Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-19 19:02 UTC

erlef / oidcc

OpenId Connect client library in Erlang & Elixir

Erlang · ElixirApache-2.0★ 240 stars⑂ 69 forkssince Feb 2016View on GitHub ↗

erlef/oidcc holds a health index of 92 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Vitality (85/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (56/100). It was last updated 13 days ago. 2 contributors account for most of its recent work.

92
overall / 100
Excellent

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.

92
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 78 is calibrated to 92 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

The Erlang Ecosystem FoundationOrganization · verified domain
197 followers51 public repossince Feb 2019

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
Hexoidcc3.9.044,0235720 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

85Excellent · 21% of overall
How it's scored
28.8/36Push recency — last push 13 days ago
25.6/36Commit cadence — 37/52 weeks with commits
17/18Commit volume — 77 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year77
human_commit_share0.49
days_since_last_push13
active_weeks_last_year37
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 54 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 20 days ago
19.8/27Release cadence — a release every ~57 days
8/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — 5 out of the last 5 releases have a total of 5 signed artifacts.
Inputs used
releases_count54
latest_release_tagv3.9.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release20
mean_days_between_releases57

Community & Adoption

Does the project have users, downloads, attention, and a welcoming setup for contributors?

75Good · 17% of overall
How it's scored
38.6/60Stars — 240 stars
15.3/25Forks — 69 forks
5.6/15Watchers — 11 watchers
Inputs used
forks69
stars240
watchers11
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

92Excellent
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (Apache-2.0)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
6.3/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges8
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_servicescoveralls.io, github.com, shields.io, www.bestpractices.dev
has_pull_request_templateyes
How it's scored
61.9/80Monthly downloads — 44,023 downloads/month across hex
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesoidcc
dependents—
ecosystemshex
total_downloads853,039
monthly_downloads44,023
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?

78Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
25.2/54Bus factor — 2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
11.3/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 50% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 26 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 15 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor2
contributors_sampled26
top_contributor_share0.498
How it's scored
38.4/42Issue resolution — 92% of issues closed
27.5/30PR acceptance — 355/387 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — 0/1 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
3/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 6/22 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
Inputs used
merged_prs355
open_issues11
closed_issues119
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d1
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d1
issue_closed_ratio0.915
closed_unmerged_prs32
first_time_authors_30d1
first_time_prs_merged_30d0
first_time_prs_decided_30d1
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
20/20Verified domain
16.5/25Owner reach — 197 followers of erlef
24.5/25Track record — 51 public repos, account ~7 yr old
Inputs used
followers197
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedyes
owner_loginerlef
public_repos51
account_age_days2,775

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on hex
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 20 days ago
20/20Version history — 57 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesoidcc
ecosystemshex
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish20

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

76Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 14 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
18/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 16 out of 17 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9
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://hexdocs.pm/oidcc
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 7 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsclient, elixir, erlang, openid, openid-client, openid-connect, security-wg
has_wikino
homepagehttps://hexdocs.pm/oidcc
docs_sitehttps://hexdocs.pm/oidcc
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

80Excellent · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
3/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
2.2/2.5CI-Tests — 16 out of 17 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9
1.2/2.5CII-Best-Practices — badge detected: Passing
1.5/7.5Code-Review — Found 6/22 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 15 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
7.5/7.5Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packaging — no data
5/5Pinned-Dependencies — all dependencies are pinned
5/5SAST — SAST tool is run on all commits
5/5Security-Policy — security policy file detected
6/7.5Signed-Releases — 5 out of the last 5 releases have a total of 5 signed artifacts.
7.5/7.5Token-Permissions — GitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
4.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 4 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated17
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive1
scorecard_aggregate7.8
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
26.6/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories — 1 affected: igniter 0.8.3 (unknown)
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
40/40No advisories left outstanding — no advisory has been public longer than 90 days
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories4
affected_packages2
assessed_packages34
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severityhigh 1, unknown 1
direct_affected_packages1
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 34 resolved dependencies against OSV. This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so the repository dependency graph was assessed instead. That graph mixes development and test pins with shipped dependencies, so only the declared runtime dependencies are scored; transitive findings are reported as context and excluded from the score. Reachability is not analyzed.

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.

56Moderate · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
33.7/40Legible commit history — 31 of 49 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.633
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 — lockfile
10/10Demonstrated agent practice — 8 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
8/8Automated maintenance — 51 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — all dependencies are pinned
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesmix.lock
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0.08
toolchain_manifestsmix.exs
dependency_bot_commit_share0.51
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — Erlang without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/37 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageErlang
largest_source_bytes17,254
source_files_sampled37
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

240GitHub stars
26contributors
77commits, last 12 months
13days since last push
54releases
2bus factor
11open 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 ★ / 69 ⇿
0Stars
69Forks
45Releases

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.

01325385063756432017-022021-112026-08
Major 1Minor 10Patch 15

Each point covers 9 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 7.8 / 10
7.8aggregate

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 · 2026-09-19 19:02 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
4Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
9CI-Tests16 out of 17 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9
5CII-Best-Practicesbadge detected: Passing
2Code-ReviewFound 6/22 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
10Contributorsproject has 15 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
10Pinned-Dependenciesall dependencies are pinned
10SASTSAST tool is run on all commits
10Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
8Signed-Releases5 out of the last 5 releases have a total of 5 signed artifacts.
10Token-PermissionsGitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
6Vulnerabilities4 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 5
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Hexok—mix.exs
Hextelemetry~> 1.2mix.exs
Hextelemetry_registry~> 0.3.1mix.exs
Hexjose~> 1.11mix.exs
Hexigniter>= 0.6.3 and < 0.9.0mix.exs
All dependencies 34

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 4 direct and 30 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
Hexigniter0.8.3direct
Hexjose1.11.12direct
Hextelemetry1.4.2direct
Hextelemetry_registry0.3.2direct
Hexbunt1.0.0indirect
Hexcredo1.7.19indirect
Hexdialyxir1.4.7indirect
Hexearmark_parser1.4.46indirect
Hexerlex0.2.9indirect
Hexex_ast0.13.1indirect
Hexex_doc0.40.3indirect
Hexfile_system1.1.1indirect
Hexfinch0.23.0indirect
Hexglob_ex0.1.12indirect
Hexhpax1.0.4indirect
Hexinflex2.1.0indirect
Hexjason1.4.5indirect
Hexmakeup1.2.2indirect
Hexmakeup_elixir1.0.1indirect
Hexmakeup_erlang1.1.0indirect
Hexmeck0.9.2indirect
Hexmime2.0.7indirect
Hexmint1.9.3indirect
Hexmock0.3.9indirect
Hexnimble_options1.1.1indirect
Hexnimble_parsec1.4.2indirect
Hexnimble_pool1.1.0indirect
Hexowl0.13.1indirect
Hexreq0.7.1indirect
Hexrewrite1.3.0indirect
Hexsourceror1.12.2indirect
Hexspitfire0.3.13indirect
Hexstyler1.4.2indirect
Hextext_diff0.1.0indirect
Dependency advisories 2

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 34 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 2 carry known advisories, of which 1 are direct.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
mint1.9.3indirecthigh31.10.1
igniter0.8.3directunknown10.8.4

An advisory means the version recorded in the dependency graph falls inside an advisory’s affected range. Reachability is not analysed, and the graph includes development and test pins — a finding may concern tooling rather than shipped software.

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.