Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-09 14:58 UTC

team-alembic / ash_authentication

The Ash Authentication framework

ElixirNo license detected★ 165 stars⑂ 119 forkssince Sep 2022View on GitHub ↗

team-alembic/ash_authentication holds a health index of 89 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Vitality (96/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (52/100). It was last updated today. 2 contributors account for most of its recent work.

89
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.

89
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 75 is calibrated to 89 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

AlembicOrganization · verified domain
86 followers88 public repossince Feb 2017

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
Hexash_authentication4.14.267,95016815 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

96Exceptional · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
29.8/36Commit cadence — 43/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 193 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — no data
Inputs used
commits_last_year193
human_commit_share0.89
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year43

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 100 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 15 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~13 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count100
latest_release_tagv4.14.2
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release15
mean_days_between_releases13

Community & Adoption

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

52Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
35.9/60Stars — 165 stars
17.3/25Forks — 119 forks
4.7/15Watchers — 8 watchers
Inputs used
forks119
stars165
watchers8
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
0/22.5License — no license file detected
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseno
readme_badges4
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesgithub.com, shields.io
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
64.4/80Monthly downloads — 67,950 downloads/month across hex
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesash_authentication
dependents—
ecosystemshex
total_downloads873,224
monthly_downloads67,950
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?

82Excellent · 23% of overall
How it's scored
25.2/54Bus factor — 2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
13.6/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 40% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 98 contributors
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — no data
Inputs used
bus_factor2
contributors_sampled98
top_contributor_share0.395
How it's scored
41/42Issue resolution — 98% of issues closed
24.5/30PR acceptance — 844/1,034 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — no data
Inputs used
merged_prs844
open_issues4
closed_issues166
prs_merged_7d3
prs_decided_7d3
prs_merged_30d11
prs_decided_30d14
issue_closed_ratio0.976
closed_unmerged_prs190
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
20/20Verified domain
13.9/25Owner reach — 86 followers of team-alembic
25/25Track record — 88 public repos, account ~9 yr old
Inputs used
followers86
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedyes
owner_loginteam-alembic
public_repos88
account_age_days3,506

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on hex
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 15 days ago
20/20Version history — 168 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesash_authentication
ecosystemshex
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish15

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

70Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 2 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — no data
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

85Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 5 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsash, authentication, elixir, oauth2, password
has_wikiyes
homepage—
docs_site—
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

68Good · 16% of overall
How it's scored
30/30Security policy (SECURITY.md)
25/25Dependabot config
0/25Dependency lockfiles — published library — lockfiles are an application concern, not expected
0/20CodeQL workflow
Inputs used
sourcefile_signals
lockfilesmix.lock
manifestsmix.exs
has_codeql_workflowno
has_security_policyyes
has_dependabot_configyes
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Dependency lockfiles. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
8.4/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories — 3 affected: ash 3.18.0 (high 8.4), ash_postgres 2.6.32 (high 7.1), plug 1.19.1 (high 7.5)
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
28.6/40No advisories left outstanding — 2 advisory-carrying package(s) unaddressed past 90 days; oldest published 161 days ago
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories79
affected_packages17
assessed_packages79
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severityhigh 12, moderate 4, unknown 1
direct_affected_packages3
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 79 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.

66Good · 4% of overall
How it's scored
18/45Agent instructions — CLAUDE.md (stub)
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history — 89 of 89 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share1
agent_instruction_filesCLAUDE.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes14
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 — devcontainer, Dockerfile, lockfile
4/10Demonstrated agent practice — 2 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
8/8Automated maintenance — 11 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_dockerfileyes
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontaineryes
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0.02
toolchain_manifestsmix.exs
dependency_bot_commit_share0.11
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — Elixir without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/462 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageElixir
largest_source_bytes33,452
source_files_sampled462
oversized_source_files0
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — not applicable to this kind of software
0/20MCP server — not applicable to this kind of software
40/40Runnable examples — example
Inputs used
example_dirsexample
has_mcp_signalno
api_schema_files—
interfaces_expected_of—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto), MCP server. Remaining weights renormalized.

Key facts

165GitHub stars
98contributors
193commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
100releases
2bus factor
4open issues
Hexpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • OpenSSF Scorecard did not return a usable result (exit code 0; Skipping github.com/team-alembic/ash_authentication: run: internal error: ListCommits:error during graphqlHandler.setup: internal error: githubv4.Query: Something went wrong while executing your query on 2026-09-09T14:58:28Z. Please include `EAA2:1ECF43:42D4EB:40856D:6AA17411` when reporting this issue.); skipping Scorecard checks

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 119 ⇿
0Stars
119Forks
92Releases

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.

02040608010012011932022-122024-102026-08
Major 0Minor 15Patch 66

Each point covers 4 days.

Direct dependencies 16
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Hexno_warnpriv/plts/dialyzer.pltmix.exs
Hexargon2_elixir~> 4.0mix.exs
Hexash~> 3.7mix.exs
Hexassent~> 0.3.0mix.exs
Hexbcrypt_elixir~> 3.0mix.exs
Hexcastore~> 1.0mix.exs
Hexfinch~> 0.19mix.exs
Hexigniter~> 0.4mix.exs
Hexjason~> 1.4mix.exs
Hexjoken~> 2.5mix.exs
Hexnimble_totp~> 1.0mix.exs
Hexplug~> 1.13mix.exs
Hexspark~> 2.0mix.exs
Hexsplode~> 0.2mix.exs
Hexwax_~> 0.7mix.exs
Hexash_postgres~> 2.6 and >= 2.6.8mix.exs
All dependencies 79

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 14 direct and 65 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
Hexargon2_elixir4.1.3direct
Hexash3.18.0direct
Hexash_postgres2.6.32direct
Hexassent0.3.1direct
Hexbcrypt_elixir3.3.2direct
Hexcastore1.0.17direct
Hexfinch0.21.0direct
Hexigniter0.7.2direct
Hexjason1.4.4direct
Hexjoken2.6.2direct
Hexnimble_totp1.0.0direct
Hexplug1.19.1direct
Hexspark2.4.1direct
Hexsplode0.3.0direct
Hexabsinthe1.9.0indirect
Hexabsinthe_plug1.5.9indirect
Hexash_graphql1.8.5indirect
Hexash_json_api1.5.1indirect
Hexash_sql0.4.5indirect
Hexbunt1.0.0indirect
Hexcomeonin5.5.1indirect
Hexconv_case0.2.3indirect
Hexcowboy2.14.2indirect
Hexcowboy_telemetry0.4.0indirect
Hexcowlib2.16.0indirect
Hexcredo1.7.16indirect
Hexcrux0.1.2indirect
Hexdb_connection2.9.0indirect
Hexdecimal2.3.0indirect
Hexdialyxir1.4.7indirect
Hexdoctor0.22.0indirect
Hexearmark_parser1.4.44indirect
Hexecto3.13.5indirect
Hexecto_sql3.13.4indirect
Hexelixir_make0.9.0indirect
Hexerlex0.2.8indirect
Hexets0.9.0indirect
Hexex_check0.16.0indirect
Hexex_doc0.40.1indirect
Hexfile_system1.1.1indirect
Hexgit_cli0.3.0indirect
Hexgit_ops2.9.0indirect
Hexglob_ex0.1.11indirect
Hexham0.3.2indirect
Hexhpax1.0.3indirect
Hexiterex0.1.2indirect
Hexjose1.11.12indirect
Hexjson_xema0.6.5indirect
Hexlibgraph0.16.0indirect
Hexmakeup1.2.1indirect
Hexmakeup_elixir1.0.1indirect
Hexmakeup_erlang1.0.3indirect
Hexmimic2.3.0indirect
Hexmix_audit2.1.5indirect
Hexnimble_parsec1.4.2indirect
Hexowl0.13.0indirect
Hexphoenix1.8.1indirect
Hexphoenix_pubsub2.2.0indirect
Hexphoenix_template1.0.4indirect
Hexplug_cowboy2.7.5indirect
Hexplug_crypto2.1.1indirect
Hexpostgrex0.22.0indirect
Hexranch2.2.0indirect
Hexreactor1.0.0indirect
Hexreq0.5.17indirect
Hexrewrite1.2.0indirect
Hexsimple_sat0.1.4indirect
Hexsobelow0.14.1indirect
Hexsourceror1.11.0indirect
Hexspitfire0.3.7indirect
Hexstream_data1.2.0indirect
Hextext_diff0.1.0indirect
Hexusage_rules0.1.26indirect
Hexwebsock0.5.3indirect
Hexwebsock_adapter0.5.9indirect
Hexxema0.17.5indirect
Hexyamerl0.10.0indirect
Hexyaml_elixir2.12.1indirect
Hexymlr5.1.4indirect
Dependency advisories 17

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 79 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 17 carry known advisories, of which 3 are direct.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
ash3.18.0directhigh213.33.0
ash_postgres2.6.32directhigh12.13.0
plug1.19.1directhigh51.20.3
absinthe1.9.0indirecthigh41.10.2
ash_graphql1.8.5indirecthigh51.11.0
cowboy2.14.2indirecthigh42.18.0
cowlib2.16.0indirecthigh112.19.0
hpax1.0.3indirecthigh11.0.4
phoenix1.8.1indirecthigh61.8.9
plug_cowboy2.7.5indirecthigh22.8.1
postgrex0.22.0indirecthigh40.22.4
req0.5.17indirecthigh40.6.1
absinthe_plug1.5.9indirectmoderate21.5.10
ash_sql0.4.5indirectmoderate50.7.1
decimal2.3.0indirectmoderate23.0.0
ymlr5.1.4indirectmoderate15.1.6
usage_rules0.1.26indirectunknown11.2.8

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.

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 — Hex.