Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-09 14:28 UTC

petalframework / petal_components

Phoenix + Live View HEEX Components

Elixir · JavaScript · CSSMIT★ 1,054 stars⑂ 101 forkssince Oct 2021View on GitHub ↗

KindNetwork servicehow this is determined

petalframework/petal_components holds a health index of 84 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Vitality (81/100) and lowest on Security (55/100). It was last updated 6 days ago. 2 contributors account 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 71 is calibrated to 84 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Petal FrameworkOrganization

74 followers9 public repossince Apr 2021

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	petal_components	4.16.1	19,192	209	7 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

81Excellent · 21% of overall

Development activity

81Excellent

How it's scored

36/36	Push recency — last push 6 days ago
17.3/36	Commit cadence — 25/52 weeks with commits
18/18	Commit volume — 516 commits in the last year
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10

Inputs used

commits_last_year	516
human_commit_share	1
days_since_last_push	6
active_weeks_last_year	25

Release discipline

82Excellent

How it's scored

27/27	Ships releases — 100 releases published
27/36	Release recency — latest release 116 days ago
19.8/27	Release cadence — a release every ~47.5 days
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data

Inputs used

releases_count	100
latest_release_tag	v3.2.2
releases_from_tags	no
days_since_latest_release	116
mean_days_between_releases	47.5

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?

71Good · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

72Good

How it's scored

49/60	Stars — 1,054 stars
16.7/25	Forks — 101 forks
6/15	Watchers — 13 watchers

Inputs used

forks	101
stars	1,054
watchers	13
growth_state	unverified
growth_factor_pct	100
growth_unverified_reason	no_history

Community health

70Good

How it's scored

22.5/22.5	README
22.5/22.5	License — recognized license (MIT)
18/18	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	3
has_contributing	yes
has_issue_template	no
has_code_of_conduct	no
readme_badge_services	shields.io
has_pull_request_template	no

Ecosystem adoption (downloads)

71Good

How it's scored

57.1/80	Monthly downloads — 19,192 downloads/month across hex
0/20	Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem

Inputs used

packages	petal_components
dependents	—
ecosystems	hex
total_downloads	1,454,812
monthly_downloads	19,192
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)

61Moderate

How it's scored

25.2/54	Bus factor — 2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
12/22.5	Commit distribution — top contributor authored 46% of commits
13.5/13.5	Contributor breadth — 57 contributors
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 15 contributing companies or organizations

Inputs used

bus_factor	2
contributors_sampled	57
top_contributor_share	0.465

Issue & PR responsiveness

76Good

How it's scored

42/42	Issue resolution — 100% of issues closed
24.5/30	PR acceptance — 417/511 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	417
open_issues	0
closed_issues	186
prs_merged_7d	4
prs_decided_7d	4
prs_merged_30d	58
prs_decided_30d	60
issue_closed_ratio	1
closed_unmerged_prs	94
first_time_authors_30d	0
first_time_prs_merged_30d	0
first_time_prs_decided_30d	0

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.

Ownership & stewardship

62Moderate

How it's scored

30/30	Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20	Verified domain
13.5/25	Owner reach — 74 followers of petalframework
18.1/25	Track record — 9 public repos, account ~5 yr old

Inputs used

followers	74
owner_type	Organization
is_verified	no
owner_login	petalframework
public_repos	9
account_age_days	1,972

Package maintenance

100Exceptional

How it's scored

25/25	Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on hex
35/35	Publish recency — latest publish 7 days ago
20/20	Version history — 209 published versions
20/20	Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked

Inputs used

packages	petal_components
ecosystems	hex
any_deprecated	no
min_days_since_publish	7

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

72Good · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

60Moderate

How it's scored

24/24	CI workflows — 1 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://petal.build/components
10/10	Repository description
10/10	Topics — 3 topics
0/10	Wiki

Inputs used

topics	tailwindcss, phoenix, components
has_wiki	no
homepage	https://petal.build/components
docs_site	https://petal.build/components
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?

55Moderate · 16% of overall

Security posture

44Weak

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 15 contributing companies or organizations
10/10	Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5	Dependency-Update-Tool — 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 0 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
0/5	Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5	Signed-Releases — no data
0/7.5	Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0/7.5	Vulnerabilities — 15 existing vulnerabilities detected

Inputs used

source	openssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated	14
scorecard_version	v5.5.0
checks_inconclusive	4
scorecard_aggregate	4.4

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

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional

How it's scored

35/35	Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25	Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40	No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date

Inputs used

source	osv
advisories	8
affected_packages	5
assessed_packages	148
unassessed_packages	0
affected_by_severity	critical 1, high 2, moderate 2
direct_affected_packages	0

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories, No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 148 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.

57Moderate · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

55Moderate

How it's scored

0/45	Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
15/15	Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) — llms.txt served by the project website (https://petal.build/llms.txt)
40/40	Legible commit history — 99 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)

Inputs used

has_llms_txt	yes
llms_txt_url	https://petal.build/llms.txt
legible_history_share	0.99
agent_instruction_files	—
agent_instruction_max_bytes	—

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

60Moderate

How it's scored

12.6/18	One-command bootstrap — mix.exs (toolchain convention, no task runner)
22/22	Automated tests
0/11	Lint / format config
0/11	Static type checking
10/10	Reproducible environment — Dockerfile, lockfile
10/10	Demonstrated agent practice — 23 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
5/8	Automated maintenance — dependency automation configured, none observed in the sampled commits
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, package-lock.json
has_dockerfile	yes
typed_language	no
bootstrap_files	—
has_devcontainer	no
has_linter_config	no
typecheck_configs	—
agent_commit_share	0.23
toolchain_manifests	mix.exs
dependency_bot_commit_share	0

Code legibility for models

54Moderate

How it's scored

0/45	Type-checkable code — Elixir without a type-check config
53.6/55	Manageable file sizes — 7/281 source files over 60KB

Inputs used

primary_language	Elixir
largest_source_bytes	699,608
source_files_sampled	281
oversized_source_files	7

Key facts

1,054GitHub stars

57contributors

516commits, last 12 months

6days since last push

100releases

2bus factor

0open issues

Hex, npmpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 101 ⇿

0Stars

101Forks

100Releases

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 3Minor 20Patch 77

Each point covers 5 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.4 / 10

4.4aggregate

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 14:28 UTC

10	Binary-Artifacts	no binaries found in the repo
0	Branch-Protection	branch protection not enabled on development/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 2026-09-09T14:28:12Z. Please include `CA20:277E59:17DADB5:1713E75:6AA16CF8` when reporting this issue.
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 15 contributing companies or organizations
10	Dangerous-Workflow	no dangerous workflow patterns detected
10	Dependency-Update-Tool	update tool detected
0	Fuzzing	project is not fuzzed
10	License	license file detected
10	Maintained	30 commit(s) and 0 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 2026-09-09T14:28:12Z. Please include `CA20:277E59:17DADB5:1713E75:6AA16CF8` when reporting this issue.
0	Security-Policy	security policy file not detected
n/a	Signed-Releases	no releases found
0	Token-Permissions	detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0	Vulnerabilities	15 existing vulnerabilities detected

Direct dependencies 10

Registry	Package	Version constraint	Manifest
Hex	websock_adapter	`~> 0.5.7`	mix.exs
Hex	phoenix	`~> 1.7`	mix.exs
Hex	phoenix_live_view	`~> 1.1`	mix.exs
Hex	phoenix_html	`~> 4.1`	mix.exs
Hex	phoenix_html_helpers	`~> 1.0`	mix.exs
Hex	mdex	`~> 0.12`	mix.exs
Hex	eqrcode	`~> 0.2`	mix.exs
Hex	lumis	`~> 0.6`	mix.exs
Hex	jason	`~> 1.2`	mix.exs
Hex	phoenix_ecto	`~> 4.4`	mix.exs

All dependencies 148

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 148 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

Registry	Package	Version	Relation
npm	@asamuzakjp/css-color	`3.2.0`	indirect
npm	@csstools/color-helpers	`5.1.0`	indirect
npm	@csstools/css-calc	`2.1.4`	indirect
npm	@csstools/css-color-parser	`3.1.0`	indirect
npm	@csstools/css-parser-algorithms	`3.0.5`	indirect
npm	@csstools/css-tokenizer	`3.0.4`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/aix-ppc64	`0.21.5`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/android-arm	`0.21.5`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/android-arm64	`0.21.5`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/android-x64	`0.21.5`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/darwin-arm64	`0.21.5`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/darwin-x64	`0.21.5`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/freebsd-arm64	`0.21.5`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/freebsd-x64	`0.21.5`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/linux-arm	`0.21.5`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/linux-arm64	`0.21.5`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/linux-ia32	`0.21.5`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/linux-loong64	`0.21.5`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/linux-mips64el	`0.21.5`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/linux-ppc64	`0.21.5`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/linux-riscv64	`0.21.5`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/linux-s390x	`0.21.5`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/linux-x64	`0.21.5`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/netbsd-x64	`0.21.5`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/openbsd-x64	`0.21.5`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/sunos-x64	`0.21.5`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/win32-arm64	`0.21.5`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/win32-ia32	`0.21.5`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/win32-x64	`0.21.5`	indirect
npm	@jridgewell/sourcemap-codec	`1.5.5`	indirect
npm	@rollup/rollup-android-arm-eabi	`4.62.3`	indirect
npm	@rollup/rollup-android-arm64	`4.62.3`	indirect
npm	@rollup/rollup-darwin-arm64	`4.62.3`	indirect
npm	@rollup/rollup-darwin-x64	`4.62.3`	indirect
npm	@rollup/rollup-freebsd-arm64	`4.62.3`	indirect
npm	@rollup/rollup-freebsd-x64	`4.62.3`	indirect
npm	@rollup/rollup-linux-arm-gnueabihf	`4.62.3`	indirect
npm	@rollup/rollup-linux-arm-musleabihf	`4.62.3`	indirect
npm	@rollup/rollup-linux-arm64-gnu	`4.62.3`	indirect
npm	@rollup/rollup-linux-arm64-musl	`4.62.3`	indirect
npm	@rollup/rollup-linux-loong64-gnu	`4.62.3`	indirect
npm	@rollup/rollup-linux-loong64-musl	`4.62.3`	indirect
npm	@rollup/rollup-linux-ppc64-gnu	`4.62.3`	indirect
npm	@rollup/rollup-linux-ppc64-musl	`4.62.3`	indirect
npm	@rollup/rollup-linux-riscv64-gnu	`4.62.3`	indirect
npm	@rollup/rollup-linux-riscv64-musl	`4.62.3`	indirect
npm	@rollup/rollup-linux-s390x-gnu	`4.62.3`	indirect
npm	@rollup/rollup-linux-x64-gnu	`4.62.3`	indirect
npm	@rollup/rollup-linux-x64-musl	`4.62.3`	indirect
npm	@rollup/rollup-openbsd-x64	`4.62.3`	indirect
npm	@rollup/rollup-openharmony-arm64	`4.62.3`	indirect
npm	@rollup/rollup-win32-arm64-msvc	`4.62.3`	indirect
npm	@rollup/rollup-win32-ia32-msvc	`4.62.3`	indirect
npm	@rollup/rollup-win32-x64-gnu	`4.62.3`	indirect
npm	@rollup/rollup-win32-x64-msvc	`4.62.3`	indirect
npm	@types/estree	`1.0.9`	indirect
npm	@vitest/expect	`2.1.9`	indirect
npm	@vitest/mocker	`2.1.9`	indirect
npm	@vitest/pretty-format	`2.1.9`	indirect
npm	@vitest/runner	`2.1.9`	indirect
npm	@vitest/snapshot	`2.1.9`	indirect
npm	@vitest/spy	`2.1.9`	indirect
npm	@vitest/utils	`2.1.9`	indirect
npm	agent-base	`7.1.4`	indirect
npm	assertion-error	`2.0.1`	indirect
npm	asynckit	`0.4.0`	indirect
npm	cac	`6.7.14`	indirect
npm	call-bind-apply-helpers	`1.0.2`	indirect
npm	chai	`5.3.3`	indirect
npm	check-error	`2.1.3`	indirect
npm	combined-stream	`1.0.8`	indirect
npm	cssstyle	`4.6.0`	indirect
npm	data-urls	`5.0.0`	indirect
npm	debug	`4.4.3`	indirect
npm	decimal.js	`10.6.0`	indirect
npm	deep-eql	`5.0.2`	indirect
npm	delayed-stream	`1.0.0`	indirect
npm	dunder-proto	`1.0.1`	indirect
npm	entities	`6.0.1`	indirect
npm	es-define-property	`1.0.1`	indirect
npm	es-errors	`1.3.0`	indirect
npm	es-module-lexer	`1.7.0`	indirect
npm	es-object-atoms	`1.1.2`	indirect
npm	es-set-tostringtag	`2.1.0`	indirect
npm	esbuild	`0.21.5`	indirect
npm	estree-walker	`3.0.3`	indirect
npm	expect-type	`1.4.0`	indirect
npm	form-data	`4.0.6`	indirect
npm	fsevents	`2.3.3`	indirect
npm	function-bind	`1.1.2`	indirect
npm	get-intrinsic	`1.3.0`	indirect
npm	get-proto	`1.0.1`	indirect
npm	gopd	`1.2.0`	indirect
npm	has-symbols	`1.1.0`	indirect
npm	has-tostringtag	`1.0.2`	indirect
npm	hasown	`2.0.4`	indirect
npm	html-encoding-sniffer	`4.0.0`	indirect
npm	http-proxy-agent	`7.0.2`	indirect
npm	https-proxy-agent	`7.0.6`	indirect
npm	iconv-lite	`0.6.3`	indirect
npm	is-potential-custom-element-name	`1.0.1`	indirect
npm	jsdom	`25.0.1`	indirect
npm	loupe	`3.2.1`	indirect
npm	lru-cache	`10.4.3`	indirect
npm	magic-string	`0.30.21`	indirect
npm	math-intrinsics	`1.1.0`	indirect
npm	mime-db	`1.52.0`	indirect
npm	mime-types	`2.1.35`	indirect
npm	ms	`2.1.3`	indirect
npm	nanoid	`3.3.16`	indirect
npm	nwsapi	`2.2.24`	indirect
npm	parse5	`7.3.0`	indirect
npm	pathe	`1.1.2`	indirect
npm	pathval	`2.0.1`	indirect
npm	picocolors	`1.1.1`	indirect
npm	postcss	`8.5.23`	indirect
npm	punycode	`2.3.1`	indirect
npm	rollup	`4.62.3`	indirect
npm	rrweb-cssom	`0.7.1`	indirect
npm	rrweb-cssom	`0.8.0`	indirect
npm	safer-buffer	`2.1.2`	indirect
npm	saxes	`6.0.0`	indirect
npm	siginfo	`2.0.0`	indirect
npm	source-map-js	`1.2.1`	indirect
npm	stackback	`0.0.2`	indirect
npm	std-env	`3.10.0`	indirect
npm	symbol-tree	`3.2.4`	indirect
npm	tinybench	`2.9.0`	indirect
npm	tinyexec	`0.3.2`	indirect
npm	tinypool	`1.1.1`	indirect
npm	tinyrainbow	`1.2.0`	indirect
npm	tinyspy	`3.0.2`	indirect
npm	tldts	`6.1.86`	indirect
npm	tldts-core	`6.1.86`	indirect
npm	tough-cookie	`5.1.2`	indirect
npm	tr46	`5.1.1`	indirect
npm	vite	`5.4.21`	indirect
npm	vite-node	`2.1.9`	indirect
npm	vitest	`2.1.9`	indirect
npm	w3c-xmlserializer	`5.0.0`	indirect
npm	webidl-conversions	`7.0.0`	indirect
npm	whatwg-encoding	`3.1.1`	indirect
npm	whatwg-mimetype	`4.0.0`	indirect
npm	whatwg-url	`14.2.0`	indirect
npm	why-is-node-running	`2.3.0`	indirect
npm	ws	`8.21.1`	indirect
npm	xml-name-validator	`5.0.0`	indirect
npm	xmlchars	`2.2.0`	indirect

Dependency advisories 5

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 148 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 5 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct.

Package	Version	Relation	Severity	Advisories	Fixed in
vitest	`2.1.9`	indirect	critical	2	`5.0.0-rc.2`
nanoid	`3.3.16`	indirect	high	1	`5.1.6`
vite	`5.4.21`	indirect	high	3	`8.0.16`
@vitest/mocker	`2.1.9`	indirect	moderate	1	`5.0.0-rc.2`
esbuild	`0.21.5`	indirect	moderate	1	`0.25.0`

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