Public record
Software health reportschema 0.11.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-17 09:36 UTC

lexhide / xandra

Fast, simple, and robust Cassandra/ScyllaDB driver for Elixir.

ElixirISC★ 430 stars⑂ 62 forkssince May 2016View on GitHub ↗

lexhide/xandra holds a health index of 62 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Community & Adoption (67/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (32/100). It was last updated 4 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

62
overall / 100
Moderate

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.

62
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 58 is calibrated to 62 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Andrea LeopardiPersonal account
1,230 followers83 public repossince Mar 2013@knocklabs

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
Hexxandra0.19.48,56647388 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

55Moderate · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 4 days ago
3.5/36Commit cadence5/52 weeks with commits
10.8/18Commit volume15 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained13 commit(s) and 2 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year15
human_commit_share
days_since_last_push4
active_weeks_last_year5
How it's scored
16.2/27Ships releases46 version tags (no GitHub releases)
7.2/36Release recencylatest release 388 days ago
19.8/27Release cadencea release every ~68.5 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count46
latest_release_tagv0.19.4
releases_from_tagsyes
days_since_latest_release388
mean_days_between_releases68.5
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?

67Good · 17% of overall
How it's scored
42.7/60Stars430 stars
14.9/25Forks62 forks
6/15Watchers13 watchers
Inputs used
forks62
stars430
watchers13
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (ISC)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
52.4/80Monthly downloads8,566 downloads/month across hex
0/20Registry dependentsnot reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesxandra
dependents
ecosystemshex
total_downloads888,188
monthly_downloads8,566
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?

67Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
7.3/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 68% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth23 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 10 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled23
top_contributor_share0.677
How it's scored
41.7/42Issue resolution99% of issues closed
26.7/30PR acceptance213/239 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
4.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 11/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
merged_prs213
open_issues1
closed_issues162
prs_merged_7d
prs_decided_7d
prs_merged_30d
prs_decided_30d
issue_closed_ratio0.994
closed_unmerged_prs26
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.
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backingpersonal (user) account
0/20Verified domainnot applicable to user accounts
22.2/25Owner reach1,230 followers of whatyouhide
25/25Track record83 public repos, account ~13 yr old
Inputs used
followers1,230
owner_typeUser
is_verified
owner_loginwhatyouhide
public_repos83
account_age_days4,869
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable1 package(s) on hex
14/35Publish recencylatest publish 388 days ago
20/20Version history47 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesxandra
ecosystemshex
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish388

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

57Moderate · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows2 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
14/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests14 out of 20 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 7
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

50Moderate
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics3 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicselixir, cassandra, scylla
has_wikino
homepage
docs_site
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

49Weak · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protectionno data
1.8/2.5CI-Tests14 out of 20 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 7
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
2.2/7.5Code-ReviewFound 11/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 3
2.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 10 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
5/5Fuzzingproject is fuzzed
2.5/2.5Licenselicense file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained13 commit(s) and 2 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packagingno data
3/5Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 6
0/5SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releasesno data
0/7.5Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0/7.5Vulnerabilities15 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated15
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive3
scorecard_aggregate4.9
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.

32At Risk · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
0/40Legible commit historyno data
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
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.
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environmentDockerfile, lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno data
0/8Automated maintenanceno data
6/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesmix.lock
has_dockerfileyes
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Demonstrated agent practice, Automated maintenance. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable codeElixir without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes0/95 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageElixir
largest_source_bytes55,221
source_files_sampled95
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

430GitHub stars
23contributors
15commits, last 12 months
4days since last push
46releases
1bus factor
1open issues
Hexpackage ecosystems

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.9 / 10
4.9aggregate

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).Scorecard v5.5.0 · 2026-07-17 09:36 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
7CI-Tests14 out of 20 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 7
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
3Code-ReviewFound 11/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 3
10Contributorsproject has 10 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
10Fuzzingproject is fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained13 commit(s) and 2 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
6Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 6
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 7
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Hexdecimal~> 1.7 or ~> 2.0 or ~> 3.0mix.exs
Hexnimble_options~> 1.0mix.exs
Hextelemetry~> 0.4.3 or ~> 1.0mix.exs
Hexspawn_executablemixmix.exs
Hexdatamix.exs
Hexexit_statusmix.exs
Hexexit_statusmix.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
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 v0.11.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

How one result sits in the wider record: aggregate statisticsHex.