Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-09 15:10 UTC

general-CbIC / poolex

A library for managing pools of workers

ElixirMIT★ 88 stars⑂ 8 forkssince Nov 2022View on GitHub ↗

general-CbIC/poolex holds a health index of 75 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Vitality (88/100) and lowest on Security (33/100). It was last updated 2 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

75
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.

75
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 65 is calibrated to 75 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Aleksandr SysoevPersonal account
25 followers37 public repossince Jul 2015Aviasales — @KosyanMedia

This repository is owned by a personal account. A single-owner project carries more continuity risk than an organization-backed one.

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
Hexpoolex1.6.44,3894367 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

88Excellent · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 2 days ago
24.2/36Commit cadence — 35/52 weeks with commits
17.6/18Commit volume — 90 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — no data
Inputs used
commits_last_year90
human_commit_share0.63
days_since_last_push2
active_weeks_last_year35
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 34 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 67 days ago
19.8/27Release cadence — a release every ~50.4 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count34
latest_release_tagv1.6.4
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release67
mean_days_between_releases50.4

Community & Adoption

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

55Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
31.5/60Stars — 88 stars
7/25Forks — 8 forks
0/15Watchers — 1 watchers
Inputs used
forks8
stars88
watchers1
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (MIT)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges8
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesgithub.com, shields.io
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
48.6/80Monthly downloads — 4,389 downloads/month across hex
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagespoolex
dependents—
ecosystemshex
total_downloads132,101
monthly_downloads4,389
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?

64Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0.4/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 98% of commits
6.8/13.5Contributor breadth — 5 contributors
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — no data
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled5
top_contributor_share0.984
How it's scored
42/42Issue resolution — 100% of issues closed
29.8/30PR acceptance — 182/183 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — no data
Inputs used
merged_prs182
open_issues0
closed_issues27
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio1
closed_unmerged_prs1
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
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
10.2/25Owner reach — 25 followers of general-CbIC
23.5/25Track record — 37 public repos, account ~11 yr old
Inputs used
followers25
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_logingeneral-CbIC
public_repos37
account_age_days4,073
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on hex
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 67 days ago
20/20Version history — 43 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagespoolex
ecosystemshex
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish67

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

76Good · 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
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — no data
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://hexdocs.pm/poolex/
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 6 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicselixir-library, worker-pool, elixir, poolboy, hacktoberfest, poolex
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://hexdocs.pm/poolex/
docs_sitehttps://hexdocs.pm/poolex/
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

33At Risk · 16% of overall
How it's scored
0/30Security policy (SECURITY.md)
25/25Dependabot config
0/25Dependency lockfiles — published library — lockfiles are an application concern, not expected
0/20CodeQL workflow
Inputs used
sourcefile_signals
lockfilesmix.lock
manifestsmix.exs
has_codeql_workflowno
has_security_policyno
has_dependabot_configyes
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Dependency lockfiles. 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.

70Good · 4% of overall
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructions — CLAUDE.md, examples/poolex_example/CLAUDE.md
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
17.8/40Legible commit history — 21 of 63 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.333
agent_instruction_filesCLAUDE.md, examples/poolex_example/CLAUDE.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes5,783
How it's scored
12.6/18One-command bootstrap — examples/poolex_example/mix.exs, 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 — 37 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — no data
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_manifestsexamples/poolex_example/mix.exs, mix.exs
dependency_bot_commit_share0.37
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — Elixir without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/49 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageElixir
largest_source_bytes39,762
source_files_sampled49
oversized_source_files0
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

88GitHub stars
5contributors
90commits, last 12 months
2days since last push
34releases
1bus factor
0open issues
Hexpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • OpenSSF Scorecard did not return a usable result (exit code 0; Skipping github.com/general-CbIC/poolex: run: internal error: ListCommits:error during graphqlHandler.setup: internal error: githubv4.Query: Something went wrong while executing your query on 2026-09-09T15:10:57Z. Please include `82AC:1F18CA:672A0B:63A1E2:6AA176FE` when reporting this issue.); skipping Scorecard checks

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 8 ⇿
0Stars
8Forks
19Releases

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.

02468812023-032024-072025-12
Major 1Minor 8Patch 10

Each point covers 3 days.

Direct dependencies 2
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Hextelemetry~> 1.0mix.exs
Hextelemetry_poller~> 1.0mix.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.