Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-10 09:44 UTC

nerves-livebook / nerves_livebook

Develop on embedded devices with Livebook and Nerves

ElixirApache-2.0★ 337 stars⑂ 48 forkssince Apr 2021View on GitHub ↗
KindNetwork servicehow this is determined

nerves-livebook/nerves_livebook holds a health index of 56 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Vitality (81/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (40/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

56
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.

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

Ownership

Nerves LivebookOrganization
8 followers1 public reposince Jul 2023

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

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

81Excellent · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
13.2/36Commit cadence — 19/52 weeks with commits
16/18Commit volume — 59 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 21 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year59
human_commit_share0.86
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year19
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 79 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 5 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~39.2 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count79
latest_release_tagv0.19.6
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release5
mean_days_between_releases39.2

Community & Adoption

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

55Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
41/60Stars — 337 stars
13.9/25Forks — 48 forks
3.9/15Watchers — 6 watchers
Inputs used
forks48
stars337
watchers6
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_badges1
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicescircleci.com
has_pull_request_templateno

Sustainability & Governance

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

46Weak · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
2.8/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 88% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 23 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 18 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled23
top_contributor_share0.877
How it's scored
33.4/42Issue resolution — 80% of issues closed
17.8/30PR acceptance — 369/623 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 1/25 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs369
open_issues10
closed_issues39
prs_merged_7d2
prs_decided_7d2
prs_merged_30d2
prs_decided_30d2
issue_closed_ratio0.796
closed_unmerged_prs254
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
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain
6.9/25Owner reach — 8 followers of nerves-livebook
8.4/25Track record — 1 public repos, account ~3 yr old
Inputs used
followers8
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_loginnerves-livebook
public_repos1
account_age_days1,138

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

46Weak · 19% of overall
How it's scored
0/24CI workflows
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 14 out of 14 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_cino
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

50Moderate
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 3 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsnerves, elixir, livebook
has_wikino
homepage—
docs_site—
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

43Weak · 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 — 14 out of 14 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
0/7.5Code-Review — Found 1/25 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 18 contributing companies or organizations
0/10Dangerous-Workflow — no data
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 — 21 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packaging — no data
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — no data
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 — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0/7.5Token-Permissions — no data
0/7.5Vulnerabilities — 12 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated13
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive5
scorecard_aggregate4.3
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, Dangerous-Workflow, Packaging, Pinned-Dependencies, Token-Permissions. 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.

40Weak · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
9.3/40Legible commit history — 15 of 86 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.174
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 — lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
8/8Automated maintenance — 14 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — no data
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_share0.14
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — Elixir without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/41 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageElixir
largest_source_bytes40,339
source_files_sampled41
oversized_source_files0
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto)
0/20MCP server
40/40Runnable examples — samples
Inputs used
example_dirssamples
has_mcp_signalno
api_schema_files—
interfaces_expected_ofnetwork-service

Key facts

337GitHub stars
23contributors
59commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
79releases
1bus factor
10open 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 ★ / 48 ⇿
0Stars
48Forks
71Releases

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.

010203040504722021-042023-102026-03
Major 0Minor 15Patch 56

Each point covers 5 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.3 / 10
4.3aggregate

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 · 2026-09-10 09:44 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-Tests14 out of 14 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 1/25 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
10Contributorsproject has 18 contributing companies or organizations
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained21 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
n/aPinned-Dependenciesno dependencies found
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
0Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
n/aToken-PermissionsNo tokens found
0Vulnerabilities12 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 60
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Hexnerves~> 1.13mix.exs
Hexshoehorn~> 0.9.0mix.exs
Hexring_logger~> 0.9mix.exs
Hextoolshed~> 0.5mix.exs
Hexjason~> 1.2mix.exs
Hexnerves_runtime~> 0.13.12mix.exs
Hexlivebook~> 0.19.3mix.exs
Hexplug~> 1.12mix.exs
Hexvintage_net~> 0.13mix.exs
Hexblue_heron~> 0.5mix.exs
Hexbmp280~> 0.2mix.exs
Hexcircuits_gpio~> 2.0 or ~> 1.0mix.exs
Hexcircuits_i2c~> 2.0 or ~> 1.0mix.exs
Hexcircuits_spi~> 2.0 or ~> 1.0mix.exs
Hexcircuits_uart~> 1.3mix.exs
Hexdelux~> 0.2mix.exs
Hexhts221~> 1.1mix.exs
Hexegd_text_panel~> 0.1.0mix.exs
Hexeink~> 0.1.0mix.exs
Hexinput_event~> 1.0 or ~> 0.4mix.exs
Hexkino~> 0.14mix.exs
Hexkino_maplibre~> 0.1.0mix.exs
Hexkino_vega_lite~> 0.1.1mix.exs
Hexmaplibre~> 0.1.7mix.exs
Hexnerves_hub_link~> 2.5mix.exs
Hexnerves_key~> 1.0mix.exs
Hexnerves_pack~> 0.7.0mix.exs
Hexnerves_time_zones~> 0.3.0mix.exs
Hexnx~> 0.12.0mix.exs
Hexaxon~> 0.8mix.exs
Hexbumblebee~> 0.7mix.exs
Hexnx_eigen~> 0.1mix.exs
Hexnx_signal~> 0.2mix.exs
Hexscholar~> 0.4mix.exs
Hexphoenix_pubsub~> 2.0mix.exs
Hexpinout~> 0.1mix.exs
Hexprogress_bar~> 3.0mix.exs
Hexramoops_logger~> 0.1mix.exs
Hexrecon~> 2.5mix.exs
Hexreq~> 0.5mix.exs
Hexscroll_hat~> 0.1mix.exs
Hexstb_image~> 0.6.0mix.exs
Hextflite_elixir~> 1.0.0mix.exs
Hexvega_lite~> 0.1mix.exs
Hexvintage_net_wifi~> 0.12.5mix.exs
Hexvintage_net_qmi~> 0.4.1mix.exs
Hexmndp~> 0.2mix.exs
Hexnerves_system_rpi~> 2.0mix.exs
Hexnerves_system_rpi0~> 2.0mix.exs
Hexnerves_system_rpi0_2~> 2.0mix.exs
Hexnerves_system_rpi2~> 2.0mix.exs
Hexnerves_system_rpi3~> 2.0mix.exs
Hexnerves_system_rpi3a~> 2.0mix.exs
Hexnerves_system_rpi4~> 2.0mix.exs
Hexnerves_system_rpi5~> 2.0mix.exs
Hexnerves_system_bbb~> 2.29mix.exs
Hexnerves_system_trellis~> 0.4mix.exs
Hexnerves_system_x86_64~> 1.33mix.exs
Hexnerves_system_mangopi_mq_pro~> 0.15mix.exs
Hexex_doc~> 0.22mix.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 v0.34.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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