Public record
Software health reportschema 0.11.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-17 05:33 UTC

elixir-nx / scholar

Traditional machine learning on top of Nx

ElixirApache-2.0★ 496 stars⑂ 51 forkssince Feb 2022View on GitHub ↗

elixir-nx/scholar holds a health index of 71 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (82/100) and lowest on Security (48/100). It was last updated 1 day ago. 2 contributors account for most of its recent work.

71
overall / 100
Good

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.

71
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 63 is calibrated to 71 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

729 followers20 public repossince Nov 2020

This repository is backed by an organization — shared, accountable stewardship that can outlive any single maintainer.

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
Hexscholar0.4.210,63286 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

66Good · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 1 days ago
5.5/36Commit cadence8/52 weeks with commits
12.7/18Commit volume25 commits in the last year
8/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained9 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 8
Inputs used
commits_last_year25
human_commit_share
days_since_last_push1
active_weeks_last_year8
How it's scored
16.2/27Ships releases8 version tags (no GitHub releases)
36/36Release recencylatest release 6 days ago
12.6/27Release cadencea release every ~171.2 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count8
latest_release_tagv0.4.2
releases_from_tagsyes
days_since_latest_release6
mean_days_between_releases171.2
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?

60Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
43.7/60Stars496 stars
14.2/25Forks51 forks
6.5/15Watchers16 watchers
Inputs used
forks51
stars496
watchers16
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (Apache-2.0)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
53.7/80Monthly downloads10,632 downloads/month across hex
0/20Registry dependentsnot reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesscholar
dependents
ecosystemshex
total_downloads262,880
monthly_downloads10,632
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?

82Excellent · 23% of overall
How it's scored
25.2/54Bus factor2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
14.1/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 37% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth35 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 19 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor2
contributors_sampled35
top_contributor_share0.373
How it's scored
37.3/42Issue resolution89% of issues closed
27.6/30PR acceptance230/250 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
7.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 16/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 5
Inputs used
merged_prs230
open_issues10
closed_issues80
prs_merged_7d
prs_decided_7d
prs_merged_30d
prs_decided_30d
issue_closed_ratio0.889
closed_unmerged_prs20
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
20.6/25Owner reach729 followers of elixir-nx
20.9/25Track record20 public repos, account ~5 yr old
Inputs used
followers729
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified
owner_loginelixir-nx
public_repos20
account_age_days2,061
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 6 days ago
20/20Version history8 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesscholar
ecosystemshex
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish6

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

55Moderate · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows1 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
10/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests9 out of 17 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 5
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
10/10Topics2 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicselixir, machine-learning
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?

48Weak · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protectionno data
1.2/2.5CI-Tests9 out of 17 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 5
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
3.8/7.5Code-ReviewFound 16/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 5
2.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 19 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5Licenselicense file detected
6/7.5Maintained9 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 8
0/5Packagingno data
0/5Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0/5SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releasesno data
0/7.5Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated15
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive3
scorecard_aggregate4.8
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.

55Moderate · 4% of overall
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructionsAGENTS.md
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
0/40Legible commit historyno data
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share
agent_instruction_filesAGENTS.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes5,324
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
0/8Automated maintenanceno data
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesdependency 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_share
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Demonstrated agent practice, Automated maintenance. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable codeElixir without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes0/145 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageElixir
largest_source_bytes49,330
source_files_sampled145
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

496GitHub stars
35contributors
25commits, last 12 months
1days since last push
8releases
2bus factor
10open issues
Hexpackage ecosystems

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.8 / 10
4.8aggregate

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 05:33 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
n/aBranch-Protectioninternal 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
5CI-Tests9 out of 17 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 5
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
5Code-ReviewFound 16/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 5
10Contributorsproject has 19 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
8Maintained9 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 8
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 4
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Hexex_doc~> 0.34mix.exs
Hexnx~> 0.9mix.exs
Hexnimble_options~> 0.5.2 or ~> 1.0mix.exs
Hexpolaris~> 0.1mix.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
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.