Public record
Software health reportschema 0.27.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-23 06:30 UTC

lucacorti / lapin

Elixir RabbitMQ Client

ElixirMIT★ 26 stars⑂ 11 forkssince Oct 2017View on GitHub ↗

lucacorti/lapin holds a health index of 59 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (74/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (44/100). It was last updated 29 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

59
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.

59
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 56 is calibrated to 59 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Luca CortiPersonal account
32 followers69 public repossince Sep 2011CTO @sibill-it

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
Hexlapin2.0.02,01624620 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

57Moderate · 21% of overall
How it's scored
28.8/36Push recencylast push 29 days ago
13.2/36Commit cadence19/52 weeks with commits
13.4/18Commit volume30 commits in the last year
5/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained6 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 5
Inputs used
commits_last_year30
human_commit_share0.57
days_since_last_push29
active_weeks_last_year19
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases7 releases published
7.2/36Release recencylatest release 620 days ago
12.6/27Release cadencea release every ~273.3 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count7
latest_release_tag2.0.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release620
mean_days_between_releases273.3
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?

44Weak · 17% of overall
How it's scored
22.7/60Stars26 stars
8.3/25Forks11 forks
0/15Watchers1 watchers
Inputs used
forks11
stars26
watchers1
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (MIT)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
44.1/80Monthly downloads2,016 downloads/month across hex
0/20Registry dependentsnot reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packageslapin
dependents
ecosystemshex
total_downloads139,917
monthly_downloads2,016
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?

56Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0.5/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 98% of commits
9.5/13.5Contributor breadth7 contributors
3/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled7
top_contributor_share0.979
How it's scored
40/42Issue resolution95% of issues closed
28.8/30PR acceptance197/205 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 0/7 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs197
open_issues1
closed_issues20
prs_merged_7d
prs_decided_7d
prs_merged_30d
prs_decided_30d
issue_closed_ratio0.952
closed_unmerged_prs8
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
10.9/25Owner reach32 followers of lucacorti
25/25Track record69 public repos, account ~14 yr old
Inputs used
followers32
owner_typeUser
is_verified
owner_loginlucacorti
public_repos69
account_age_days5,415
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 620 days ago
20/20Version history24 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packageslapin
ecosystemshex
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish620

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

74Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows1 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
18/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests22 out of 23 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

85Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics4 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsrabbitmq, rabbitmq-client, elixir, elixir-library
has_wikiyes
homepage
docs_site
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
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
2.2/2.5CI-Tests22 out of 23 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-ReviewFound 0/7 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0.8/2.5Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
10/10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5Licenselicense file detected
3.8/7.5Maintained6 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 5
0/5Packagingno data
0/5Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
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
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities0 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.

44Weak · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
26.2/40Legible commit history28 of 57 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.491
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
How it's scored
12.6/18One-command bootstrapmix.exs (toolchain convention, no task runner)
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environmentlockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno agent-authored commits among the last 100
8/8Automated maintenance43 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesmix.lock
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifestsmix.exs
dependency_bot_commit_share0.43
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable codeElixir without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes0/29 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageElixir
largest_source_bytes19,801
source_files_sampled29
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

26GitHub stars
7contributors
30commits, last 12 months
29days since last push
7releases
1bus factor
1open 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 ★ / 11 ⇿
0Stars
11Forks
3Releases

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.

02468101012017-102019-122022-03
Major 1Minor 0Patch 2

Each point covers 4 days.

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 · 2026-07-23 06:30 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
9CI-Tests22 out of 23 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 0/7 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
3Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
5Maintained6 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 5
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
Direct dependencies 1
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Hexamqp~> 4.0mix.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 v0.27.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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