Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-09 19:15 UTC

maxmarcon / live_select

Dynamic (multi)selection field for LiveView

ElixirApache-2.0★ 250 stars⑂ 58 forkssince Jun 2022View on GitHub ↗
KindNetwork serviceLibraryhow this is determined

maxmarcon/live_select holds a health index of 51 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (71/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (37/100). It was last updated 213 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

51
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.

51
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 51 is calibrated to 51 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

MaxPersonal account
13 followers28 public repossince Feb 2015Self-employed

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

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

37Weak · 21% of overall
How it's scored
3.6/36Push recency — last push 213 days ago
2.8/36Commit cadence — 4/52 weeks with commits
11.9/18Commit volume — 20 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
commits_last_year20
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push213
active_weeks_last_year4
How it's scored
16.2/27Ships releases — 45 version tags (no GitHub releases)
16.2/36Release recency — latest release 213 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~41.9 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count45
latest_release_tagv1.7.5
releases_from_tagsyes
days_since_latest_release213
mean_days_between_releases41.9
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?

53Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
38.9/60Stars — 250 stars
14.6/25Forks — 58 forks
2.7/15Watchers — 4 watchers
Inputs used
forks58
stars250
watchers4
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)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges3
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesgithub.com, shields.io
has_pull_request_templateno

Sustainability & Governance

Will the project survive its people — bus factor, responsiveness, who backs it, and package upkeep?

49Weak · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
1.5/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 93% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 21 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 6 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled21
top_contributor_share0.932
How it's scored
33.3/42Issue resolution — 79% of issues closed
21.1/30PR acceptance — 26/37 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
3/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 5/24 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
Inputs used
merged_prs26
open_issues20
closed_issues76
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio0.792
closed_unmerged_prs11
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
8.2/25Owner reach — 13 followers of maxmarcon
22.6/25Track record — 28 public repos, account ~11 yr old
Inputs used
followers13
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginmaxmarcon
public_repos28
account_age_days4,216
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

71Good · 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
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 5 out of 5 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://hex.pm/packages/live_select
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 9 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsdaisyui, dropdown-menus, liveview, multiselect, tailwindcss, component, elixir, form-input, web-forms
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://hex.pm/packages/live_select
docs_sitehttps://hex.pm/packages/live_select
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

52Moderate · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — no data
2.5/2.5CI-Tests — 5 out of 5 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
1.5/7.5Code-Review — Found 5/24 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 6 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
0/7.5Maintained — 0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
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
7.5/7.5Token-Permissions — GitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
0/7.5Vulnerabilities — 41 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated15
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive3
scorecard_aggregate4
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, Packaging, Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories22
affected_packages9
assessed_packages104
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severityhigh 6, moderate 3
direct_affected_packages0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories, No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 104 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.

37Weak · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
17.1/40Legible commit history — 32 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.32
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 — Dockerfile, lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
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
lockfilesmix.lock, yarn.lock
has_dockerfileyes
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifestsmix.exs
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — Elixir without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/38 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageElixir
largest_source_bytes30,621
source_files_sampled38
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

250GitHub stars
21contributors
20commits, last 12 months
213days since last push
45releases
1bus factor
20open issues
Hex, npmpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • Could not fetch npm package 'live_select' from its registry

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 58 ⇿
0Stars
58Forks
40Releases

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.

01020304050605632022-092024-052026-02
Major 1Minor 10Patch 29

Each point covers 4 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.0 / 10
4.0aggregate

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 · 2026-09-09 19:15 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
10CI-Tests5 out of 5 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
2Code-ReviewFound 5/24 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
10Contributorsproject has 6 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
0Maintained0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
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
10Token-PermissionsGitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
0Vulnerabilities41 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 5
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Hexphoenix_live_view~> 0.19 or ~> 1.0mix.exs
Hexphoenix_html~> 4.0mix.exs
Hexphoenix_html_helpers~> 1.0mix.exs
Hexphoenix>= 1.6.0mix.exs
Hexecto~> 3.8mix.exs
All dependencies 104

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 104 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
npm@alloc/quick-lru5.2.0indirect
npm@jridgewell/gen-mapping0.3.3indirect
npm@jridgewell/resolve-uri3.1.1indirect
npm@jridgewell/set-array1.1.2indirect
npm@jridgewell/sourcemap-codec1.4.15indirect
npm@jridgewell/trace-mapping0.3.20indirect
npm@nodelib/fs.scandir2.1.5indirect
npm@nodelib/fs.stat2.0.5indirect
npm@nodelib/fs.walk1.2.8indirect
npm@tailwindcss/forms0.5.6indirect
npm@tailwindcss/typography0.5.10indirect
npmany-promise1.3.0indirect
npmanymatch3.1.2indirect
npmarg5.0.2indirect
npmbalanced-match1.0.2indirect
npmbinary-extensions2.2.0indirect
npmbrace-expansion1.1.11indirect
npmbraces3.0.2indirect
npmcamelcase-css2.0.1indirect
npmchokidar3.5.3indirect
npmclipboard2.0.11indirect
npmcolord2.9.3indirect
npmcommander4.1.1indirect
npmconcat-map0.0.1indirect
npmcss-selector-tokenizer0.8.0indirect
npmcssesc3.0.0indirect
npmdaisyui3.9.3indirect
npmdelegate3.2.0indirect
npmdidyoumean1.2.2indirect
npmdlv1.1.3indirect
npmfast-glob3.3.1indirect
npmfastparse1.1.2indirect
npmfastq1.13.0indirect
npmfill-range7.0.1indirect
npmfs.realpath1.0.0indirect
npmfsevents2.3.2indirect
npmfunction-bind1.1.1indirect
npmfunction-bind1.1.2indirect
npmglob7.1.6indirect
npmglob-parent5.1.2indirect
npmglob-parent6.0.2indirect
npmgood-listener1.2.2indirect
npmhas1.0.3indirect
npmhasown2.0.0indirect
npminflight1.0.6indirect
npminherits2.0.4indirect
npmis-binary-path2.1.0indirect
npmis-core-module2.13.1indirect
npmis-core-module2.9.0indirect
npmis-extglob2.1.1indirect
npmis-glob4.0.3indirect
npmis-number7.0.0indirect
npmjiti1.20.0indirect
npmlilconfig2.0.5indirect
npmlilconfig2.1.0indirect
npmlines-and-columns1.2.4indirect
npmlodash.castarray4.4.0indirect
npmlodash.isplainobject4.0.6indirect
npmlodash.merge4.6.2indirect
npmmerge21.4.1indirect
npmmicromatch4.0.5indirect
npmmini-svg-data-uri1.4.4indirect
npmminimatch3.1.2indirect
npmmz2.7.0indirect
npmnanoid3.3.6indirect
npmnormalize-path3.0.0indirect
npmobject-assign4.1.1indirect
npmobject-hash3.0.0indirect
npmonce1.4.0indirect
npmpath-is-absolute1.0.1indirect
npmpath-parse1.0.7indirect
npmpicocolors1.0.0indirect
npmpicomatch2.3.1indirect
npmpify2.3.0indirect
npmpirates4.0.6indirect
npmpostcss8.4.31indirect
npmpostcss-import15.1.0indirect
npmpostcss-js4.0.1indirect
npmpostcss-load-config4.0.1indirect
npmpostcss-nested6.0.1indirect
npmpostcss-selector-parser6.0.10indirect
npmpostcss-selector-parser6.0.13indirect
npmpostcss-value-parser4.2.0indirect
npmqueue-microtask1.2.3indirect
npmread-cache1.0.0indirect
npmreaddirp3.6.0indirect
npmresolve1.22.1indirect
npmresolve1.22.8indirect
npmreusify1.0.4indirect
npmrun-parallel1.2.0indirect
npmselect1.1.2indirect
npmsource-map-js1.0.2indirect
npmsucrase3.34.0indirect
npmsupports-preserve-symlinks-flag1.0.0indirect
npmtailwindcss3.3.3indirect
npmtheme-change2.5.0indirect
npmthenify3.3.1indirect
npmthenify-all1.6.0indirect
npmtiny-emitter2.1.0indirect
npmto-regex-range5.0.1indirect
npmts-interface-checker0.1.13indirect
npmutil-deprecate1.0.2indirect
npmwrappy1.0.2indirect
npmyaml2.3.3indirect
Dependency advisories 9

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 104 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 9 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
brace-expansion1.1.11indirecthigh55.0.9
braces3.0.2indirecthigh13.0.3
minimatch3.1.2indirecthigh310.2.3
nanoid3.3.6indirecthigh45.1.16
picomatch2.3.1indirecthigh24.0.4
postcss8.4.31indirecthigh48.5.23
colord2.9.3indirectmoderate12.9.4
micromatch4.0.5indirectmoderate14.0.8
yaml2.3.3indirectmoderate12.8.3

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.