Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-10-12 01:58 UTC

ash-project / ash_csv

The CSV data layer for Ash Framework

ElixirCustom license★ 16 stars⑂ 11 forkssince Aug 2020View on GitHub ↗

ash-project/ash_csv holds a health index of 69 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (71/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (45/100). It was last updated 24 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

69
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.

69
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 62 is calibrated to 69 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Ash FrameworkOrganization
394 followers63 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
Hexash_csv0.9.92,0302134 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

63Moderate · 21% of overall
How it's scored
28.8/36Push recency — last push 24 days ago
4.8/36Commit cadence — 7/52 weeks with commits
10/18Commit volume — 12 commits in the last year
5/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 6 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 5
Inputs used
commits_last_year12
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push24
active_weeks_last_year7
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 1 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 34 days ago
12.6/27Release cadence — cadence unknown (single release)
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count1
latest_release_tagv0.9.9
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release34
mean_days_between_releases—
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?

55Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
19.1/60Stars — 16 stars
8.3/25Forks — 11 forks
0/15Watchers — 2 watchers
Inputs used
forks11
stars16
watchers2
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_badges4
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_servicesgithub.com, shields.io
has_pull_request_templateyes
How it's scored
44.1/80Monthly downloads — 2,030 downloads/month across hex
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesash_csv
dependents—
ecosystemshex
total_downloads36,767
monthly_downloads2,030
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?

69Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
2.4/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 89% of commits
12.2/13.5Contributor breadth — 9 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 4 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled9
top_contributor_share0.893
How it's scored
42/42Issue resolution — 100% of issues closed
27.3/30PR acceptance — 10/11 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
3/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 6/27 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
Inputs used
merged_prs10
open_issues0
closed_issues5
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio1
closed_unmerged_prs1
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 backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain
18.7/25Owner reach — 394 followers of ash-project
25/25Track record — 63 public repos, account ~6 yr old
Inputs used
followers394
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_loginash-project
public_repos63
account_age_days2,503

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on hex
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 34 days ago
20/20Version history — 21 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesash_csv
ecosystemshex
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish34

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

71Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 1 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
4/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 2 out of 8 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 2
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://hexdocs.pm/ash_csv
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 3 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicscsv, ash, elixir
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://hexdocs.pm/ash_csv
docs_sitehttps://hexdocs.pm/ash_csv
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

49Weak · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — no data
0.5/2.5CI-Tests — 2 out of 8 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 2
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
1.5/7.5Code-Review — Found 6/27 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 4 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
3.8/7.5Maintained — 6 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 5
0/5Packaging — no data
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
1.5/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 3
5/5Security-Policy — security policy file detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — no data
0/7.5Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
1.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 8 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.
How it's scored
14/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories — 1 affected: ash 3.33.4 (high 7.5)
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
advisories8
affected_packages3
assessed_packages49
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severityhigh 2, moderate 1
direct_affected_packages1
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 49 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.

45Weak · 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 — 100 of 100 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
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
0/8Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency 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
toolchain_manifestsmix.exs
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — Elixir without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/14 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageElixir
largest_source_bytes20,368
source_files_sampled14
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

16GitHub stars
9contributors
12commits, last 12 months
24days since last push
1releases
1bus factor
0open 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 ★ / 11 ⇿
0Stars
11Forks

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.

0246810121112020-082023-072026-06

Each point covers 6 days.

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 · 2026-10-12 01:58 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
2CI-Tests2 out of 8 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 2
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
2Code-ReviewFound 6/27 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
10Contributorsproject has 4 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
5Maintained6 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 5
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
0Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
3SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 3
10Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
2Vulnerabilities8 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 2
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Hexash~> 3.0mix.exs
Hexnimble_csv~> 1.2mix.exs
All dependencies 49

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 2 direct and 47 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
Hexash3.33.4direct
Hexnimble_csv1.3.0direct
Hexbunt1.0.0indirect
Hexcredo1.7.19indirect
Hexcrux0.1.4indirect
Hexdecimal3.1.1indirect
Hexdialyxir1.4.8indirect
Hexearmark_parser1.4.46indirect
Hexecto3.14.2indirect
Hexerlex0.2.9indirect
Hexets0.9.0indirect
Hexex_ast0.13.1indirect
Hexex_check0.16.0indirect
Hexex_doc0.40.4indirect
Hexexcoveralls0.18.5indirect
Hexfile_system1.1.1indirect
Hexfinch0.23.0indirect
Hexgit_cli0.3.0indirect
Hexgit_ops2.12.3indirect
Hexglob_ex0.1.12indirect
Hexhpax1.0.4indirect
Hexigniter0.8.4indirect
Hexiterex0.1.2indirect
Hexjason1.4.5indirect
Hexmakeup1.2.2indirect
Hexmakeup_elixir1.0.1indirect
Hexmakeup_erlang1.1.0indirect
Hexmime2.0.7indirect
Hexmint1.10.0indirect
Hexmix_audit2.1.5indirect
Hexmultigraph0.16.1-mg.4indirect
Hexnimble_options1.1.1indirect
Hexnimble_parsec1.4.2indirect
Hexnimble_pool1.1.0indirect
Hexowl0.13.1indirect
Hexreactor1.0.7indirect
Hexreq0.7.4indirect
Hexrewrite1.3.0indirect
Hexsobelow0.15.0indirect
Hexsourceror1.12.3indirect
Hexspark2.7.3indirect
Hexspitfire0.4.1indirect
Hexsplode0.3.2indirect
Hexstream_data1.4.0indirect
Hextelemetry1.4.2indirect
Hextext_diff0.1.0indirect
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 — 49 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 3 carry known advisories, of which 1 are direct.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
ash3.33.4directhigh33.34.6
mint1.10.0indirecthigh41.10.2
decimal3.1.1indirectmoderate13.1.2

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.