Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-09 14:27 UTC

tv-labs / lua

A Lua 5.3 runtime in pure Elixir

Elixir · LuaApache-2.0★ 224 stars⑂ 14 forkssince Mar 2024View on GitHub ↗
KindNetwork serviceLibraryhow this is determined

tv-labs/lua holds a health index of 63 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (76/100) and lowest on Security (21/100). It was last updated 42 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

63
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.

63
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 59 is calibrated to 63 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

TV LabsOrganization
25 followers20 public repossince Mar 2023

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
Hexlua1.0.230,3393542 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

70Good · 21% of overall
How it's scored
18/36Push recency — last push 42 days ago
13.2/36Commit cadence — 19/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 234 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — no data
Inputs used
commits_last_year234
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push42
active_weeks_last_year19
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 35 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 42 days ago
19.8/27Release cadence — a release every ~49 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count35
latest_release_tagv1.0.2
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release42
mean_days_between_releases49

Community & Adoption

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

56Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
38.1/60Stars — 224 stars
9.3/25Forks — 14 forks
1.7/15Watchers — 3 watchers
Inputs used
forks14
stars224
watchers3
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_badges4
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesgithub.com, shields.io
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
59.8/80Monthly downloads — 30,339 downloads/month across hex
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packageslua
dependents—
ecosystemshex
total_downloads409,300
monthly_downloads30,339
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?

61Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0.8/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 97% of commits
6.8/13.5Contributor breadth — 5 contributors
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — no data
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled5
top_contributor_share0.966
How it's scored
35/42Issue resolution — 83% of issues closed
27.9/30PR acceptance — 285/306 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_prs285
open_issues19
closed_issues95
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio0.833
closed_unmerged_prs21
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
10.2/25Owner reach — 25 followers of tv-labs
16.6/25Track record — 20 public repos, account ~3 yr old
Inputs used
followers25
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_logintv-labs
public_repos20
account_age_days1,277

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on hex
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 42 days ago
20/20Version history — 35 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packageslua
ecosystemshex
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish42

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

76Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 3 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

100Exceptional
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://deflua.com
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 4 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicselixir, erlang, lua, luerl
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://deflua.com
docs_sitehttps://deflua.com
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

21At Risk · 16% of overall
How it's scored
0/30Security policy (SECURITY.md)
0/25Dependabot config
0/25Dependency lockfiles — published library — lockfiles are an application concern, not expected
0/20CodeQL workflow
Inputs used
sourcefile_signals
lockfilesmix.lock, package-lock.json
manifestsmix.exs, website/mix.exs
has_codeql_workflowno
has_security_policyno
has_dependabot_configno
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Dependency lockfiles. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories0
affected_packages0
assessed_packages22
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severitynone
direct_affected_packages0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories, No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 22 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.

75Good · 4% of overall
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructions — AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md, website/AGENTS.md
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history — 100 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share1
agent_instruction_filesAGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md, website/AGENTS.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes21,598
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrap — mise.toml
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checking — website/assets/tsconfig.json
10/10Reproducible environment — Dockerfile, lockfile
10/10Demonstrated agent practice — 7 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
0/8Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — no data
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesmix.lock, package-lock.json
has_dockerfileyes
typed_languageno
bootstrap_filesmise.toml
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configswebsite/assets/tsconfig.json
agent_commit_share0.07
toolchain_manifestsmix.exs, website/mix.exs
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
27/45Type-checkable code — Elixir with type-check config (website/assets/tsconfig.json)
53.6/55Manageable file sizes — 6/237 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageElixir
largest_source_bytes152,281
source_files_sampled237
oversized_source_files6
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto)
0/20MCP server
40/40Runnable examples — examples
Inputs used
example_dirsexamples
has_mcp_signalno
api_schema_files—
interfaces_expected_ofnetwork-service

Key facts

224GitHub stars
5contributors
234commits, last 12 months
42days since last push
35releases
1bus factor
19open issues
Hexpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • Could not fetch hex package 'website' from its registry
  • OpenSSF Scorecard did not return a usable result (exit code 0; Skipping github.com/tv-labs/lua: run: internal error: ListCommits:error during graphqlHandler.setup: internal error: githubv4.Query: Something went wrong while executing your query on 2026-09-09T14:27:28Z. Please include `E690:FB36D:1929406:185A8F7:6AA16CCE` when reporting this issue.); skipping Scorecard checks

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 14 ⇿
0Stars
14Forks
13Releases

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.

03581013151422025-032025-122026-08
Major 1Minor 4Patch 4

Each point covers 2 days.

Direct dependencies 20
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Hexbenchee~> 1.3mix.exs
Hexluerl~> 1.5mix.exs
Hexlua..website/mix.exs
Hexphoenix~> 1.8.7website/mix.exs
Hexphoenix_html~> 4.1website/mix.exs
Hexphoenix_live_view~> 1.1.0website/mix.exs
Hexphoenix_live_dashboard~> 0.8.3website/mix.exs
Hexesbuild~> 0.10website/mix.exs
Hextailwind~> 0.3website/mix.exs
Hexheroiconstailwindlabs/heroiconswebsite/mix.exs
Hexswoosh~> 1.16website/mix.exs
Hexreq~> 0.5website/mix.exs
Hextelemetry_metrics~> 1.0website/mix.exs
Hextelemetry_poller~> 1.0website/mix.exs
Hexgettext~> 1.0website/mix.exs
Hexjason~> 1.2website/mix.exs
Hexdns_cluster~> 0.2.0website/mix.exs
Hexbandit~> 1.5website/mix.exs
Hexmakeup~> 1.2website/mix.exs
Hexmakeup_elixir~> 1.0website/mix.exs
All dependencies 22

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 22 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
npm../deps/phoenix1.8.7indirect
npm../deps/phoenix_html4.3.0indirect
npm../deps/phoenix_live_view1.1.30indirect
npm@codemirror/autocomplete6.20.2indirect
npm@codemirror/commands6.10.3indirect
npm@codemirror/language6.12.3indirect
npm@codemirror/legacy-modes6.5.3indirect
npm@codemirror/lint6.9.6indirect
npm@codemirror/search6.7.0indirect
npm@codemirror/state6.6.0indirect
npm@codemirror/theme-one-dark6.1.3indirect
npm@codemirror/view6.43.0indirect
npm@lezer/common1.5.2indirect
npm@lezer/highlight1.2.3indirect
npm@lezer/lr1.4.10indirect
npm@marijn/find-cluster-break1.0.2indirect
npm@popperjs/core2.11.8indirect
npmcodemirror6.0.2indirect
npmcrelt1.0.6indirect
npmstyle-mod4.1.3indirect
npmtippy.js6.3.7indirect
npmw3c-keyname2.2.8indirect
Dependency advisories 0

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 22 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct.

No known advisories affect the assessed dependencies.

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.