Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-11 06:18 UTC

emqx / esockd

Erlang general non-blocking TCP/SSL socket server

ErlangApache-2.0★ 215 stars⑂ 86 forkssince Nov 2014View on GitHub ↗

emqx/esockd holds a health index of 78 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (81/100) and lowest on Security (51/100). It was last updated 7 days ago. 3 contributors account for most of its recent work.

78
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.

78
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 67 is calibrated to 78 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

EMQ TechnologiesOrganization
1,007 followers249 public repossince Jan 2017

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
Hexesockd5.8.213641882 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

72Good · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 7 days ago
9/36Commit cadence — 13/52 weeks with commits
14.5/18Commit volume — 40 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 21 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year40
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push7
active_weeks_last_year13
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 17 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 67 days ago
5.4/27Release cadence — a release every ~456.2 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count17
latest_release_tag5.17.1
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release67
mean_days_between_releases456.2
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?

51Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
37.8/60Stars — 215 stars
16.1/25Forks — 86 forks
8.3/15Watchers — 32 watchers
Inputs used
forks86
stars215
watchers32
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized 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_badges1
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesgithub.com
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
28.5/80Monthly downloads — 136 downloads/month across hex
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesesockd
dependents—
ecosystemshex
total_downloads31,963
monthly_downloads136
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?

77Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
36/54Bus factor — 3 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
17.4/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 22% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 20 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 5 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor3
contributors_sampled20
top_contributor_share0.225
How it's scored
36.1/42Issue resolution — 86% of issues closed
27.4/30PR acceptance — 160/175 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
15/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — all changesets reviewed
Inputs used
merged_prs160
open_issues7
closed_issues43
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d6
prs_decided_30d6
issue_closed_ratio0.86
closed_unmerged_prs15
first_time_authors_30d0
first_time_prs_merged_30d0
first_time_prs_decided_30d0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain
21.6/25Owner reach — 1,007 followers of emqx
25/25Track record — 249 public repos, account ~9 yr old
Inputs used
followers1,007
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_loginemqx
public_repos249
account_age_days3,521
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on hex
4/35Publish recency — latest publish 1,882 days ago
12/20Version history — 4 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesesockd
ecosystemshex
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish1,882

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

81Excellent · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 1 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 11 out of 11 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

100Exceptional
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://www.emqx.com
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 4 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicstcp-server, udp-server, erlang-library, mqtt
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://www.emqx.com
docs_sitehttps://www.emqx.com
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 — branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
2.5/2.5CI-Tests — 11 out of 11 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
7.5/7.5Code-Review — all changesets reviewed
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 5 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained — 21 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packaging — no data
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
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
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate5.1
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): 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.

52Moderate · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
15/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) — llms.txt served by the project website (https://www.emqx.com/llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history — 99 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtyes
llms_txt_urlhttps://www.emqx.com/llms.txt
legible_history_share0.99
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrap — Makefile
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environment — Dockerfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
0/8Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles—
has_dockerfileyes
typed_languageno
bootstrap_filesMakefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — Erlang without a type-check config
0/55Manageable file sizes — no source files detected
Inputs used
primary_languageErlang
largest_source_bytes—
source_files_sampled0
oversized_source_files0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Manageable file sizes. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — not applicable to this kind of software
0/20MCP server — not applicable to this kind of software
40/40Runnable examples — examples
Inputs used
example_dirsexamples
has_mcp_signalno
api_schema_files—
interfaces_expected_of—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto), MCP server. Remaining weights renormalized.

Key facts

215GitHub stars
20contributors
40commits, last 12 months
7days since last push
17releases
3bus factor
7open issues
—package ecosystems

Data collection warnings

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

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 86 ⇿
0Stars
86Forks
12Releases

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.

0204060801008622015-032020-102026-04
Major 0Minor 1Patch 3

Each point covers 11 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 · 2026-09-11 06:17 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
10CI-Tests11 out of 11 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
10Code-Reviewall changesets reviewed
10Contributorsproject has 5 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained21 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
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
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.