Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-09 20:32 UTC

xerions / phoenix_swagger

Swagger integration to Phoenix framework

ElixirMPL-2.0★ 711 stars⑂ 184 forkssince Sep 2015View on GitHub ↗

xerions/phoenix_swagger holds a health index of 25 out of 100, placing it in the At Risk band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (67/100) and lowest on Vitality (17/100). It was last updated 380 days ago. 2 contributors account for most of its recent work.

25
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.

25
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 45 is calibrated to 42 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

xerionsOrganization
1 follower25 public repossince Mar 2015

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
Hexphoenix_swagger0.8.525,72730380 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

17Critical · 21% of overall
How it's scored
0/36Push recency — last push 380 days ago
0/36Commit cadence — 0/52 weeks with commits
0/18Commit volume — 0 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
commits_last_year0
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push380
active_weeks_last_year0
How it's scored
16.2/27Ships releases — 30 version tags (no GitHub releases)
7.2/36Release recency — latest release 380 days ago
12.6/27Release cadence — a release every ~336.7 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count30
latest_release_tagv0.8.5
releases_from_tagsyes
days_since_latest_release380
mean_days_between_releases336.7
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?

65Good · 17% of overall
How it's scored
46.3/60Stars — 711 stars
18.9/25Forks — 184 forks
6.4/15Watchers — 15 watchers
Inputs used
forks184
stars711
watchers15
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (MPL-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_badges6
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesshields.io, travis-ci.org
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
58.8/80Monthly downloads — 25,727 downloads/month across hex
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesphoenix_swagger
dependents—
ecosystemshex
total_downloads3,179,102
monthly_downloads25,727
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?

67Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
25.2/54Bus factor — 2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
15.8/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 30% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 47 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 20 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor2
contributors_sampled47
top_contributor_share0.299
How it's scored
33.3/42Issue resolution — 79% of issues closed
24.1/30PR acceptance — 136/169 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
7.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 7/13 approved changesets -- score normalized to 5
Inputs used
merged_prs136
open_issues26
closed_issues100
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio0.794
closed_unmerged_prs33
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
2.2/25Owner reach — 1 followers of xerions
22.3/25Track record — 25 public repos, account ~11 yr old
Inputs used
followers1
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_loginxerions
public_repos25
account_age_days4,207
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on hex
14/35Publish recency — latest publish 380 days ago
20/20Version history — 30 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesphoenix_swagger
ecosystemshex
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish380

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

48Weak · 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
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 0 out of 12 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_cino
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 — 3 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsswagger, phoenix, elixir
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?

23At Risk · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0/2.5CI-Tests — 0 out of 12 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
3.8/7.5Code-Review — Found 7/13 approved changesets -- score normalized to 5
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 20 contributing companies or organizations
0/10Dangerous-Workflow — no data
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
0/7.5Maintained — 0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
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 — no data
0/7.5Token-Permissions — no data
0/7.5Vulnerabilities — 17 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated13
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive5
scorecard_aggregate2.3
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Dangerous-Workflow, Packaging, Pinned-Dependencies, Signed-Releases, 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.

50Moderate · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
25.1/40Legible commit history — 47 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.47
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
How it's scored
12.6/18One-command bootstrap — examples/simple/mix.exs, 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
0/8Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
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_manifestsexamples/simple/mix.exs, mix.exs
dependency_bot_commit_share0
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
50.6/55Manageable file sizes — 5/62 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageElixir
largest_source_bytes1,442,694
source_files_sampled62
oversized_source_files5
How it's scored
40/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — examples/simple/priv/static/swagger.json
0/20MCP server — not applicable to this kind of software
40/40Runnable examples — examples
Inputs used
example_dirsexamples
has_mcp_signalno
api_schema_filesexamples/simple/priv/static/swagger.json
interfaces_expected_of—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): MCP server. Remaining weights renormalized.

Key facts

711GitHub stars
47contributors
0commits, last 12 months
380days since last push
30releases
2bus factor
26open 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 ★ / 184 ⇿
0Stars
184Forks
30Releases

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.

0408012016020016732015-092021-022026-08
Major 0Minor 8Patch 22

Each point covers 10 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 2.3 / 10
2.3aggregate

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 · 2026-09-09 20:31 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0CI-Tests0 out of 12 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
5Code-ReviewFound 7/13 approved changesets -- score normalized to 5
10Contributorsproject has 20 contributing companies or organizations
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
0Maintained0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
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
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
n/aToken-PermissionsNo tokens found
0Vulnerabilities17 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 4
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Hexpoison~> 6.0mix.exs
Hexjason~> 1.4mix.exs
Hexex_json_schema~> 0.9mix.exs
Hexplug~> 1.14mix.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 — Hex.