Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-12 18:46 UTC

bitwalker / libcluster

Automatic cluster formation/healing for Elixir applications

ElixirMIT★ 2,155 stars⑂ 201 forkssince Sep 2016View on GitHub ↗

bitwalker/libcluster holds a health index of 28 out of 100, placing it in the At Risk band. It scores highest on Community & Adoption (79/100) and lowest on Vitality (13/100). It was last updated 611 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

28
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.

28
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 48 is calibrated to 47 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Paul SchoenfelderPersonal account
1,145 followers129 public repossince Aug 2011

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
Hexlibcluster3.5.0446,47030611 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

13Critical · 21% of overall
How it's scored
0/36Push recency — last push 611 days ago
0/36Commit cadence — 0/52 weeks with commits
0/18Commit volume — 0 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
commits_last_year0
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push611
active_weeks_last_year0
How it's scored
16.2/27Ships releases — 26 version tags (no GitHub releases)
0/36Release recency — latest release 1,177 days ago
12.6/27Release cadence — a release every ~203.2 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count26
latest_release_tag3.3.3
releases_from_tagsyes
days_since_latest_release1,177
mean_days_between_releases203.2
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?

79Good · 17% of overall
How it's scored
54.1/60Stars — 2,155 stars
19.2/25Forks — 201 forks
8.4/15Watchers — 33 watchers
Inputs used
forks201
stars2,155
watchers33
growth_stateorganic
growth_factor_pct100
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (MIT)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
7.2/7.2Issue template
6.3/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges6
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateyes
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesgithub.com, shields.io
has_pull_request_templateyes
How it's scored
75.3/80Monthly downloads — 446,470 downloads/month across hex
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packageslibcluster
dependents—
ecosystemshex
total_downloads22,726,553
monthly_downloads446,470
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?

64Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
10.1/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 55% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 58 contributors
6/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled58
top_contributor_share0.551
How it's scored
35.4/42Issue resolution — 84% of issues closed
22.3/30PR acceptance — 84/113 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
6/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 10/25 approved changesets -- score normalized to 4
Inputs used
merged_prs84
open_issues14
closed_issues76
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio0.844
closed_unmerged_prs29
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
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
22/25Owner reach — 1,145 followers of bitwalker
25/25Track record — 129 public repos, account ~15 yr old
Inputs used
followers1,145
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginbitwalker
public_repos129
account_age_days5,519
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on hex
14/35Publish recency — latest publish 611 days ago
20/20Version history — 30 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packageslibcluster
ecosystemshex
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish611

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

49Weak · 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
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 0 out of 10 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

50Moderate
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 3 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsclustering, erlang-distribution, elixir
has_wikino
homepage—
docs_site—
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

35Weak · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0/2.5CI-Tests — 0 out of 10 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
3/7.5Code-Review — Found 10/25 approved changesets -- score normalized to 4
1.5/2.5Contributors — project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
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
0/7.5Maintained — 0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
0/5Packaging — no data
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — no data
0/7.5Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate3.5
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.

44Weak · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
36.3/40Legible commit history — 68 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.68
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 — 0/28 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageElixir
largest_source_bytes16,555
source_files_sampled28
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

2,155GitHub stars
58contributors
0commits, last 12 months
611days since last push
26releases
1bus factor
14open issues
Hexpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • Star history carried forward from 2026-07-15: GitHub restricted the stargazers API to repository admins, so it can no longer be collected. The repository has 2155 stars today.

More detail

Star and fork history 2,155 ★ / 201 ⇿
2,155Stars
201Forks
23Releases

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.

Only the most recent history is shown — this repository exceeds the collection window, so the earliest history is not captured.

Star history is shown as collected on 2026-07-15. GitHub restricted the stargazers API to repository administrators in July 2026, so this series can no longer be extended; the current star total above remains live.

04008001,2001,6002,0002,4002,155193202016-102021-092026-08
Major 2Minor 7Patch 14

Each point covers 9 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 3.5 / 10
3.5aggregate

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 · 2026-09-12 18:46 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0CI-Tests0 out of 10 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
4Code-ReviewFound 10/25 approved changesets -- score normalized to 4
6Contributorsproject has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
0Maintained0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
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 2
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Hexjason~> 1.1mix.exs
Hextelemetry~> 1.3mix.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 statistics — Hex.