Public recordExcellent
Software health reportschema 0.11.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-17 07:47 UTC
erlef / mix_sbom
Mix task to generate a Software Bill-of-Materials (SBoM) in CycloneDX format
erlef/mix_sbom holds a health index of 83 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Vitality (82/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (35/100). It was last updated 3 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.
83
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.
83
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 70 is calibrated to 83 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).
Ownership
The Erlang Ecosystem FoundationOrganization
193 followers51 public repossince Feb 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 | sbom | 0.10.0 | 29,555 | 14 | 98 days ago |
Metrics by category
Vitality
Is the project alive — is code being written and are releases shipping?
82
Development activity
86Excellent
How it's scored
| 36/36 | Push recency — last push 3 days ago |
| 22.2/36 | Commit cadence — 32/52 weeks with commits |
| 18/18 | Commit volume — 135 commits in the last year |
| 10/10 | OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 19 commit(s) and 2 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10 |
Inputs used
| commits_last_year | 135 |
| human_commit_share | — |
| days_since_last_push | 3 |
| active_weeks_last_year | 32 |
Release discipline
75Good
How it's scored
| 27/27 | Ships releases — 14 releases published |
| 27/36 | Release recency — latest release 98 days ago |
| 12.6/27 | Release cadence — a release every ~150.5 days |
| 8/10 | OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — 5 out of the last 5 releases have a total of 5 signed artifacts. |
Inputs used
| releases_count | 14 |
| latest_release_tag | v0.10.0 |
| releases_from_tags | no |
| days_since_latest_release | 98 |
| mean_days_between_releases | 150.5 |
Community & Adoption
Does the project have users, downloads, attention, and a welcoming setup for contributors?
62
Popularity & adoption
40Weak
How it's scored
| 27/60 | Stars — 47 stars |
| 10.8/25 | Forks — 21 forks |
| 1.7/15 | Watchers — 3 watchers |
Inputs used
| forks | 21 |
| stars | 47 |
| watchers | 3 |
| growth_state | unverified |
| growth_factor_pct | 100 |
| growth_unverified_reason | no_history |
Community health
79Good
How it's scored
| 22.5/22.5 | README |
| 16.9/22.5 | License — license file present, not a recognized license |
| 18/18 | CONTRIBUTING guide |
| 13.5/13.5 | Code of conduct |
| 0/7.2 | Issue template |
| 0/6.3 | PR template |
Inputs used
| has_readme | yes |
| has_license | yes |
| readme_badges | — |
| has_contributing | yes |
| has_issue_template | no |
| has_code_of_conduct | yes |
| readme_badge_services | — |
| has_pull_request_template | no |
How it's scored
| 59.6/80 | Monthly downloads — 29,555 downloads/month across hex |
| 0/20 | Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem |
Inputs used
| packages | sbom |
| dependents | — |
| ecosystems | hex |
| total_downloads | 394,997 |
| monthly_downloads | 29,555 |
| 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?
71
How it's scored
| 9/54 | Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits |
| 10.4/22.5 | Commit distribution — top contributor authored 54% of commits |
| 13.5/13.5 | Contributor breadth — 11 contributors |
| 10/10 | OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 11 contributing companies or organizations |
Inputs used
| bus_factor | 1 |
| contributors_sampled | 11 |
| top_contributor_share | 0.539 |
Issue & PR responsiveness
64Moderate
How it's scored
| 25.8/42 | Issue resolution — 62% of issues closed |
| 27.3/30 | PR acceptance — 100/110 decided PRs merged |
| 0/13 | Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d |
| 3/15 | OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 2/7 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2 |
Inputs used
| merged_prs | 100 |
| open_issues | 5 |
| closed_issues | 8 |
| prs_merged_7d | — |
| prs_decided_7d | — |
| prs_merged_30d | — |
| prs_decided_30d | — |
| issue_closed_ratio | 0.615 |
| closed_unmerged_prs | 10 |
| 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.
Ownership & stewardship
89Excellent
How it's scored
| 30/30 | Ownership backing — organization-owned |
| 0/20 | Verified domain — verified-domain status not read for this organization |
| 16.4/25 | Owner reach — 193 followers of erlef |
| 24.5/25 | Track record — 51 public repos, account ~7 yr old |
Inputs used
| followers | 193 |
| owner_type | Organization |
| is_verified | — |
| owner_login | erlef |
| public_repos | 51 |
| account_age_days | 2,710 |
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.
Package maintenance
100Exceptional
How it's scored
| 25/25 | Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on hex |
| 35/35 | Publish recency — latest publish 98 days ago |
| 20/20 | Version history — 14 published versions |
| 20/20 | Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked |
Inputs used
| packages | sbom |
| ecosystems | hex |
| any_deprecated | no |
| min_days_since_publish | 98 |
Engineering Quality
Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?
64
Engineering practices
64Moderate
How it's scored
| 24/24 | CI workflows — 14 workflow(s) |
| 24/24 | Tests present |
| 0/16 | Linter config |
| 0/9.6 | Pre-commit hooks |
| 0/6.4 | .editorconfig |
| 16/20 | OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 22 out of 25 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 8 |
Inputs used
| has_ci | yes |
| has_tests | yes |
| has_editorconfig | no |
| has_linter_config | no |
| has_precommit_config | no |
Documentation
65Good
How it's scored
| 30/30 | README |
| 0/25 | Documentation directory |
| 15/15 | Documentation / homepage site — https://hex.pm/packages/sbom |
| 10/10 | Repository description |
| 10/10 | Topics — 5 topics |
| 0/10 | Wiki |
Inputs used
| topics | elixir, mix, sbom, security-wg, cyclonedx |
| has_wiki | no |
| homepage | https://hex.pm/packages/sbom |
| docs_site | https://hex.pm/packages/sbom |
| 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?
79
Security posture
79Good
How it's scored
| 7.5/7.5 | Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo |
| 0.8/7.5 | Branch-Protection — branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches |
| 2/2.5 | CI-Tests — 22 out of 25 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 8 |
| 1.2/2.5 | CII-Best-Practices — badge detected: Passing |
| 1.5/7.5 | Code-Review — Found 2/7 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2 |
| 2.5/2.5 | Contributors — project has 11 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 |
| 2.2/2.5 | License — license file detected |
| 7.5/7.5 | Maintained — 19 commit(s) and 2 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10 |
| 0/5 | Packaging — no data |
| 5/5 | Pinned-Dependencies — all dependencies are pinned |
| 5/5 | SAST — SAST tool is run on all commits |
| 5/5 | Security-Policy — security policy file detected |
| 6/7.5 | Signed-Releases — 5 out of the last 5 releases have a total of 5 signed artifacts. |
| 7.5/7.5 | Token-Permissions — GitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege |
| 3/7.5 | Vulnerabilities — 6 existing vulnerabilities detected |
Inputs used
| source | openssf_scorecard |
| checks_evaluated | 17 |
| scorecard_version | v5.5.0 |
| checks_inconclusive | 1 |
| scorecard_aggregate | 7.9 |
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging. 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.
35
Agent context & guidance
1Critical
How it's scored
| 0/45 | Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules |
| 0/15 | Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) |
| 0/40 | Legible commit history — no data |
Inputs used
| has_llms_txt | no |
| llms_txt_url | — |
| legible_history_share | — |
| agent_instruction_files | — |
| agent_instruction_max_bytes | — |
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Legible commit history. Remaining weights renormalized.
Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)
52Moderate
How it's scored
| 0/18 | One-command bootstrap |
| 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 data |
| 5/8 | Automated maintenance — dependency automation configured, none observed in the sampled commits |
| 10/10 | OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — all dependencies are pinned |
Inputs used
| 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 | — |
| toolchain_manifests | — |
| dependency_bot_commit_share | 0 |
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Demonstrated agent practice. Remaining weights renormalized.
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 — 0/587 source files over 60KB |
Inputs used
| primary_language | Elixir |
| largest_source_bytes | 19,001 |
| source_files_sampled | 587 |
| oversized_source_files | 0 |
Key facts
47GitHub stars
11contributors
135commits, last 12 months
3days since last push
14releases
1bus factor
5open issues
Hexpackage ecosystems
More detail
OpenSSF Scorecard 7.9 / 10
7.9aggregate
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 |
| 1 | Branch-Protection | branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches |
| 8 | CI-Tests | 22 out of 25 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 8 |
| 5 | CII-Best-Practices | badge detected: Passing |
| 2 | Code-Review | Found 2/7 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2 |
| 10 | Contributors | project has 11 contributing companies or organizations |
| 10 | Dangerous-Workflow | no dangerous workflow patterns detected |
| 10 | Dependency-Update-Tool | update tool detected |
| 10 | Fuzzing | project is fuzzed |
| 9 | License | license file detected |
| 10 | Maintained | 19 commit(s) and 2 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10 |
| n/a | Packaging | packaging workflow not detected |
| 10 | Pinned-Dependencies | all dependencies are pinned |
| 10 | SAST | SAST tool is run on all commits |
| 10 | Security-Policy | security policy file detected |
| 8 | Signed-Releases | 5 out of the last 5 releases have a total of 5 signed artifacts. |
| 10 | Token-Permissions | GitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege |
| 4 | Vulnerabilities | 6 existing vulnerabilities detected |
Direct dependencies 7
| Registry | Package | Version constraint | Manifest |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hex | burrito | ~> 1.0 | mix.exs |
| Hex | hex_core | ~> 0.18.0 | mix.exs |
| Hex | jason | ~> 1.4 | mix.exs |
| Hex | optimus | ~> 0.6.1 | mix.exs |
| Hex | protobuf | ~> 0.17.0 | mix.exs |
| Hex | purl | ~> 0.3.0 | mix.exs |
| Hex | hex | ~> 2.3 | mix.exs |
All dependencies 68
Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 8 direct and 60 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.
| Registry | Package | Version | Relation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hex | hex_core | 0.18.0 | direct |
| Hex | jason | 1.1.2 | direct |
| Hex | jason | 1.4.0 | direct |
| Hex | jason | 1.4.4 | direct |
| Hex | jason | 1.4.5 | direct |
| Hex | optimus | 0.6.1 | direct |
| Hex | protobuf | 0.17.0 | direct |
| Hex | purl | 0.3.0 | direct |
| Hex | 0ban/oban_pro | 1.5.4 | indirect |
| Hex | bunt | 0.2.1 | indirect |
| Hex | bunt | 1.0.0 | indirect |
| Hex | certifi | 2.5.1 | indirect |
| Hex | circuits_gpio | ~> 0.4 | indirect |
| Hex | complex_dep | ~> 1.0 | indirect |
| Hex | credo | 1.7.0 | indirect |
| Hex | credo | 1.7.12 | indirect |
| Hex | credo | 1.7.19 | indirect |
| Hex | credo | ~> 1.7 | indirect |
| Hex | db_connection | 2.7.0 | indirect |
| Hex | decimal | 2.3.0 | indirect |
| Hex | dialyxir | 1.4.7 | indirect |
| Hex | dialyxir | ~> 1.0 | indirect |
| Hex | doctest_formatter | 0.4.1 | indirect |
| Hex | earmark | 1.4.2 | indirect |
| Hex | earmark_parser | 1.4.45 | indirect |
| Hex | ecto | 3.12.5 | indirect |
| Hex | ecto_sql | 3.12.1 | indirect |
| Hex | erlex | 0.2.9 | indirect |
| Hex | ex_doc | 0.21.2 | indirect |
| Hex | ex_doc | 0.40.3 | indirect |
| Hex | ex_doc | ~> 0.21.2 | indirect |
| Hex | excoveralls | 0.18.5 | indirect |
| Hex | excoveralls | ~> 0.10 | indirect |
| Hex | file_system | 0.2.10 | indirect |
| Hex | file_system | 1.1.0 | indirect |
| Hex | file_system | 1.1.1 | indirect |
| Hex | hackney | 1.15.2 | indirect |
| Hex | hackney | ~> 1.15 | indirect |
| Hex | idna | 6.0.0 | indirect |
| Hex | makeup | 1.0.0 | indirect |
| Hex | makeup | 1.2.1 | indirect |
| Hex | makeup_elixir | 0.14.0 | indirect |
| Hex | makeup_elixir | 1.0.1 | indirect |
| Hex | makeup_erlang | 1.1.0 | indirect |
| Hex | meck | 0.8.13 | indirect |
| Hex | meck | ~> 0.8.13 | indirect |
| Hex | metrics | 1.0.1 | indirect |
| Hex | mime | 2.0.6 | indirect |
| Hex | mimerl | 1.2.0 | indirect |
| Hex | mix_test_watch | ~> 1.0 | indirect |
| Hex | nerves | ~> 1.6 | indirect |
| Hex | nimble_parsec | 0.5.1 | indirect |
| Hex | nimble_parsec | 1.4.2 | indirect |
| Hex | number | 1.0.5 | indirect |
| Hex | oban | 2.19.4 | indirect |
| Hex | optional_dep | ~> 1.0 | indirect |
| Hex | optional_dev_dep | ~> 2.0 | indirect |
| Hex | parse_trans | 3.3.0 | indirect |
| Hex | phoenix | ~> 1.5 | indirect |
| Hex | phoenix_live_dashboard | ~> 0.4 | indirect |
| Hex | ssl_verify_fun | 1.1.5 | indirect |
| Hex | stream_data | 1.3.0 | indirect |
| Hex | styler | 1.11.0 | indirect |
| Hex | sweet_xml | 0.6.6 | indirect |
| Hex | sweet_xml | ~> 0.6.6 | indirect |
| Hex | telemetry | 1.3.0 | indirect |
| Hex | telemetry | 1.4.1 | indirect |
| Hex | unicode_util_compat | 0.4.1 | indirect |
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 v0.11.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.
How one result sits in the wider record: aggregate statistics — Hex.