Public recordExcellent
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-19 14:07 UTC
elixir-grpc / grpc
An Elixir implementation of gRPC
elixir-grpc/grpc holds a health index of 80 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Vitality (85/100) and lowest on Security (46/100). It was last updated 10 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.
80
overall / 100Software 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.
80
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)
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 68 is calibrated to 80 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).
Ownership
elixir-grpcOrganization
12 followers8 public repossince Mar 2019
This repository is backed by an organization — shared, accountable stewardship that can outlive any single maintainer.
Package ecosystems
| Registry | Package | Version | Downloads / mo | Versions | Last publish |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hex | grpc | 1.0.5 | 259,189 | 30 | 19 days ago |
| Hex | grpc_core | 1.0.5 | 37,563 | 9 | 19 days ago |
| Hex | grpc_server | 1.0.5 | 17,791 | 7 | 19 days ago |
Metrics by category
Vitality
Is the project alive — is code being written and are releases shipping?
85
Development activity
80Excellent
How it's scored
| 28.8/36 | Push recency — last push 10 days ago |
| 23.5/36 | Commit cadence — 34/52 weeks with commits |
| 17.9/18 | Commit volume — 97 commits in the last year |
| 10/10 | OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 28 commit(s) and 3 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10 |
Inputs used
| commits_last_year | 97 |
| human_commit_share | 1 |
| days_since_last_push | 10 |
| active_weeks_last_year | 34 |
Release discipline
92Excellent
How it's scored
| 27/27 | Ships releases — 18 releases published |
| 36/36 | Release recency — latest release 19 days ago |
| 19.8/27 | Release cadence — a release every ~46.2 days |
| 0/10 | OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data |
Inputs used
| releases_count | 18 |
| latest_release_tag | v1.0.5 |
| releases_from_tags | no |
| days_since_latest_release | 19 |
| mean_days_between_releases | 46.2 |
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?
72
Popularity & adoption
80Excellent
How it's scored
| 51.6/60 | Stars — 1,524 stars |
| 20.2/25 | Forks — 264 forks |
| 7.8/15 | Watchers — 26 watchers |
Inputs used
| forks | 264 |
| stars | 1,524 |
| watchers | 26 |
| growth_state | unverified |
| growth_factor_pct | 100 |
| growth_unverified_reason | no_history |
Community health
50Moderate
How it's scored
| 22.5/22.5 | README |
| 22.5/22.5 | License — recognized license (Apache-2.0) |
| 0/18 | CONTRIBUTING guide |
| 0/13.5 | Code of conduct |
| 0/7.2 | Issue template |
| 0/6.3 | PR template |
Inputs used
| has_readme | yes |
| has_license | yes |
| readme_badges | 6 |
| has_contributing | no |
| has_issue_template | no |
| has_code_of_conduct | no |
| readme_badge_services | github.com, shields.io |
| has_pull_request_template | no |
Ecosystem adoption (downloads)
92Excellent
How it's scored
| 73.3/80 | Monthly downloads — 314,543 downloads/month across hex |
| 0/20 | Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem |
Inputs used
| packages | grpc, grpc_core, grpc_server |
| dependents | — |
| ecosystems | hex |
| total_downloads | 7,130,406 |
| monthly_downloads | 314,543 |
| 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?
67
How it's scored
| 9/54 | Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits |
| 10.5/22.5 | Commit distribution — top contributor authored 53% of commits |
| 13.5/13.5 | Contributor breadth — 89 contributors |
| 10/10 | OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 33 contributing companies or organizations |
Inputs used
| bus_factor | 1 |
| contributors_sampled | 89 |
| top_contributor_share | 0.534 |
How it's scored
| 35.3/42 | Issue resolution — 84% of issues closed |
| 23.2/30 | PR acceptance — 260/336 decided PRs merged |
| 10.4/13 | Newcomer PR acceptance — 4/5 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d |
| 10.5/15 | OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 21/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 7 |
Inputs used
| merged_prs | 260 |
| open_issues | 39 |
| closed_issues | 207 |
| prs_merged_7d | 0 |
| prs_decided_7d | 0 |
| prs_merged_30d | 7 |
| prs_decided_30d | 8 |
| issue_closed_ratio | 0.841 |
| closed_unmerged_prs | 76 |
| first_time_authors_30d | 4 |
| first_time_prs_merged_30d | 4 |
| first_time_prs_decided_30d | 5 |
Ownership & stewardship
57Moderate
How it's scored
| 30/30 | Ownership backing — organization-owned |
| 0/20 | Verified domain |
| 8/25 | Owner reach — 12 followers of elixir-grpc |
| 18.9/25 | Track record — 8 public repos, account ~7 yr old |
Inputs used
| followers | 12 |
| owner_type | Organization |
| is_verified | no |
| owner_login | elixir-grpc |
| public_repos | 8 |
| account_age_days | 2,742 |
Package maintenance
100Exceptional
How it's scored
| 25/25 | Published & resolvable — 3 package(s) on hex |
| 35/35 | Publish recency — latest publish 19 days ago |
| 20/20 | Version history — 30 published versions |
| 20/20 | Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked |
Inputs used
| packages | grpc, grpc_core, grpc_server |
| ecosystems | hex |
| any_deprecated | no |
| min_days_since_publish | 19 |
Engineering Quality
Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?
71
Engineering practices
68Good
How it's scored
| 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 |
| 20/20 | OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 27 out of 27 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10 |
Inputs used
| has_ci | yes |
| has_tests | yes |
| has_editorconfig | no |
| has_linter_config | no |
| has_precommit_config | no |
Documentation
75Good
How it's scored
| 30/30 | README |
| 0/25 | Documentation directory |
| 15/15 | Documentation / homepage site — https://hex.pm/packages/grpc |
| 10/10 | Repository description |
| 10/10 | Topics — 8 topics |
| 10/10 | Wiki |
Inputs used
| topics | grpc, elixir, grpc-elixir, rpc, http2, protobuf, google-protocol-buffers, proto |
| has_wiki | yes |
| homepage | https://hex.pm/packages/grpc |
| docs_site | https://hex.pm/packages/grpc |
| has_readme | yes |
| has_docs_dir | no |
| has_description | yes |
Security
Are visible security and supply-chain practices strong, without unresolved high-risk jurisdiction exposure?
46
Security posture
46Weak
How it's scored
| 6.8/7.5 | Binary-Artifacts — binaries present in source code |
| 0/7.5 | Branch-Protection — no data |
| 2.5/2.5 | CI-Tests — 27 out of 27 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10 |
| 0/2.5 | CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected |
| 5.2/7.5 | Code-Review — Found 21/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 7 |
| 2.5/2.5 | Contributors — project has 33 contributing companies or organizations |
| 10/10 | Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected |
| 0/7.5 | Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected |
| 0/5 | Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed |
| 2.5/2.5 | License — license file detected |
| 7.5/7.5 | Maintained — 28 commit(s) and 3 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 |
| 2/5 | Security-Policy — security policy file detected |
| 0/7.5 | Signed-Releases — no data |
| 0/7.5 | Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions |
| 0/7.5 | Vulnerabilities — 22 existing vulnerabilities detected |
Inputs used
| source | openssf_scorecard |
| checks_evaluated | 15 |
| scorecard_version | v5.5.0 |
| checks_inconclusive | 3 |
| scorecard_aggregate | 4.6 |
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, 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.
50
Agent context & guidance
40Weak
How it's scored
| 0/45 | Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules |
| 0/15 | Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) |
| 40/40 | Legible commit history — 94 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body) |
Inputs used
| has_llms_txt | no |
| llms_txt_url | — |
| legible_history_share | 0.94 |
| agent_instruction_files | — |
| agent_instruction_max_bytes | — |
Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)
56Moderate
How it's scored
| 18/18 | One-command bootstrap — benchmark/Makefile, interop/Makefile |
| 22/22 | Automated tests |
| 0/11 | Lint / format config |
| 0/11 | Static type checking |
| 10/10 | Reproducible environment — Dockerfile, lockfile |
| 6/10 | Demonstrated agent practice — 3 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited |
| 0/8 | Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed |
| 0/10 | OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0 |
Inputs used
| has_nix | no |
| has_tests | yes |
| lockfiles | mix.lock |
| has_dockerfile | yes |
| typed_language | no |
| bootstrap_files | benchmark/Makefile, interop/Makefile |
| has_devcontainer | no |
| has_linter_config | no |
| typecheck_configs | — |
| agent_commit_share | 0.03 |
| toolchain_manifests | benchmark/mix.exs, grpc/mix.exs, grpc_core/mix.exs, grpc_server/mix.exs, interop/mix.exs, mix.exs |
| dependency_bot_commit_share | 0 |
Code legibility for models
55Moderate
How it's scored
| 0/45 | Type-checkable code — Elixir without a type-check config |
| 55/55 | Manageable file sizes — 0/213 source files over 60KB |
Inputs used
| primary_language | Elixir |
| largest_source_bytes | 49,496 |
| source_files_sampled | 213 |
| oversized_source_files | 0 |
Machine-readable interfaces
50Moderate
How it's scored
| 40/40 | API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — benchmark/proto/core/stats.proto, benchmark/proto/testing/benchmark_service.proto, benchmark/proto/testing/control.proto, benchmark/proto/testing/messages.proto, benchmark/proto/testing/payloads.proto, benchmark/proto/testing/stats.proto, benchmark/proto/testing/worker_service.proto, grpc/test/support/proto/collision_test.proto, grpc/test/support/proto/helloworld.proto, grpc/test/support/proto/route_guide.proto, grpc/test/support/transcode_messages.proto, grpc_server/test/support/google/api/annotations.proto, grpc_server/test/support/google/api/http.proto, grpc_server/test/support/google/protobuf/descriptor.proto, grpc_server/test/support/proto/helloworld.proto, grpc_server/test/support/proto/route_guide.proto, grpc_server/test/support/transcode_messages.proto |
| 0/20 | MCP server — not applicable to this kind of software |
| 0/40 | Runnable examples |
Inputs used
| example_dirs | — |
| has_mcp_signal | no |
| api_schema_files | benchmark/proto/core/stats.proto, benchmark/proto/testing/benchmark_service.proto, benchmark/proto/testing/control.proto, benchmark/proto/testing/messages.proto, benchmark/proto/testing/payloads.proto, benchmark/proto/testing/stats.proto, benchmark/proto/testing/worker_service.proto, grpc/test/support/proto/collision_test.proto, grpc/test/support/proto/helloworld.proto, grpc/test/support/proto/route_guide.proto, grpc/test/support/transcode_messages.proto, grpc_server/test/support/google/api/annotations.proto, grpc_server/test/support/google/api/http.proto, grpc_server/test/support/google/protobuf/descriptor.proto, grpc_server/test/support/proto/helloworld.proto, grpc_server/test/support/proto/route_guide.proto, grpc_server/test/support/transcode_messages.proto |
| interfaces_expected_of | — |
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): MCP server. Remaining weights renormalized.
Key facts
1,524GitHub stars
89contributors
97commits, last 12 months
10days since last push
18releases
1bus factor
39open issues
Hexpackage ecosystems
Data collection warnings
- Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
- Could not fetch hex package 'grpc_root' from its registry
- Could not fetch hex package 'interop' from its registry
More detail
Star and fork history 0 ★ / 264 ⇿
0Stars
264Forks
17Releases
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.
Major 1Minor 7Patch 9
Each point covers 10 days.
OpenSSF Scorecard 4.6 / 10
4.6aggregate
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).
| 9 | Binary-Artifacts | binaries present in source code |
| 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 |
| 10 | CI-Tests | 27 out of 27 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10 |
| 0 | CII-Best-Practices | no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected |
| 7 | Code-Review | Found 21/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 7 |
| 10 | Contributors | project has 33 contributing companies or organizations |
| 10 | Dangerous-Workflow | no dangerous workflow patterns detected |
| 0 | Dependency-Update-Tool | no update tool detected |
| 0 | Fuzzing | project is not fuzzed |
| 10 | License | license file detected |
| 10 | Maintained | 28 commit(s) and 3 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 |
| 4 | Security-Policy | security policy file detected |
| n/a | Signed-Releases | no releases found |
| 0 | Token-Permissions | detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions |
| 0 | Vulnerabilities | 22 existing vulnerabilities detected |
Direct dependencies 25
| Registry | Package | Version constraint | Manifest |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hex | grpc_core | ../grpc_core | grpc/mix.exs |
| Hex | grpc_core | ~> 1.0.5 | grpc/mix.exs |
| Hex | gun | ~> 2.4.0 | grpc/mix.exs |
| Hex | mint | ~> 1.9 | grpc/mix.exs |
| Hex | castore | ~> 1.0 | grpc/mix.exs |
| Hex | protobuf | ~> 0.17 | grpc_core/mix.exs |
| Hex | jason | >= 0.0.0 | grpc_core/mix.exs |
| Hex | telemetry | ~> 1.0 | grpc_core/mix.exs |
| Hex | googleapis | ~> 0.1.0 | grpc_core/mix.exs |
| Hex | grpc_core | ../grpc_core | grpc_server/mix.exs |
| Hex | grpc_core | ~> 1.0.5 | grpc_server/mix.exs |
| Hex | protobuf | ~> 0.17 | grpc_server/mix.exs |
| Hex | cowboy | ~> 2.14 | grpc_server/mix.exs |
| Hex | cowlib | ~> 2.14 | grpc_server/mix.exs |
| Hex | flow | ~> 1.2 | grpc_server/mix.exs |
| Hex | grpc_server | ../grpc_server | interop/mix.exs |
| Hex | grpc | ../grpc | interop/mix.exs |
| Hex | protobuf | ~> 0.17 | interop/mix.exs |
| Hex | gun | ~> 2.0 | interop/mix.exs |
| Hex | mint | ~> 1.5 | interop/mix.exs |
| Hex | grpc_statsd | ~> 0.1.0 | interop/mix.exs |
| Hex | statix | >= 1.2.1 | interop/mix.exs |
| Hex | extrace | ~> 0.2 | interop/mix.exs |
| Hex | grpc_server | grpc_server | mix.exs |
| Hex | shutdown | — | mix.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.
| Registry | Package | Version | Relation |
|---|
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.
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.