Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-26 14:58 UTC

lfe / rebar3

A modern rebar3 plugin for LFE projects

ErlangApache-2.0★ 53 stars⑂ 21 forkssince Jul 2020View on GitHub ↗

lfe/rebar3 holds a health index of 69 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Vitality (78/100) and lowest on Security (46/100). It was last updated 17 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

69
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.

69
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 62 is calibrated to 69 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

53 followers15 public repossince Jan 2013

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
Hexrebar3_lfe0.5.82,0242617 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

78Good · 21% of overall
How it's scored
28.8/36Push recency — last push 17 days ago
7.6/36Commit cadence — 11/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 223 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 2 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year223
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push17
active_weeks_last_year11

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 19 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 17 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~32.6 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count19
latest_release_tag0.5.8
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release17
mean_days_between_releases32.6
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?

55Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
27.8/60Stars — 53 stars
10.8/25Forks — 21 forks
4.3/15Watchers — 7 watchers
Inputs used
forks21
stars53
watchers7
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)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges0
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
44.1/80Monthly downloads — 2,024 downloads/month across hex
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesrebar3_lfe
dependents
ecosystemshex
total_downloads67,786
monthly_downloads2,024
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?

63Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0.5/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 98% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 10 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 17 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled10
top_contributor_share0.976
How it's scored
38.6/42Issue resolution — 92% of issues closed
22.5/30PR acceptance — 18/24 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 1/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs18
open_issues6
closed_issues69
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio0.92
closed_unmerged_prs6
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
12.5/25Owner reach — 53 followers of lfe
20.8/25Track record — 15 public repos, account ~13 yr old
Inputs used
followers53
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_loginlfe
public_repos15
account_age_days4,955

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on hex
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 17 days ago
20/20Version history — 26 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesrebar3_lfe
ecosystemshex
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish17

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

65Good · 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 — 0 out of 1 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
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://lfe-rebar3.github.io/
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 10 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicslfe, erlang, lisp, tooling, utilities, rebar, rebar3, beam, plugins, hacktoberfest
has_wikino
homepagehttps://lfe-rebar3.github.io/
docs_sitehttps://lfe-rebar3.github.io/
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

46Weak · 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
0/2.5CI-Tests — 0 out of 1 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-Review — Found 1/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 17 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
5/5Fuzzing — project is fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 2 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_aggregate4.6
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
45/45Agent instructions — AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
35.2/40Legible commit history — 66 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.66
agent_instruction_filesAGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes1,317
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrap — Makefile
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
0/11Static type checking
0/10Reproducible environment
10/10Demonstrated agent practice — 53 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
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_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_filesMakefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share0.53
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.

Key facts

53GitHub stars
10contributors
223commits, last 12 months
17days since last push
19releases
1bus factor
6open issues
package ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • GitHub dependency-graph SBOM unavailable (404); the dependency graph may be disabled for this repository

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 21 ⇿
0Stars
21Forks
16Releases

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.

048121620242122020-082023-072026-06
Major 0Minor 3Patch 13

Each point covers 6 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.6 / 10
4.6aggregate

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 · 2026-08-26 14:58 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0CI-Tests0 out of 1 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 1/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
10Contributorsproject has 17 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
10Fuzzingproject is fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 2 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 not collected

The resolved dependency set could not be collected for this report: GitHub dependency-graph SBOM unavailable (404); the dependency graph may be disabled for this repository

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 statisticsHex.