hexmultigraph0.16.1-mg.4indirect
Hexnimble_options1.1.1indirect
Hexnimble_parsec1.4.2indirect
Hexnimble_pool1.1.0indirect
Hexowl0.13.1indirect
Hexplug_crypto2.2.0indirect
Hexreq0.7.4indirect
Hexrewrite1.3.0indirect
Hexsobelow0.15.0indirect
Hexsourceror1.12.2indirect
Hexspitfire0.4.0indirect
Hexstatistex1.1.1indirect
Hextext_diff0.1.0indirect
Hextz0.28.2indirect
Hexusage_rules1.2.7indirect
Hexyamerl0.10.0indirect
Hexyaml_elixir2.12.2indirect
Hexymlr5.1.6indirect
Dependency advisories 3

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 61 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 3 carry known advisories, of which 1 are direct.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
mint1.9.3indirecthigh21.10.0
igniter0.8.3directunknown10.8.4
usage_rules1.2.7indirectunknown11.2.8

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

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 statistics — Hex.