# bonfire-networks/bonfire-app — health index 75/100 (Good)

> Inspection of the public repository bonfire-networks/bonfire-app by inspect.software. It holds a health index of 75 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. The index is a signal derived from publicly visible practice, not a warranty, a security audit, or an endorsement, and it is independent of payment.

- Repository: https://github.com/bonfire-networks/bonfire-app
- Report page: https://inspect.software/software/bonfire-networks/bonfire-app
- Full JSON report: https://inspect.software/api/repositories/bonfire-networks/bonfire-app/report
- Badge: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/inspect-software/badges/main/v1/b/bonfire-networks/bonfire-app.svg
- Inspected: 2026-09-19
- Methodology: metrics 2.10.0, report schema 0.34.0 (https://inspect.software/methodology.md)

## Category summary

| Category | Weight | Index | Band |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vitality | 21% | 95/100 | Exceptional |
| Community & Adoption | 17% | 57/100 | Moderate |
| Sustainability & Governance | 23% | 53/100 | Moderate |
| Engineering Quality | 19% | 72/100 | Good |
| Security | 16% | 49/100 | Weak |
| AI Readiness | 4% | 52/100 | Moderate |

The weighted overall 65 is calibrated to 75 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

## Repository facts

| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Description | Bonfire - tend to your digital life in community. Customise and host your own online space and control your experience at the most granular level. |
| Classification | network-service, desktop, library, mobile |
| Homepage | https://bonfirenetworks.org |
| Primary language | Elixir |
| Stars | 941 |
| Forks | 73 |
| Created | 2020-11-07 |
| Last push | 2026-09-19 |
| Latest release | v1.0.8-beta.8 |
| Commits (last year) | 1,141 |
| Bus factor | 1 |
| Topics | elixir, social-network, federated, activitypub, tailwindcss, phoenix-liveview, fediverse, phoenix, decentralized, mutual-aid, surface, framework, cooperative, collaborative, self-hosted |

## Published packages

| Registry | Package | Latest | Monthly downloads |
|---|---|---|---|
| crates | Bonfire | 0.0.0 | 1 |

## Vitality — 95/100 (Exceptional)

Is the project alive — is code being written and are releases shipping? Weight: 21% of the overall index.

### Development activity — 99/100 (Exceptional)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Push recency | met | 36 / 36 | last push 0 days ago |
| Commit cadence | partial | 35.3 / 36 | 51/52 weeks with commits |
| Commit volume | met | 18 / 18 | 1141 commits in the last year |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained | met | 10 / 10 | 30 commit(s) and 15 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10 |

### Release discipline — 90/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ships releases | met | 27 / 27 | 100 releases published |
| Release recency | met | 36 / 36 | latest release 6 days ago |
| Release cadence | met | 27 / 27 | a release every ~2.5 days |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases | not met | 0 / 10 | Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases. |

### Abandonment — 100/100 (Exceptional)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Project is still maintained | met | 100 / 100 | last human commit 0 days ago |

## Community & Adoption — 57/100 (Moderate)

Does the project have users, downloads, attention, and a welcoming setup for contributors? Weight: 17% of the overall index.

### Popularity & adoption — 69/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stars | partial | 48.2 / 60 | 941 stars |
| Forks | partial | 15.5 / 25 | 73 forks |
| Watchers | partial | 5.6 / 15 | 11 watchers |

### Community health — 44/100 (Weak)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| README | met | 22.5 / 22.5 | — |
| License | partial | 16.9 / 22.5 | license file present, not a recognized license |
| CONTRIBUTING guide | not met | 0 / 18 | — |
| Code of conduct | not met | 0 / 13.5 | — |
| Issue template | not met | 0 / 7.2 | — |
| PR template | not met | 0 / 6.3 | — |

## Sustainability & Governance — 53/100 (Moderate)

Will the project survive its people — bus factor, responsiveness, who backs it, and package upkeep? Weight: 23% of the overall index.

### Maintainer resilience (bus factor) — 37/100 (Weak)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bus factor | partial | 9 / 54 | 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits |
| Commit distribution | partial | 4.4 / 22.5 | top contributor authored 80% of commits |
| Contributor breadth | met | 13.5 / 13.5 | 17 contributors |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors | met | 10 / 10 | project has 5 contributing companies or organizations |

### Issue & PR responsiveness — 54/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue resolution | partial | 30.6 / 42 | 73% of issues closed |
| PR acceptance | partial | 12.5 / 30 | 240/575 decided PRs merged |
| Newcomer PR acceptance | partial | 11.1 / 13 | 6/7 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review | not met | 0 / 15 | Found 1/26 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0 |

### Ownership & stewardship — 72/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership backing | met | 30 / 30 | organization-owned |
| Verified domain | not met | 0 / 20 | — |
| Owner reach | partial | 16.8 / 25 | 219 followers of bonfire-networks |
| Track record | met | 25 / 25 | 190 public repos, account ~6 yr old |

## Engineering Quality — 72/100 (Good)

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place? Weight: 19% of the overall index.

### Engineering practices — 54/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| CI workflows | met | 24 / 24 | 12 workflow(s) |
| Tests present | met | 24 / 24 | — |
| Linter config | not met | 0 / 16 | — |
| Pre-commit hooks | not met | 0 / 9.6 | — |
| .editorconfig | met | 6.4 / 6.4 | — |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests | not met | 0 / 20 | 0 out of 5 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0 |

### Documentation — 100/100 (Exceptional)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| README | met | 30 / 30 | — |
| Documentation directory | met | 25 / 25 | — |
| Documentation / homepage site | met | 15 / 15 | https://bonfirenetworks.org |
| Repository description | met | 10 / 10 | — |
| Topics | met | 10 / 10 | 15 topics |
| Wiki | met | 10 / 10 | — |

## Security — 49/100 (Weak)

Are visible security and supply-chain practices strong, with no malicious dependency and no unresolved high-risk jurisdiction exposure? Weight: 16% of the overall index.

### Security posture — 45/100 (Weak)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, Packaging. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Binary-Artifacts | partial | 6.8 / 7.5 | binaries present in source code |
| Branch-Protection | excluded | 0 / 7.5 | internal 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 |
| CI-Tests | not met | 0 / 2.5 | 0 out of 5 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0 |
| CII-Best-Practices | not met | 0 / 2.5 | no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected |
| Code-Review | not met | 0 / 7.5 | Found 1/26 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0 |
| Contributors | met | 2.5 / 2.5 | project has 5 contributing companies or organizations |
| Dangerous-Workflow | met | 10 / 10 | no dangerous workflow patterns detected |
| Dependency-Update-Tool | met | 7.5 / 7.5 | update tool detected |
| Fuzzing | not met | 0 / 5 | project is not fuzzed |
| License | met | 2.5 / 2.5 | license file detected |
| Maintained | met | 7.5 / 7.5 | 30 commit(s) and 15 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10 |
| Packaging | excluded | 0 / 5 | packaging workflow not detected |
| Pinned-Dependencies | not met | 0 / 5 | dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0 |
| SAST | not met | 0 / 5 | SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0 |
| Security-Policy | met | 5 / 5 | security policy file detected |
| Signed-Releases | not met | 0 / 7.5 | Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases. |
| Token-Permissions | not met | 0 / 7.5 | detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions |
| Vulnerabilities | not met | 0 / 7.5 | 36 existing vulnerabilities detected |

### Dependency advisories — 64/100 (Moderate)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 1015 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.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Direct dependencies free of known advisories | partial | 14 / 35 | 1 affected: absinthe 1.7.11 (high 7.5) |
| Indirect dependencies free of known advisories | excluded | 0 / 25 | transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope |
| No advisories left outstanding | partial | 33.7 / 40 | 1 advisory-carrying package(s) unaddressed past 90 days; oldest published 133 days ago |

### Malicious dependencies — 100/100 (Exceptional)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| No dependency reported as a malicious package | met | 100 / 100 | no dependency is reported as a malicious package |

### High-Risk Jurisdiction Exposure — 100/100 (Exceptional)

Only high-confidence self-published location evidence affects this multiplier. Ambiguous matches are review-only; country evidence is not proof of nationality, citizenship, legal registration, malicious intent, or sanctions status.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Policy exposure multiplier | met | 100 / 100 | no confirmed policy-scope location match |

## AI Readiness — 52/100 (Moderate)

How well is the repo equipped to be developed and maintained with AI coding agents? Carries a deliberately small weight: agent tooling is a real maintenance signal, but its absence must never gate the top of the scale (calibration saturates at raw 91, so 100/100 remains reachable with AI Readiness at zero).

### Agent context & guidance — 47/100 (Weak)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agent instructions | met | 45 / 45 | .claude/CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md |
| Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) | not met | 0 / 15 | — |
| Legible commit history | partial | 1.7 / 40 | 3 of 92 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body) |

### Verify loop (build / test / typecheck) — 55/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| One-command bootstrap | met | 18 / 18 | Makefile, justfile |
| Automated tests | met | 22 / 22 | — |
| Lint / format config | not met | 0 / 11 | — |
| Static type checking | not met | 0 / 11 | — |
| Reproducible environment | met | 10 / 10 | Dockerfile, Nix, lockfile |
| Demonstrated agent practice | not met | 0 / 10 | no agent-authored commits among the last 100 |
| Automated maintenance | partial | 5 / 8 | dependency automation configured, none observed in the sampled commits |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies | not met | 0 / 10 | dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0 |

### Code legibility for models — 55/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Type-checkable code | not met | 0 / 45 | Elixir without a type-check config |
| Manageable file sizes | met | 55 / 55 | 0/88 source files over 60KB |

## Collection warnings

- Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
- Could not fetch hex package 'bonfire' from its registry
- crates package 'Bonfire' points at a different repository (https://github.com/Camper-CoolDie/bonfire-rust); excluded from ecosystem scoring
- deps.dev does not index crates:Bonfire@0.0.0; advisories assessed against the repository dependency graph instead

## What this report is

inspect.software measures public repositories against a single published, versioned methodology and reports the result as a 1–100 health index. Findings are signals derived from what is visible in public repository data — they are not a security audit, a warranty, or an endorsement, and no result depends on payment.

- Methodology, formulas and weights: https://inspect.software/methodology.md
- What a result does and does not claim: https://inspect.software/wiki/signals-not-warranties.md
- Rating bands: https://inspect.software/wiki/scoring-bands.md
- Corrections: https://inspect.software/contact.md
- Index of all documents: https://inspect.software/llms.txt