🌻 fields is a collection of useful field definitions (Custom Ecto Types) that helps you easily define an Ecto Schema with validation, encryption and hashing functions so that you can ship your Elixir/Phoenix App much faster!
dwyl/fields holds a health index of 71 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (73/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (48/100). It was last updated 12 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.
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.
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 63 is calibrated to 71 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).
This repository is backed by an organization — shared, accountable stewardship that can outlive any single maintainer.
| Registry | Package | Version | Downloads / mo | Versions | Last publish |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hex | fields | 2.12.0 | 766 | 24 | 12 days ago |
Is the project alive — is code being written and are releases shipping?
| 28.8/36 | Push recency — last push 12 days ago |
| 6.9/36 | Commit cadence — 10/52 weeks with commits |
| 14.5/18 | Commit volume — 40 commits in the last year |
| 10/10 | OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 22 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10 |
| commits_last_year | 40 |
| human_commit_share | 0.61 |
| days_since_last_push | 12 |
| active_weeks_last_year | 10 |
| 27/27 | Ships releases — 7 releases published |
| 36/36 | Release recency — latest release 12 days ago |
| 5.4/27 | Release cadence — a release every ~465.6 days |
| 0/10 | OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data |
| releases_count | 7 |
| latest_release_tag | v2.12.0 |
| releases_from_tags | no |
| days_since_latest_release | 12 |
| mean_days_between_releases | 465.6 |
Does the project have users, downloads, attention, and a welcoming setup for contributors?
| 31.2/60 | Stars — 85 stars |
| 8.7/25 | Forks — 12 forks |
| 5/15 | Watchers — 9 watchers |
| forks | 12 |
| stars | 85 |
| watchers | 9 |
| growth_state | unverified |
| growth_factor_pct | 100 |
| growth_unverified_reason | no_history |
| 22.5/22.5 | README |
| 22.5/22.5 | License — recognized license (GPL-2.0) |
| 0/18 | CONTRIBUTING guide |
| 0/13.5 | Code of conduct |
| 0/7.2 | Issue template |
| 0/6.3 | PR template |
| has_readme | yes |
| has_license | yes |
| readme_badges | — |
| has_contributing | no |
| has_issue_template | no |
| has_code_of_conduct | no |
| readme_badge_services | — |
| has_pull_request_template | no |
| 38.5/80 | Monthly downloads — 766 downloads/month across hex |
| 0/20 | Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem |
| packages | fields |
| dependents | — |
| ecosystems | hex |
| total_downloads | 26,310 |
| monthly_downloads | 766 |
Will the project survive its people — bus factor, responsiveness, who backs it, and package upkeep?
| 9/54 | Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits |
| 6/22.5 | Commit distribution — top contributor authored 73% of commits |
| 13.5/13.5 | Contributor breadth — 12 contributors |
| 10/10 | OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 18 contributing companies or organizations |
| bus_factor | 1 |
| contributors_sampled | 12 |
| top_contributor_share | 0.734 |
| 35.6/42 | Issue resolution — 85% of issues closed |
| 28.1/30 | PR acceptance — 118/126 decided PRs merged |
| 0/13 | Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d |
| 15/15 | OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — all changesets reviewed |
| merged_prs | 118 |
| open_issues | 10 |
| closed_issues | 56 |
| prs_merged_7d | — |
| prs_decided_7d | — |
| prs_merged_30d | — |
| prs_decided_30d | — |
| issue_closed_ratio | 0.848 |
| closed_unmerged_prs | 8 |
| first_time_authors_30d | — |
| first_time_prs_merged_30d | — |
| first_time_prs_decided_30d | — |
| 30/30 | Ownership backing — organization-owned |
| 0/20 | Verified domain |
| 20.8/25 | Owner reach — 779 followers of dwyl |
| 25/25 | Track record — 417 public repos, account ~11 yr old |
| followers | 779 |
| owner_type | Organization |
| is_verified | — |
| owner_login | dwyl |
| public_repos | 417 |
| account_age_days | 4,138 |
| 25/25 | Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on hex |
| 35/35 | Publish recency — latest publish 12 days ago |
| 20/20 | Version history — 24 published versions |
| 20/20 | Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked |
| packages | fields |
| ecosystems | hex |
| any_deprecated | no |
| min_days_since_publish | 12 |
Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?
| 24/24 | CI workflows — 1 workflow(s) |
| 24/24 | Tests present |
| 0/16 | Linter config |
| 0/9.6 | Pre-commit hooks |
| 0/6.4 | .editorconfig |
| 18/20 | OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 9 out of 10 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9 |
| has_ci | yes |
| has_tests | yes |
| has_editorconfig | no |
| has_linter_config | no |
| has_precommit_config | no |
| 30/30 | README |
| 0/25 | Documentation directory |
| 0/15 | Documentation / homepage site |
| 10/10 | Repository description |
| 10/10 | Topics — 6 topics |
| 0/10 | Wiki |
| topics | definition, ecto, elixir, encryption, fields, phoenix |
| has_wiki | no |
| homepage | — |
| has_readme | yes |
| has_docs_dir | no |
| has_description | yes |
Are visible security and supply-chain practices strong, without unresolved high-risk jurisdiction exposure?
| 7.5/7.5 | Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo |
| 0/7.5 | Branch-Protection — no data |
| 2.2/2.5 | CI-Tests — 9 out of 10 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9 |
| 0/2.5 | CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected |
| 7.5/7.5 | Code-Review — all changesets reviewed |
| 2.5/2.5 | Contributors — project has 18 contributing companies or organizations |
| 10/10 | Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected |
| 7.5/7.5 | Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected |
| 5/5 | Fuzzing — project is fuzzed |
| 2.5/2.5 | License — license file detected |
| 7.5/7.5 | Maintained — 22 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10 |
| 0/5 | Packaging — no data |
| 0/5 | Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0 |
| 0/5 | SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0 |
| 0/5 | Security-Policy — security policy file not detected |
| 0/7.5 | Signed-Releases — no data |
| 0/7.5 | Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions |
| 3/7.5 | Vulnerabilities — 6 existing vulnerabilities detected |
| source | openssf_scorecard |
| checks_evaluated | 15 |
| scorecard_version | v5.5.0 |
| checks_inconclusive | 3 |
| scorecard_aggregate | 6.5 |
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.
| 0/45 | Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules |
| 0/15 | Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) |
| 40/40 | Legible commit history — 56 of 61 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body) |
| has_llms_txt | no |
| legible_history_share | 0.918 |
| agent_instruction_files | — |
| agent_instruction_max_bytes | — |
| 12.6/18 | One-command bootstrap — mix.exs (toolchain convention, no task runner) |
| 22/22 | Automated tests |
| 0/11 | Lint / format config |
| 0/11 | Static type checking |
| 10/10 | Reproducible environment — lockfile |
| 0/10 | Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100 |
| 8/8 | Automated maintenance — 39 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates |
| 0/10 | OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0 |
| has_nix | no |
| has_tests | yes |
| lockfiles | mix.lock |
| has_dockerfile | no |
| typed_language | no |
| bootstrap_files | — |
| has_devcontainer | no |
| has_linter_config | no |
| typecheck_configs | — |
| agent_commit_share | 0 |
| toolchain_manifests | mix.exs |
| dependency_bot_commit_share | 0.39 |
| 0/45 | Type-checkable code — Elixir without a type-check config |
| 55/55 | Manageable file sizes — 0/48 source files over 60KB |
| primary_language | Elixir |
| largest_source_bytes | 4,692 |
| source_files_sampled | 48 |
| oversized_source_files | 0 |
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.
Each point covers 6 days.
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).
| 10 | Binary-Artifacts | no binaries found in the repo |
| n/a | Branch-Protection | 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 |
| 9 | CI-Tests | 9 out of 10 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9 |
| 0 | CII-Best-Practices | no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected |
| 10 | Code-Review | all changesets reviewed |
| 10 | Contributors | project has 18 contributing companies or organizations |
| 10 | Dangerous-Workflow | no dangerous workflow patterns detected |
| 10 | Dependency-Update-Tool | update tool detected |
| 10 | Fuzzing | project is fuzzed |
| 10 | License | license file detected |
| 10 | Maintained | 22 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10 |
| n/a | Packaging | packaging workflow not detected |
| 0 | Pinned-Dependencies | dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0 |
| 0 | SAST | SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0 |
| 0 | Security-Policy | security policy file not detected |
| n/a | Signed-Releases | no releases found |
| 0 | Token-Permissions | detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions |
| 4 | Vulnerabilities | 6 existing vulnerabilities detected |
| Registry | Package | Version constraint | Manifest |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hex | argon2_elixir | ~> 4.1.0 | mix.exs |
| Hex | ecto | ~> 3.3 | mix.exs |
| Hex | envar | ~> 1.1.0 | mix.exs |
| Hex | html_sanitize_ex | ~> 1.5.0 | mix.exs |
| Hex | inch_ex | >=2.0.0 | mix.exs |
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.
| Registry | Package | Version | Relation |
|---|
Advisory matching could not run for this report: No resolved dependencies to assess
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 v2.5.0, schema v0.27.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.
How one result sits in the wider record: aggregate statistics — Hex.