Public record
Software health reportschema 0.11.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-17 05:52 UTC

ash-project / crux

Library for boolean satisfiability solving and expression manipulation.

ElixirCustom license★ 13 stars⑂ 3 forkssince Oct 2025View on GitHub ↗

ash-project/crux holds a health index of 81 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (81/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (32/100). It was last updated 14 days ago. 2 contributors account for most of its recent work.

81
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.

81
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 69 is calibrated to 81 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Ash FrameworkOrganization
384 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
Hexcrux0.1.471,581514 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
28.8/36Push recencylast push 14 days ago
9.7/36Commit cadence14/52 weeks with commits
14.8/18Commit volume44 commits in the last year
9/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained11 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 9
Inputs used
commits_last_year44
human_commit_share
days_since_last_push14
active_weeks_last_year14
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases4 releases published
36/36Release recencylatest release 14 days ago
19.8/27Release cadencea release every ~86.7 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count4
latest_release_tagv0.1.4
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release14
mean_days_between_releases86.7
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?

59Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
17.5/60Stars13 stars
2.5/25Forks3 forks
1.7/15Watchers3 watchers
Inputs used
forks3
stars13
watchers3
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

86Excellent
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
0/7.2Issue template
6.3/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseno
readme_badges
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_services
has_pull_request_templateyes
How it's scored
64.7/80Monthly downloads71,581 downloads/month across hex
0/20Registry dependentsnot reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagescrux
dependents
ecosystemshex
total_downloads406,042
monthly_downloads71,581
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?

81Excellent · 23% of overall
How it's scored
25.2/54Bus factor2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
14.3/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 36% of commits
6.8/13.5Contributor breadth5 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 11 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor2
contributors_sampled5
top_contributor_share0.364
How it's scored
42/42Issue resolution100% of issues closed
27.9/30PR acceptance26/28 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
4.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 3/9 approved changesets -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
merged_prs26
open_issues0
closed_issues4
prs_merged_7d
prs_decided_7d
prs_merged_30d
prs_decided_30d
issue_closed_ratio1
closed_unmerged_prs2
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 backingorganization-owned
0/20Verified domainverified-domain status not read for this organization
18.6/25Owner reach384 followers of ash-project
25/25Track record61 public repos, account ~6 yr old
Inputs used
followers384
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified
owner_loginash-project
public_repos61
account_age_days2,416
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable1 package(s) on hex
35/35Publish recencylatest publish 14 days ago
20/20Version history5 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagescrux
ecosystemshex
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish14

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

63Moderate · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows2 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
14/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests15 out of 19 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 7
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 sitehttps://hex.pm/packages/crux
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics2 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicselixir, sat-solver
has_wikino
homepagehttps://hex.pm/packages/crux
docs_sitehttps://hex.pm/packages/crux
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

71Good · 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
1.8/2.5CI-Tests15 out of 19 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 7
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
2.2/7.5Code-ReviewFound 3/9 approved changesets -- score normalized to 3
2.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 11 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
5/5Fuzzingproject is fuzzed
2.5/2.5Licenselicense file detected
6.8/7.5Maintained11 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 9
0/5Packagingno data
2.5/5Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 5
4.5/5SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 9
5/5Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
0/7.5Signed-Releasesno data
7.5/7.5Token-PermissionsGitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
0/7.5Vulnerabilities11 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate7.1
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): 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.

32At Risk · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
0/40Legible commit historyno data
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
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
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environmentlockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno data
5/8Automated maintenancedependency automation configured, none observed in the sampled commits
5/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 5
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesmix.lock
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Demonstrated agent practice. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable codeElixir without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes0/44 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageElixir
largest_source_bytes28,514
source_files_sampled44
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

13GitHub stars
5contributors
44commits, last 12 months
14days since last push
4releases
2bus factor
0open issues
Hexpackage ecosystems

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 7.1 / 10
7.1aggregate

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 05:52 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
7CI-Tests15 out of 19 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 7
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
3Code-ReviewFound 3/9 approved changesets -- score normalized to 3
10Contributorsproject has 11 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
10Fuzzingproject is fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
9Maintained11 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 9
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
5Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 5
9SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 9
10Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
10Token-PermissionsGitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
0Vulnerabilities11 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 3
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Hexpicosat_elixir~> 0.2mix.exs
Hexsimple_sat~> 0.1 and >= 0.1.1mix.exs
Hexstream_data~> 1.0mix.exs
All dependencies 45

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 3 direct and 42 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
Hexpicosat_elixir0.2.3direct
Hexsimple_sat0.1.4direct
Hexstream_data1.3.0direct
Hexbunt1.0.0indirect
Hexcredo1.7.19indirect
Hexdecimal3.1.1indirect
Hexdialyxir1.4.7indirect
Hexdoctest_formatter0.4.1indirect
Hexdoctor0.23.0indirect
Hexearmark_parser1.4.45indirect
Hexelixir_make0.9.0indirect
Hexerlex0.2.8indirect
Hexex_ast0.11.2indirect
Hexex_check0.16.0indirect
Hexex_doc0.40.3indirect
Hexfile_system1.1.1indirect
Hexfinch0.22.0indirect
Hexgit_cli0.3.0indirect
Hexgit_ops2.10.0indirect
Hexglob_ex0.1.11indirect
Hexhpax1.0.3indirect
Hexigniter0.8.0indirect
Hexjason1.4.5indirect
Hexmakeup1.2.2indirect
Hexmakeup_elixir1.0.1indirect
Hexmakeup_erlang1.1.0indirect
Hexmime2.0.7indirect
Hexmint1.8.0indirect
Hexmix_audit2.1.5indirect
Hexmix_test_watch1.4.0indirect
Hexnimble_options1.1.1indirect
Hexnimble_parsec1.4.2indirect
Hexnimble_pool1.1.0indirect
Hexowl0.13.0indirect
Hexreq0.5.17indirect
Hexrewrite1.3.0indirect
Hexsobelow0.14.1indirect
Hexsourceror1.12.0indirect
Hexspitfire0.3.11indirect
Hexstyler1.11.0indirect
Hextelemetry1.4.2indirect
Hextext_diff0.1.0indirect
Hexusage_rules1.2.6indirect
Hexyamerl0.10.0indirect
Hexyaml_elixir2.12.1indirect
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 statisticsHex.