Public recordExcellent
Software health reportschema 0.11.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-17 05:22 UTC
mishka-group / mishka_chelekom
Mishka Chelekom is a fully featured components and UI kit library for Phoenix & Phoenix LiveView
mishka-group/mishka_chelekom holds a health index of 80 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Vitality (89/100) and lowest on Security (39/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.
80
overall / 100Software 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.
80
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 68 is calibrated to 80 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).
Ownership
Mishka GroupOrganization
96 followers7 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.3 | 5,293 | 89 | 1 day ago |
Metrics by category
Vitality
Is the project alive — is code being written and are releases shipping?
89
Development activity
87Excellent
How it's scored
| 36/36 | Push recency — last push 0 days ago |
| 22.8/36 | Commit cadence — 33/52 weeks with commits |
| 18/18 | Commit volume — 507 commits in the last year |
| 10/10 | OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 17 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10 |
Inputs used
| commits_last_year | 507 |
| human_commit_share | — |
| days_since_last_push | 0 |
| active_weeks_last_year | 33 |
Release discipline
92Excellent
How it's scored
| 27/27 | Ships releases — 7 releases published |
| 36/36 | Release recency — latest release 4 days ago |
| 19.8/27 | Release cadence — a release every ~108.5 days |
| 0/10 | OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data |
Inputs used
| releases_count | 7 |
| latest_release_tag | v0.0.9 |
| releases_from_tags | no |
| days_since_latest_release | 4 |
| mean_days_between_releases | 108.5 |
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?
58
Popularity & adoption
62Moderate
How it's scored
| 46.6/60 | Stars — 742 stars |
| 10.8/25 | Forks — 21 forks |
| 5/15 | Watchers — 9 watchers |
Inputs used
| forks | 21 |
| stars | 742 |
| 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 | — |
| has_contributing | no |
| has_issue_template | no |
| has_code_of_conduct | no |
| readme_badge_services | — |
| has_pull_request_template | no |
Ecosystem adoption (downloads)
62Moderate
How it's scored
| 49.7/80 | Monthly downloads — 5,293 downloads/month across hex |
| 0/20 | Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem |
Inputs used
| packages | mishka_chelekom |
| dependents | — |
| ecosystems | hex |
| total_downloads | 55,842 |
| monthly_downloads | 5,293 |
| 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?
73
How it's scored
| 9/54 | Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits |
| 10.8/22.5 | Commit distribution — top contributor authored 52% 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 | 0.52 |
Issue & PR responsiveness
82Excellent
How it's scored
| 41.8/42 | Issue resolution — 100% of issues closed |
| 29.8/30 | PR acceptance — 294/296 decided PRs merged |
| 0/13 | Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d |
| 0/15 | OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0 |
Inputs used
| merged_prs | 294 |
| open_issues | 1 |
| closed_issues | 188 |
| prs_merged_7d | — |
| prs_decided_7d | — |
| prs_merged_30d | — |
| prs_decided_30d | — |
| issue_closed_ratio | 0.995 |
| closed_unmerged_prs | 2 |
| 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.
Ownership & stewardship
79Good
How it's scored
| 30/30 | Ownership backing — organization-owned |
| 0/20 | Verified domain — verified-domain status not read for this organization |
| 14.3/25 | Owner reach — 96 followers of mishka-group |
| 18.6/25 | Track record — 7 public repos, account ~6 yr old |
Inputs used
| followers | 96 |
| owner_type | Organization |
| is_verified | — |
| owner_login | mishka-group |
| public_repos | 7 |
| account_age_days | 2,465 |
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.
Package maintenance
100Exceptional
How it's scored
| 25/25 | Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on hex |
| 35/35 | Publish recency — latest publish 1 days ago |
| 20/20 | Version history — 89 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 | 1 |
Engineering Quality
Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?
72
Engineering practices
60Moderate
How it's scored
| 24/24 | CI workflows — 4 workflow(s) |
| 24/24 | Tests present |
| 0/16 | Linter config |
| 0/9.6 | Pre-commit hooks |
| 0/6.4 | .editorconfig |
| 0/20 | OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — no data |
Inputs used
| has_ci | yes |
| has_tests | yes |
| has_editorconfig | no |
| 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?
39
Security posture
39Weak
How it's scored
| 7.5/7.5 | Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo |
| 0/7.5 | Branch-Protection — branch protection not enabled on development/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 0/30 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 17 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 SAST tool detected |
| 5/5 | Security-Policy — security policy file detected |
| 0/7.5 | Signed-Releases — no data |
| 0/7.5 | Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions |
| 0/7.5 | Vulnerabilities — 10 existing vulnerabilities detected |
Inputs used
| source | openssf_scorecard |
| checks_evaluated | 15 |
| scorecard_version | v5.5.0 |
| checks_inconclusive | 3 |
| scorecard_aggregate | 3.9 |
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.
64
Agent context & guidance
75Good
How it's scored
| 45/45 | Agent instructions — development/AGENTS.md |
| 0/15 | Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) |
| 0/40 | Legible commit history — no data |
Inputs used
| has_llms_txt | no |
| llms_txt_url | — |
| legible_history_share | — |
| agent_instruction_files | development/AGENTS.md |
| agent_instruction_max_bytes | 21,598 |
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Legible commit history. Remaining weights renormalized.
Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)
52Moderate
How it's scored
| 0/18 | One-command bootstrap |
| 22/22 | Automated tests |
| 0/11 | Lint / format config |
| 11/11 | Static type checking — development/assets/tsconfig.json |
| 10/10 | Reproducible environment — lockfile |
| 0/10 | Demonstrated agent practice — no data |
| 0/8 | Automated maintenance — no data |
| 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/assets/tsconfig.json |
| agent_commit_share | — |
| toolchain_manifests | — |
| dependency_bot_commit_share | — |
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Demonstrated agent practice, Automated maintenance. Remaining weights renormalized.
Code legibility for models
81Excellent
How it's scored
| 27/45 | Type-checkable code — Elixir with type-check config (development/assets/tsconfig.json) |
| 54.4/55 | Manageable file sizes — 7/600 source files over 60KB |
Inputs used
| primary_language | Elixir |
| largest_source_bytes | 431,285 |
| source_files_sampled | 600 |
| oversized_source_files | 7 |
Machine-readable interfaces
60Moderate
How it's scored
| 0/40 | API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) |
| 20/20 | MCP server |
| 40/40 | Runnable examples — demos, examples |
Inputs used
| example_dirs | demos, examples |
| has_mcp_signal | yes |
| api_schema_files | — |
| interfaces_expected_of | network-service |
Key facts
742GitHub stars
9contributors
507commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
7releases
1bus factor
1open issues
Hexpackage ecosystems
Data collection warnings
- Could not fetch hex package 'development' from its registry
More detail
OpenSSF Scorecard 3.9 / 10
3.9aggregate
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).
| 10 | Binary-Artifacts | no binaries found in the repo |
| 0 | Branch-Protection | branch protection not enabled on development/release branches |
| n/a | CI-Tests | no pull request found |
| 0 | CII-Best-Practices | no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected |
| 0 | Code-Review | Found 0/30 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 17 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 |
| 0 | SAST | no SAST tool detected |
| 10 | Security-Policy | security policy file detected |
| n/a | Signed-Releases | no releases found |
| 0 | Token-Permissions | detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions |
| 0 | Vulnerabilities | 10 existing vulnerabilities detected |
Direct dependencies 24
| Registry | Package | Version constraint | Manifest |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hex | phoenix | ~> 1.8.7 | development/mix.exs |
| Hex | phoenix_html | ~> 4.1 | development/mix.exs |
| Hex | phoenix_live_view | ~> 1.2 | development/mix.exs |
| Hex | ecto | ~> 3.12 | development/mix.exs |
| Hex | phoenix_ecto | ~> 4.6 | development/mix.exs |
| Hex | esbuild | ~> 0.10 | development/mix.exs |
| Hex | tailwind | ~> 0.3 | development/mix.exs |
| Hex | heroicons | tailwindlabs/heroicons | development/mix.exs |
| Hex | telemetry_metrics | ~> 1.0 | development/mix.exs |
| Hex | telemetry_poller | ~> 1.0 | development/mix.exs |
| Hex | gettext | ~> 1.0 | development/mix.exs |
| Hex | jason | ~> 1.2 | development/mix.exs |
| Hex | dns_cluster | ~> 0.2.0 | development/mix.exs |
| Hex | bandit | ~> 1.5 | development/mix.exs |
| 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 67
Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 21 direct and 46 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.
| Registry | Package | Version | Relation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hex | anubis_mcp | 1.6.2 | direct |
| Hex | bandit | 1.12.0 | direct |
| Hex | dns_cluster | 0.2.0 | direct |
| Hex | ecto | 3.14.1 | direct |
| Hex | esbuild | 0.10.0 | direct |
| Hex | gettext | 1.0.2 | 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 | 1.8.9 | direct |
| Hex | phoenix_ecto | 4.7.0 | direct |
| Hex | phoenix_html | 4.3.0 | direct |
| Hex | phoenix_live_view | 1.2.6 | direct |
| Hex | phoenix_live_view | 1.2.7 | direct |
| Hex | plug | 1.20.3 | direct |
| Hex | spark | 2.7.2 | direct |
| Hex | tailwind | 0.5.1 | direct |
| Hex | telemetry_metrics | 1.1.0 | direct |
| Hex | telemetry_poller | 1.3.0 | direct |
| Hex | castore | 1.0.17 | indirect |
| Hex | cc_precompiler | 0.1.11 | indirect |
| Hex | cowboy | 2.14.2 | indirect |
| Hex | cowboy_telemetry | 0.4.0 | indirect |
| Hex | cowlib | 2.16.0 | indirect |
| Hex | decimal | 3.1.1 | indirect |
| Hex | earmark_parser | 1.4.45 | indirect |
| Hex | elixir_make | 0.9.0 | indirect |
| Hex | ex_ast | 0.12.10 | indirect |
| Hex | ex_ast | 0.12.9 | indirect |
| Hex | ex_doc | 0.40.3 | indirect |
| Hex | expo | 1.1.1 | indirect |
| Hex | file_system | 1.1.1 | indirect |
| Hex | finch | 0.23.0 | indirect |
| Hex | fine | 0.1.6 | indirect |
| Hex | glob_ex | 0.1.11 | indirect |
| Hex | hpax | 1.0.4 | indirect |
| Hex | html_sanitize_ex | 1.5.2 | 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 | 1.9.1 | 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 | phoenix_live_reload | 1.6.2 | indirect |
| Hex | phoenix_pubsub | 2.2.0 | indirect |
| Hex | phoenix_template | 1.0.4 | indirect |
| Hex | plug_crypto | 2.1.1 | indirect |
| Hex | ranch | 2.2.0 | indirect |
| Hex | req | 0.6.2 | indirect |
| Hex | rewrite | 1.3.0 | indirect |
| Hex | rustler_precompiled | 0.9.0 | indirect |
| Hex | sourceror | 1.12.2 | indirect |
| Hex | spitfire | 0.3.13 | indirect |
| Hex | splode | 0.3.1 | indirect |
| Hex | telemetry | 1.4.2 | indirect |
| Hex | text_diff | 0.1.0 | indirect |
| Hex | thousand_island | 1.5.0 | indirect |
| Hex | usage_rules | 1.2.6 | indirect |
| Hex | websock | 0.5.3 | indirect |
| Hex | websock_adapter | 0.6.0 | indirect |
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 v0.11.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.
How one result sits in the wider record: aggregate statistics — Hex.