Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-09 15:41 UTC

elixir-wallaby / wallaby

Concurrent browser tests for your Elixir web apps.

ElixirMIT★ 1,803 stars⑂ 211 forkssince Feb 2016View on GitHub ↗

elixir-wallaby/wallaby holds a health index of 73 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (72/100) and lowest on Security (51/100). It was last updated 50 days ago. 2 contributors account for most of its recent work.

73
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.

73
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 64 is calibrated to 73 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

elixir-wallabyOrganization
8 followers3 public repossince Oct 2019

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
Hexwallaby0.31.054,6835674 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

58Moderate · 21% of overall
How it's scored
18/36Push recency — last push 50 days ago
6.9/36Commit cadence — 10/52 weeks with commits
11.5/18Commit volume — 18 commits in the last year
5/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 7 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 5
Inputs used
commits_last_year18
human_commit_share0.85
days_since_last_push50
active_weeks_last_year10
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 51 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 74 days ago
12.6/27Release cadence — a release every ~120.1 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count51
latest_release_tagv0.31.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release74
mean_days_between_releases120.1
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?

69Good · 17% of overall
How it's scored
52.8/60Stars — 1,803 stars
19.4/25Forks — 211 forks
8/15Watchers — 28 watchers
Inputs used
forks211
stars1,803
watchers28
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (MIT)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges4
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesgithub.com, shields.io
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
63.2/80Monthly downloads — 54,683 downloads/month across hex
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packageswallaby
dependents—
ecosystemshex
total_downloads3,281,579
monthly_downloads54,683
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?

69Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
25.2/54Bus factor — 2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
13.3/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 41% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 79 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 21 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor2
contributors_sampled79
top_contributor_share0.407
How it's scored
36.3/42Issue resolution — 86% of issues closed
25.6/30PR acceptance — 371/435 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — 0/1 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
7.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 8/15 approved changesets -- score normalized to 5
Inputs used
merged_prs371
open_issues43
closed_issues273
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d1
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d1
issue_closed_ratio0.864
closed_unmerged_prs64
first_time_authors_30d1
first_time_prs_merged_30d0
first_time_prs_decided_30d1
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain
6.9/25Owner reach — 8 followers of elixir-wallaby
16.4/25Track record — 3 public repos, account ~6 yr old
Inputs used
followers8
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_loginelixir-wallaby
public_repos3
account_age_days2,507

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on hex
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 74 days ago
20/20Version history — 56 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packageswallaby
ecosystemshex
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish74

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

72Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 3 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
12/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 15 out of 24 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

90Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://twitter.com/elixir_wallaby
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 6 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicstesting, elixir, ecto, wallaby, phoenix, hacktoberfest
has_wikino
homepagehttps://twitter.com/elixir_wallaby
docs_sitehttps://twitter.com/elixir_wallaby
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

51Moderate · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — no data
1.5/2.5CI-Tests — 15 out of 24 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 6
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
3.8/7.5Code-Review — Found 8/15 approved changesets -- score normalized to 5
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 21 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
3.8/7.5Maintained — 7 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 5
0/5Packaging — no data
4.5/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 9
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
0/7.5Vulnerabilities — 15 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated15
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive3
scorecard_aggregate5.1
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.

53Moderate · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history — 80 of 85 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.941
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 — Nix, lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
8/8Automated maintenance — 12 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
9/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 9
Inputs used
has_nixyes
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_share0.12
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — Elixir without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/136 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageElixir
largest_source_bytes41,000
source_files_sampled136
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

1,803GitHub stars
79contributors
18commits, last 12 months
50days since last push
51releases
2bus factor
43open issues
Hexpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 211 ⇿
0Stars
211Forks
51Releases

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.

0408012016020024020862016-032021-062026-08
Major 0Minor 26Patch 24

Each point covers 10 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.1 / 10
5.1aggregate

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 · 2026-09-09 15:41 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
6CI-Tests15 out of 24 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 6
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
5Code-ReviewFound 8/15 approved changesets -- score normalized to 5
10Contributorsproject has 21 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
5Maintained7 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 5
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
9Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 9
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
0Vulnerabilities15 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 6
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Hexjason~> 1.1mix.exs
Hexhttpoison~> 0.12 or ~> 1.0 or ~> 2.0 or ~> 3.0mix.exs
Hexweb_driver_client~> 0.3.0mix.exs
Hexecto_sql>= 3.0.0mix.exs
Hexphoenix_ecto>= 3.0.0mix.exs
Hexshutdown—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.

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.