Public record
Software health reportschema 0.11.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-17 09:23 UTC

surgeventures / grpc

[gRPC] Elixir gRPC implementation (Fresha fork) - Unary/streaming RPC, TLS, interceptors, compression, connection backoff. | Elixir | protobuf-elixir

ElixirApache-2.0★ 0 stars⑂ 1 forksince Aug 2021forkView on GitHub ↗

surgeventures/grpc holds a health index of 34 out of 100, placing it in the At Risk band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (57/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (12/100). It was last updated 15 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

34
overall / 100
At Risk

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.

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)
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 39 is calibrated to 34 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

freshaengineeringOrganization
15 followers143 public repossince Jun 2026

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
Hexinterop0.1.0-tmp1011902 days ago
Hexgrpcpoints to another repo — not scored1.0.2226,8322716 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

41Weak · 21% of overall
How it's scored
28.8/36Push recencylast push 15 days ago
2.8/36Commit cadence4/52 weeks with commits
7/18Commit volume5 commits in the last year
3/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained4 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
commits_last_year5
human_commit_share
days_since_last_push15
active_weeks_last_year4
How it's scored
16.2/27Ships releases13 version tags (no GitHub releases)
7.2/36Release recencylatest release 414 days ago
12.6/27Release cadencea release every ~291.4 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count13
latest_release_tagv0.10.2
releases_from_tagsyes
days_since_latest_release414
mean_days_between_releases291.4
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
How it's scored
0/60Stars0 stars
0/25Forks1 forks
0/15Watchers0 watchers
Inputs used
forks1
stars0
watchers0
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
0/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (Apache-2.0)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeno
has_licenseno
readme_badges
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services
has_pull_request_templateno

Sustainability & Governance

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

57Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
3.1/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 86% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth33 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 4 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled33
top_contributor_share0.864
How it's scored
0/42Issue resolutionno issues or no data
25.7/30PR acceptance18/21 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
9/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 18/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
merged_prs18
open_issues0
closed_issues0
prs_merged_7d
prs_decided_7d
prs_merged_30d
prs_decided_30d
issue_closed_ratio
closed_unmerged_prs3
first_time_authors_30d
first_time_prs_merged_30d
first_time_prs_decided_30d
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Issue resolution, Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backingorganization-owned
0/20Verified domainverified-domain status not read for this organization
8.7/25Owner reach15 followers of freshaengineering
13.2/25Track record143 public repos, account ~0 yr old
Inputs used
followers15
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified
owner_loginfreshaengineering
public_repos143
account_age_days41
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable1 package(s) on hex
4/35Publish recencylatest publish 1,902 days ago
4/20Version history1 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesinterop
ecosystemshex
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish1,902

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

33At Risk · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows3 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests0 out of 18 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

10Critical
How it's scored
0/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
0/10Repository description
10/10Topics1 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsnon-production
has_wikino
homepage
docs_site
has_readmeno
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionno

Security

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

41Weak · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
3.8/7.5Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
0/2.5CI-Tests0 out of 18 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
4.5/7.5Code-ReviewFound 18/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 6
2.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 4 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5Licenselicense file detected
2.2/7.5Maintained4 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 3
0/5Packagingno data
4.5/5Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 9
0/5SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releasesno data
0/7.5Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0/7.5Vulnerabilities12 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate4.1
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): 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.

52Moderate · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
0/40Legible commit historyno data
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Legible commit history. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrapMakefile, benchmark/Makefile, interop/Makefile
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environmentDockerfile, lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno data
0/8Automated maintenanceno data
9/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 9
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesmix.lock
has_dockerfileyes
typed_languageno
bootstrap_filesMakefile, benchmark/Makefile, interop/Makefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs
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.
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable codeElixir without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes0/124 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageElixir
largest_source_bytes20,290
source_files_sampled124
oversized_source_files0
How it's scored
40/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto)benchmark/proto/core/stats.proto, benchmark/proto/testing/benchmark_service.proto, benchmark/proto/testing/control.proto, benchmark/proto/testing/messages.proto, benchmark/proto/testing/payloads.proto, benchmark/proto/testing/stats.proto, benchmark/proto/testing/worker_service.proto, examples/helloworld/priv/protos/error_details.proto, examples/helloworld/priv/protos/helloworld.proto, examples/route_guide/priv/route_guide.proto, test/support/helloworld.proto, test/support/route_guide.proto
0/20MCP servernot applicable to this kind of software
40/40Runnable examplesexamples
Inputs used
example_dirsexamples
has_mcp_signalno
api_schema_filesbenchmark/proto/core/stats.proto, benchmark/proto/testing/benchmark_service.proto, benchmark/proto/testing/control.proto, benchmark/proto/testing/messages.proto, benchmark/proto/testing/payloads.proto, benchmark/proto/testing/stats.proto, benchmark/proto/testing/worker_service.proto, examples/helloworld/priv/protos/error_details.proto, examples/helloworld/priv/protos/helloworld.proto, examples/route_guide/priv/route_guide.proto, test/support/helloworld.proto, test/support/route_guide.proto
interfaces_expected_of
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): MCP server. Remaining weights renormalized.

Key facts

0GitHub stars
33contributors
5commits, last 12 months
15days since last push
13releases
1bus factor
0open issues
Hexpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Community profile unavailable
  • Could not fetch hex package 'benchmark' from its registry
  • hex package 'grpc' points at a different repository (https://github.com/elixir-grpc/grpc/tree/master/grpc); excluded from ecosystem scoring

More detail

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 · 2026-07-17 09:23 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
5Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
0CI-Tests0 out of 18 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
6Code-ReviewFound 18/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 6
10Contributorsproject has 4 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
3Maintained4 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 3
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
9Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 9
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0Vulnerabilities12 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 13
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Hexgrpc..benchmark/mix.exs
Hexprotobuftony612/protobuf-elixirbenchmark/mix.exs
Hexgrpc..interop/mix.exs
Hexcowlib~> 2.9.0interop/mix.exs
Hexgrpc_prometheus>= 0.1.0interop/mix.exs
Hexgrpc_statsd~> 0.1.0interop/mix.exs
Hexstatix>= 1.2.1interop/mix.exs
Hexextrace~> 0.2interop/mix.exs
Hexprometheus~> 4.0interop/mix.exs
Hexprometheus_httpd~> 2.0interop/mix.exs
Hexprotobuf>= 0.5.0 and < 0.10.0mix.exs
Hexcowboy~> 2.7mix.exs
Hexgun~> 2.0mix.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
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 v0.11.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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