Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-13 21:26 UTC

mdshamoon / glific

The Main application that provides the core interface via the glific APIs

ElixirAGPL-3.0★ 0 stars⑂ 0 forkssince Jan 2022forkView on GitHub ↗
KindNetwork servicehow this is determined

mdshamoon/glific holds a health index of 41 out of 100, placing it in the Weak band. It scores highest on AI Readiness (70/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (12/100). It was last updated 36 days ago. 2 contributors account for most of its recent work.

41
overall / 100
Weak

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.

41
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 44 is calibrated to 41 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Mohd ShamoonPersonal account
25 followers49 public repossince Oct 2017Project Tech4dev

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
Hexglificpoints to another repo — not scored5.1.64641275 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

65Good · 21% of overall

Development activity

76Good
How it's scored
18/36Push recency — last push 36 days ago
29.8/36Commit cadence — 43/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 359 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year359
human_commit_share0.95
days_since_last_push36
active_weeks_last_year43

Release discipline

48Weak
How it's scored
16.2/27Ships releases — 98 version tags (no GitHub releases)
0/36Release recency — latest release 1,712 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~6.4 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count98
latest_release_tagv4.0.1
releases_from_tagsyes
days_since_latest_release1,712
mean_days_between_releases6.4
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?

12Critical · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

1Critical
How it's scored
0/60Stars — 0 stars
0/25Forks — 0 forks
0/15Watchers — 0 watchers
Inputs used
forks0
stars0
watchers0
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

25At Risk
How it's scored
0/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (AGPL-3.0)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeno
has_licenseno
readme_badges8
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?

42Weak · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

64Moderate
How it's scored
25.2/54Bus factor — 2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
15.2/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 32% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 36 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 10 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor2
contributors_sampled36
top_contributor_share0.323

Issue & PR responsiveness

1Critical
How it's scored
0/42Issue resolution — no issues or no data
0/30PR acceptance — no decided pull requests or no data
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs0
open_issues0
closed_issues0
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio—
closed_unmerged_prs0
first_time_authors_30d0
first_time_prs_merged_30d0
first_time_prs_decided_30d0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Issue resolution, PR acceptance, Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.

Ownership & stewardship

56Moderate
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 mdshamoon
24.4/25Track record — 49 public repos, account ~8 yr old
Inputs used
followers25
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginmdshamoon
public_repos49
account_age_days3,263
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

46Weak · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

60Moderate
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 5 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
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests. Remaining weights renormalized.

Documentation

25At Risk
How it's scored
0/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://glific.org
0/10Repository description
0/10Topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics—
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://glific.org
docs_sitehttps://glific.org
has_readmeno
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionno

Security

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

42Weak · 16% of overall

Security posture

42Weak
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 — no data
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-Review — Found 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 10 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packaging — no data
0.5/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 1
0/5SAST — no SAST tool detected
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
0/7.5Vulnerabilities — 48 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated15
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive3
scorecard_aggregate4.2
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): CI-Tests, 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.

70Good · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

85Excellent
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructions — CLAUDE.md, lib/glific/CLAUDE.md, lib/glific_web/CLAUDE.md, priv/repo/migrations/CLAUDE.md, test/CLAUDE.md
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history — 93 of 95 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.979
agent_instruction_filesCLAUDE.md, lib/glific/CLAUDE.md, lib/glific_web/CLAUDE.md, priv/repo/migrations/CLAUDE.md, test/CLAUDE.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes11,744

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

64Moderate
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
10/10Demonstrated agent practice — 33 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
8/8Automated maintenance — 5 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
1/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 1
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesmix.lock
has_dockerfileyes
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0.33
toolchain_manifestsmix.exs
dependency_bot_commit_share0.05

Code legibility for models

55Moderate
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — Elixir without a type-check config
54.6/55Manageable file sizes — 6/820 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageElixir
largest_source_bytes101,835
source_files_sampled820
oversized_source_files6

Key facts

0GitHub stars
36contributors
359commits, last 12 months
36days since last push
98releases
2bus factor
0open issues
Hex, npmpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Community profile unavailable
  • hex package 'glific' points at a different repository (https://github.com/glific/glific/); excluded from ecosystem scoring
  • GitHub dependency-graph SBOM unavailable (404); the dependency graph may be disabled for this repository

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.2 / 10
4.2aggregate

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 · 2026-09-13 21:26 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
n/aCI-Testsno pull request found
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
10Contributorsproject has 10 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
1Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 1
0SASTno SAST tool detected
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0Vulnerabilities48 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 81
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Hexno_warnpriv/plts/dialyzer.pltmix.exs
Hexphoenix~> 1.7mix.exs
Hexphoenix_ecto~> 4.1mix.exs
Hexphoenix_html~> 3.3mix.exs
Hexphoenix_pubsub~> 2.0mix.exs
Hexphoenix_live_view~> 1.0mix.exs
Hexphoenix_live_dashboard~> 0.7mix.exs
Hexphoenix_view~> 2.0mix.exs
Hexpbkdf2_elixir~> 2.0mix.exs
Hextelemetry~> 1.0mix.exs
Hextelemetry_metrics~> 0.6mix.exs
Hextelemetry_poller~> 1.0mix.exs
Hexecto_sql~> 3.9mix.exs
Hexecto_psql_extras~> 0.8mix.exs
Hexesbuild~> 0.6mix.exs
Hexpostgrex~> 0.20mix.exs
Hexfloki>= 0.27.0mix.exs
Hexgettext~> 0.22mix.exs
Hexdecimal~> 2.0mix.exs
Hexjason~> 1.4mix.exs
Hexplug_cowboy~> 2.0mix.exs
Hexecto_enum~> 1.4mix.exs
Hexdoctor~> 0.20mix.exs
Hexpoison~> 4.0mix.exs
Hexex_rated~> 2.0mix.exs
Hexabsinthe~> 1.7mix.exs
Hexabsinthe_plug~> 1.5mix.exs
Hexabsinthe_phoenix~> 2.0mix.exs
Hexdataloader~> 2.0mix.exs
Hexhackney~> 1.17mix.exs
Hextesla~> 1.5mix.exs
Hexoban~> 2.19mix.exs
Hexoban_web~> 2.11mix.exs
Hexoban_pro~> 1.5mix.exs
Hexfaker~> 0.13mix.exs
Hexexcoveralls~> 0.15mix.exs
Hexpublicist~> 1.1mix.exs
Hexcors_plug~> 3.0mix.exs
Hexgoth~> 1.3mix.exs
Hexwormwood~> 0.1mix.exs
Hextimex~> 3.7mix.exs
Hexslugify~> 1.3mix.exs
Hexcachex~> 3.6mix.exs
Hexfun_with_flags~> 1.9mix.exs
Hexfun_with_flags_ui~> 1.0mix.exs
Hexpasswordless_auth~> 0.3.0mix.exs
Hexappsignal_phoenix~> 2.3mix.exs
Hexpoolboy~> 1.5mix.exs
Hexcloak_ecto~> 1.2mix.exs
Hexgoogle_api_big_query~> 0.47mix.exs
Hexgoogle_api_dialogflow~> 0.62mix.exs
Hexgpt3_tokenizer~> 0.1.0mix.exs
Hexabsinthe_graphql_ws~> 0.3mix.exs
Hexgoogle_api_sheets~> 0.29mix.exs
Hexwaffle~> 1.1mix.exs
Hexwaffle_ecto~> 0.0mix.exs
Hexcsv~> 3.2mix.exs
Hexobserver_cli~> 1.7mix.exs
Hexapiac_filter_ip_whitelist~> 1.0mix.exs
Hexex_phone_number~> 0.3mix.exs
Hextzdata~> 1.1mix.exs
Hexstripity_stripe~> 2.3mix.exs
Hexstripe_mock~> 0.1mix.exs
Hexremote_ip~> 1.0mix.exs
Hexexvcr~> 0.13mix.exs
Hexdotenvy~> 0.1mix.exs
Hextailwind~> 0.1mix.exs
Hexphoenix_swoosh~> 1.2mix.exs
Hexgen_smtp~> 1.1mix.exs
Hexglific_phil_columns~> 3.2mix.exs
Hexglific_forked_waffle_gcs~> 0.1.1mix.exs
Hexpowhttps://github.com/glific/pow.gitmix.exs
Hexcontex~> 0.5.0mix.exs
Hexpassword_validator~> 0.5mix.exs
Hexresvg~> 0.3.0mix.exs
Hexgoogle_api_translate~> 0.15mix.exs
Hexpassgen~> 0.1.1mix.exs
Hextarams~> 1.8mix.exs
Hexmix_test_watch~> 1.2mix.exs
Hexex_audit~> 0.10mix.exs
Hexreq~> 0.5.0mix.exs
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.

Related records

Inspected repositories sharing catalogue tags or ecosystems with mdshamoon/glific. Read them side by side →

99taskforcesh/bullmqBullMQ - Message Queue and Batch processing for NodeJS, Python, .NET, Elixir, Rust and PHP based on Redis or PostgreSQLExceptional100supabase/supabase-jsAn isomorphic Javascript client for Supabase. Query your Supabase database, subscribe to realtime events, upload and download files, browse typescript examples, invoke postgres functions via rpc, invoke supabase edge functions, query pgvector.Exceptional100nuxt/nuxtThe full-stack Vue framework.Exceptional100microsoft/onnxruntimeONNX Runtime: cross-platform, high performance ML inferencing and training acceleratorExceptional100coder/coderSecure environments for developers and their agentsExceptional100mlco2/codecarbonTrack emissions from Compute and recommend ways to reduce their impact on the environment.Exceptional

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.