Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-09 14:35 UTC

mishka-group / mishka_chelekom

Mishka Chelekom is a fully featured components and UI kit library for Phoenix & Phoenix LiveView

Elixir · HTMLApache-2.0★ 750 stars⑂ 22 forkssince Jul 2024View on GitHub ↗

KindLibraryMobile applicationhow this is determined

#components #elixir #liveview #phoenix #tailwindcss #uikit

mishka-group/mishka_chelekom holds a health index of 83 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Vitality (84/100) and lowest on Security (47/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

overall / 100

Excellent

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.

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)

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 70 is calibrated to 83 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Mishka GroupOrganization · verified domain

99 followers8 public repossince Oct 2019

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

Package ecosystems

Registry	Package	Version	Downloads / mo	Versions	Last publish
Hex	mishka_chelekom	0.0.10-alpha.6	6,237	92	34 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

84Excellent · 21% of overall

Development activity

84Excellent

How it's scored

36/36	Push recency — last push 0 days ago
20.1/36	Commit cadence — 29/52 weeks with commits
18/18	Commit volume — 640 commits in the last year
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 15 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10

Inputs used

commits_last_year	640
human_commit_share	1
days_since_last_push	0
active_weeks_last_year	29

Release discipline

83Excellent

How it's scored

27/27	Ships releases — 8 releases published
36/36	Release recency — latest release 32 days ago
19.8/27	Release cadence — a release every ~96.9 days
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.

Inputs used

releases_count	8
latest_release_tag	v0.0.10-alpha.6
releases_from_tags	no
days_since_latest_release	32
mean_days_between_releases	96.9

Community & Adoption

Does the project have users, downloads, attention, and a welcoming setup for contributors?

58Moderate · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

63Moderate

How it's scored

46.6/60	Stars — 750 stars
11/25	Forks — 22 forks
5/15	Watchers — 9 watchers

Inputs used

forks	22
stars	750
watchers	9
growth_state	unverified
growth_factor_pct	100
growth_unverified_reason	no_history

Community health

50Moderate

How it's scored

22.5/22.5	README
22.5/22.5	License — recognized license (Apache-2.0)
0/18	CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5	Code of conduct
0/7.2	Issue template
0/6.3	PR template

Inputs used

has_readme	yes
has_license	yes
readme_badges	6
has_contributing	no
has_issue_template	no
has_code_of_conduct	no
readme_badge_services	shields.io
has_pull_request_template	no

Ecosystem adoption (downloads)

63Moderate

How it's scored

50.6/80	Monthly downloads — 6,237 downloads/month across hex
0/20	Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem

Inputs used

packages	mishka_chelekom
dependents	—
ecosystems	hex
total_downloads	67,436
monthly_downloads	6,237
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?

73Good · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

39Weak

How it's scored

9/54	Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
7.6/22.5	Commit distribution — top contributor authored 66% of commits
12.2/13.5	Contributor breadth — 9 contributors
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10

Inputs used

bus_factor	1
contributors_sampled	9
top_contributor_share	0.664

Issue & PR responsiveness

84Excellent

How it's scored

40.9/42	Issue resolution — 97% of issues closed
29.8/30	PR acceptance — 300/302 decided PRs merged
13/13	Newcomer PR acceptance — 1/1 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
0/15	OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/9 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

merged_prs	300
open_issues	5
closed_issues	190
prs_merged_7d	1
prs_decided_7d	1
prs_merged_30d	1
prs_decided_30d	1
issue_closed_ratio	0.974
closed_unmerged_prs	2
first_time_authors_30d	1
first_time_prs_merged_30d	1
first_time_prs_decided_30d	1

Ownership & stewardship

83Excellent

How it's scored

30/30	Ownership backing — organization-owned
20/20	Verified domain
14.4/25	Owner reach — 99 followers of mishka-group
18.9/25	Track record — 8 public repos, account ~6 yr old

Inputs used

followers	99
owner_type	Organization
is_verified	yes
owner_login	mishka-group
public_repos	8
account_age_days	2,520

Package maintenance

100Exceptional

How it's scored

25/25	Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on hex
35/35	Publish recency — latest publish 34 days ago
20/20	Version history — 92 published versions
20/20	Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked

Inputs used

packages	mishka_chelekom
ecosystems	hex
any_deprecated	no
min_days_since_publish	34

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

77Good · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

68Good

How it's scored

24/24	CI workflows — 5 workflow(s)
24/24	Tests present
0/16	Linter config
0/9.6	Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4	.editorconfig
0/20	OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — no data

Inputs used

has_ci	yes
has_tests	yes
has_editorconfig	yes
has_linter_config	no
has_precommit_config	no

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests. Remaining weights renormalized.

Documentation

90Excellent

How it's scored

30/30	README
25/25	Documentation directory
15/15	Documentation / homepage site — https://mishka.tools/chelekom
10/10	Repository description
10/10	Topics — 6 topics
0/10	Wiki

Inputs used

topics	components, elixir, liveview, phoenix, tailwindcss, uikit
has_wiki	no
homepage	https://mishka.tools/chelekom
docs_site	https://mishka.tools/chelekom
has_readme	yes
has_docs_dir	yes
has_description	yes

Security

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

47Weak · 16% of overall

Security posture

41Weak

How it's scored

6.8/7.5	Binary-Artifacts — binaries present in source code
3.8/7.5	Branch-Protection — branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
0/2.5	CI-Tests — no data
0/2.5	CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5	Code-Review — Found 0/9 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
2.5/2.5	Contributors — project has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
10/10	Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5	Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5	Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5	License — license file detected
7.5/7.5	Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 15 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5	Packaging — no data
0/5	Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0/5	SAST — no data
5/5	Security-Policy — security policy file detected
0/7.5	Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0/7.5	Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0/7.5	Vulnerabilities — 12 existing vulnerabilities detected

Inputs used

source	openssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated	15
scorecard_version	v5.5.0
checks_inconclusive	3
scorecard_aggregate	4.1

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): CI-Tests, Packaging, SAST. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

71Good

How it's scored

13/35	Direct dependencies free of known advisories — 3 affected: bandit 1.12.4 (high 7.5), phoenix_live_view 1.2.7 (low), igniter 0.8.2 (unknown)
0/25	Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
40/40	No advisories left outstanding — no advisory has been public longer than 90 days

Inputs used

source	osv
advisories	9
affected_packages	6
assessed_packages	105
unassessed_packages	0
affected_by_severity	high 3, low 1, unknown 2
direct_affected_packages	3

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 105 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.

79Good · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

85Excellent

How it's scored

45/45	Agent instructions — development/mob/CLAUDE.md, development/web/AGENTS.md, development/web/CLAUDE.md, development/web/script/claude-video/CLAUDE.md
0/15	Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40	Legible commit history — 100 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)

Inputs used

has_llms_txt	no
llms_txt_url	—
legible_history_share	1
agent_instruction_files	development/mob/CLAUDE.md, development/web/AGENTS.md, development/web/CLAUDE.md, development/web/script/claude-video/CLAUDE.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes	21,598

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

66Good

How it's scored

12.6/18	One-command bootstrap — development/mob/android/app/build.gradle, development/mob/android/build.gradle, development/mob/mix.exs (toolchain convention, no task runner)
22/22	Automated tests
0/11	Lint / format config
11/11	Static type checking — development/web/assets/tsconfig.json
10/10	Reproducible environment — lockfile
10/10	Demonstrated agent practice — 97 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
0/8	Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

has_nix	no
has_tests	yes
lockfiles	mix.lock
has_dockerfile	no
typed_language	no
bootstrap_files	—
has_devcontainer	no
has_linter_config	no
typecheck_configs	development/web/assets/tsconfig.json
agent_commit_share	0.97
toolchain_manifests	development/mob/android/app/build.gradle, development/mob/android/build.gradle, development/mob/mix.exs, development/web/mix.exs, mix.exs
dependency_bot_commit_share	0

Code legibility for models

82Excellent

How it's scored

27/45	Type-checkable code — Elixir with type-check config (development/web/assets/tsconfig.json)
54.6/55	Manageable file sizes — 8/1,113 source files over 60KB

Inputs used

primary_language	Elixir
largest_source_bytes	484,102
source_files_sampled	1,113
oversized_source_files	8

Machine-readable interfaces

100Exceptional

How it's scored

0/40	API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — not applicable to this kind of software
20/20	MCP server
40/40	Runnable examples — demos, example, examples

Inputs used

example_dirs	demos, example, examples
has_mcp_signal	yes
api_schema_files	—
interfaces_expected_of	—

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto). Remaining weights renormalized.

Key facts

750GitHub stars

9contributors

640commits, last 12 months

0days since last push

8releases

1bus factor

5open 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 ★ / 22 ⇿

0Stars

22Forks

7Releases

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.

Major 0Minor 0Patch 6

Each point covers 2 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.1 / 10

4.1aggregate

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 14:35 UTC

9	Binary-Artifacts	binaries present in source code
5	Branch-Protection	branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
n/a	CI-Tests	internal error: internal error: Client.Repositories.ListCheckRunsForRef: error during graphqlHandler.setupCheckRuns: Something went wrong while executing your query on 2026-09-09T14:35:30Z. Please include `90EE:83436:6A0E:6A4B:6AA16EB1` when reporting this issue.
0	CII-Best-Practices	no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0	Code-Review	Found 0/9 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
10	Contributors	project has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
10	Dangerous-Workflow	no dangerous workflow patterns detected
0	Dependency-Update-Tool	no update tool detected
0	Fuzzing	project is not fuzzed
10	License	license file detected
10	Maintained	30 commit(s) and 15 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/a	Packaging	packaging workflow not detected
0	Pinned-Dependencies	dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
n/a	SAST	internal error: internal error: Client.Checks.ListCheckRunsForRef: error during graphqlHandler.setupCheckRuns: Something went wrong while executing your query on 2026-09-09T14:35:30Z. Please include `90EE:83436:6A0E:6A4B:6AA16EB1` when reporting this issue.
10	Security-Policy	security policy file detected
0	Signed-Releases	Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0	Token-Permissions	detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0	Vulnerabilities	12 existing vulnerabilities detected

Direct dependencies 10

Registry	Package	Version constraint	Manifest
Hex	igniter	`~> 0.6 and >= 0.8.2`	mix.exs
Hex	guarded_struct	`~> 0.1.1`	mix.exs
Hex	spark	`~> 2.7`	mix.exs
Hex	igniter_js	`~> 0.4.11`	mix.exs
Hex	owl	`~> 0.13`	mix.exs
Hex	plug	`~> 1.18 and >= 1.20.0`	mix.exs
Hex	anubis_mcp	`~> 1.6`	mix.exs
Hex	bandit	`~> 1.12`	mix.exs
Hex	jason	`~> 1.4`	mix.exs
Hex	phoenix_live_view	`~> 1.2`	mix.exs

All dependencies 105

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 11 direct and 94 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

Registry	Package	Version	Relation
Hex	anubis_mcp	`1.10.0`	direct
Hex	anubis_mcp	`1.6.2`	direct
Hex	bandit	`1.12.4`	direct
Hex	guarded_struct	`0.1.1`	direct
Hex	igniter	`0.8.2`	direct
Hex	igniter_js	`0.4.11`	direct
Hex	jason	`1.4.5`	direct
Hex	owl	`0.13.1`	direct
Hex	phoenix_live_view	`1.2.7`	direct
Hex	plug	`1.20.3`	direct
Hex	spark	`2.7.2`	direct
Hex	bunt	`1.0.0`	indirect
Hex	cc_precompiler	`0.1.11`	indirect
Hex	color	`0.13.0`	indirect
Hex	credo	`1.7.19`	indirect
Hex	db_connection	`2.10.2`	indirect
Hex	decimal	`3.1.1`	indirect
Hex	dialyxir	`1.4.7`	indirect
Hex	dns_cluster	`0.2.0`	indirect
Hex	earmark_parser	`1.4.45`	indirect
Hex	ecto	`3.14.1`	indirect
Hex	ecto_sql	`3.14.0`	indirect
Hex	ecto_sqlite3	`0.24.1`	indirect
Hex	elixir_make	`0.10.0`	indirect
Hex	elixir_make	`0.9.0`	indirect
Hex	eqrcode	`0.2.1`	indirect
Hex	erlex	`0.2.9`	indirect
Hex	esbuild	`0.10.0`	indirect
Hex	ex_ast	`0.12.10`	indirect
Hex	ex_ast	`0.13.1`	indirect
Hex	ex_doc	`0.40.3`	indirect
Hex	ex_slop	`0.4.3`	indirect
Hex	expo	`1.1.1`	indirect
Hex	exqlite	`0.39.0`	indirect
Hex	file_system	`1.1.1`	indirect
Hex	finch	`0.23.0`	indirect
Hex	fine	`0.1.6`	indirect
Hex	gettext	`1.0.2`	indirect
Hex	glob_ex	`0.1.11`	indirect
Hex	glob_ex	`0.1.12`	indirect
Hex	hpax	`1.0.4`	indirect
Hex	html_sanitize_ex	`1.5.4`	indirect
Hex	image	`0.72.0`	indirect
Hex	lazy_html	`0.1.11`	indirect
Hex	makeup	`1.2.2`	indirect
Hex	makeup_elixir	`1.0.1`	indirect
Hex	makeup_erlang	`1.1.0`	indirect
Hex	mime	`2.0.7`	indirect
Hex	mint	`1.9.3`	indirect
Hex	mix_audit	`2.1.5`	indirect
Hex	mob	`0.7.20`	indirect
Hex	mob_biometric	`0.1.4`	indirect
Hex	mob_camera	`0.1.3`	indirect
Hex	mob_dev	`0.6.23`	indirect
Hex	mob_location	`0.1.3`	indirect
Hex	mob_themes	`0.1.0`	indirect
Hex	mochiweb	`3.4.0`	indirect
Hex	nimble_options	`1.1.1`	indirect
Hex	nimble_parsec	`1.4.2`	indirect
Hex	nimble_pool	`1.1.0`	indirect
Hex	peri	`0.8.5`	indirect
Hex	peri	`0.9.0`	indirect
Hex	phoenix	`1.8.9`	indirect
Hex	phoenix_ecto	`4.7.0`	indirect
Hex	phoenix_html	`4.3.0`	indirect
Hex	phoenix_live_reload	`1.6.2`	indirect
Hex	phoenix_pubsub	`2.2.0`	indirect
Hex	phoenix_template	`1.0.4`	indirect
Hex	plug_crypto	`2.2.0`	indirect
Hex	req	`0.6.2`	indirect
Hex	req	`0.6.3`	indirect
Hex	rewrite	`1.3.0`	indirect
Hex	rustler_precompiled	`0.9.0`	indirect
Hex	sobelow	`0.14.1`	indirect
Hex	sourceror	`1.12.2`	indirect
Hex	spitfire	`0.3.13`	indirect
Hex	splode	`0.3.1`	indirect
Hex	sweet_xml	`0.7.5`	indirect
Hex	tailwind	`0.5.1`	indirect
Hex	telemetry	`1.4.2`	indirect
Hex	telemetry_metrics	`1.1.0`	indirect
Hex	telemetry_poller	`1.3.0`	indirect
Hex	text_diff	`0.1.0`	indirect
Hex	thousand_island	`1.5.0`	indirect
Hex	usage_rules	`1.2.6`	indirect
Hex	vix	`0.40.0`	indirect
Hex	websock	`0.5.3`	indirect
Hex	websock_adapter	`0.6.0`	indirect
Hex	yamerl	`0.10.0`	indirect
Hex	yaml_elixir	`2.12.2`	indirect
npm	@codemirror/commands	`6.10.4`	indirect
npm	@codemirror/lang-javascript	`6.2.5`	indirect
npm	@codemirror/language	`6.12.4`	indirect
npm	@codemirror/state	`6.7.1`	indirect
npm	@codemirror/view	`6.43.6`	indirect
npm	@lexical/history	`0.48.0`	indirect
npm	@lexical/rich-text	`0.48.0`	indirect
npm	@lexical/utils	`0.48.0`	indirect
npm	@milkdown/kit	`7.21.3`	indirect
npm	@tiptap/core	`3.28.0`	indirect
npm	@tiptap/pm	`3.28.0`	indirect
npm	@tiptap/starter-kit	`3.28.0`	indirect
npm	echarts	`6.1.0`	indirect
npm	lexical	`0.48.0`	indirect
npm	playwright	`1.56.1`	indirect

Dependency advisories 6

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 105 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 6 carry known advisories, of which 3 are direct.

Package	Version	Relation	Severity	Advisories	Fixed in
bandit	`1.12.4`	direct	high	2	`1.12.5`
@tiptap/core	`3.28.0`	indirect	high	2	`3.30.5`
mint	`1.9.3`	indirect	high	2	`1.10.0`
phoenix_live_view	`1.2.7`	direct	low	1	`1.2.9`
igniter	`0.8.2`	direct	unknown	1	`0.8.4`
usage_rules	`1.2.6`	indirect	unknown	1	`1.2.8`

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.

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.

Software health index

Score profile

Ownership

Package ecosystems

Metrics by category

Key facts

Data collection warnings

More detail

Feedback

Related records