Public record
Software health reportschema 0.31.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-08 07:27 UTC

Apen / additional_reports

Useful information in the reports module : xclass, ajax, cliKeys, eID, general status of the system (encoding, DB, php vars...), hooks, compare local and TER extension (diff), used content type, used plugins, ExtDirect... It can really help you during migration or new existing project (to have a global reports of the system).

PHP · HTMLCustom license★ 13 stars⑂ 14 forkssince Dec 2015View on GitHub ↗
KindPluginLibraryhow this is determined

Apen/additional_reports holds a health index of 60 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (83/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (26/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

60
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.

60
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 57 is calibrated to 60 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Yohann CERDAN Personal account
22 followers23 public repossince Oct 2011Site-nGo

This repository is owned by a personal account. A single-owner project carries more continuity risk than an organization-backed one.

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
Packagistapen/additional_reports3.4.93,26222319 days agotypo3

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

68Good · 21% of overall

Development activity

66Good
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
2.8/36Commit cadence — 4/52 weeks with commits
17.5/18Commit volume — 88 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year88
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year4

Release discipline

72Good
How it's scored
16.2/27Ships releases — 100 version tags (no GitHub releases)
36/36Release recency — latest release 0 days ago
12.6/27Release cadence — a release every ~193 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count100
latest_release_tag4.0.0
releases_from_tagsyes
days_since_latest_release0
mean_days_between_releases193
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?

38Weak · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

27At Risk
How it's scored
17.5/60Stars — 13 stars
9.3/25Forks — 14 forks
0/15Watchers — 2 watchers
Inputs used
forks14
stars13
watchers2
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

44Weak
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
16.9/22.5License — license file present, not a recognized license
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges5
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesgithub.com, shields.io
has_pull_request_templateno

Ecosystem adoption (downloads)

47Weak
How it's scored
46.8/80Monthly downloads — 3,262 downloads/month across packagist
0/20Registry dependents — 0 packages depend on it
Inputs used
packagesapen/additional_reports
dependents0
ecosystemspackagist
total_downloads171,479
monthly_downloads3,262
unverified_packages_excluded—

Sustainability & Governance

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

57Moderate · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

22At Risk
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0.6/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 97% of commits
9.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 7 contributors
3/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled7
top_contributor_share0.973

Issue & PR responsiveness

75Good
How it's scored
42/42Issue resolution — 100% of issues closed
23.6/30PR acceptance — 11/14 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs11
open_issues0
closed_issues46
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio1
closed_unmerged_prs3
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.

Ownership & stewardship

52Moderate
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
9.8/25Owner reach — 22 followers of Apen
22.1/25Track record — 23 public repos, account ~14 yr old
Inputs used
followers22
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginApen
public_repos23
account_age_days5,408
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

91Excellent
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on packagist
26/35Publish recency — latest publish 319 days ago
20/20Version history — 22 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesapen/additional_reports
ecosystemspackagist
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish319

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

83Excellent · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

88Excellent
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 2 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — phpstan.neon
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — no data
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests. Remaining weights renormalized.

Documentation

75Good
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
0/10Topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics—
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?

39Weak · 16% of overall

Security posture

39Weak
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 — no data
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-Review — Found 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0.8/2.5Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.2/2.5License — license file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packaging — no data
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0/5SAST — no SAST tool detected
0/5Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — no data
0/7.5Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated15
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive3
scorecard_aggregate3.9
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): CI-Tests, 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.

26At Risk · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

1Critical
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
1.1/40Legible commit history — 2 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.02
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

33At Risk
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — phpstan.neon
0/11Static type checking
0/10Reproducible environment
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 — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles—
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0

Code legibility for models

55Moderate
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — PHP without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/82 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePHP
largest_source_bytes10,016
source_files_sampled82
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

13GitHub stars
7contributors
88commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
100releases
1bus factor
0open issues
Packagistpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • No resolved dependencies carried a version and a supported ecosystem

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 14 ⇿
0Stars
14Forks
23Releases

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.

03581013151412017-082021-102025-12
Major 0Minor 3Patch 20

Each point covers 8 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 3.9 / 10
3.9aggregate

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 · 2026-08-08 07:26 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
n/aCI-Testsno pull request found
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
3Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
9Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
0Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0SASTno SAST tool detected
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 3
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Packagistsebastian/diff^6 || ^7composer.json
Packagisttypo3/cms-core^13 || ^14composer.json
Packagisttypo3/cms-reports^13 || ^14composer.json
All dependencies 9

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 2 direct and 7 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
Packagisttypo3/cms-core—direct
Packagisttypo3/cms-reports—direct
Packagistfriendsofphp/php-cs-fixer—indirect
Packagisthelmich/typo3-typoscript-lint—indirect
Packagistnikic/php-parser—indirect
Packagistphp—indirect
Packagistsaschaegerer/phpstan-typo3—indirect
Packagistsymplify/easy-coding-standard—indirect
Packagisttypo3/testing-framework—indirect
Dependency advisories not assessed

Advisory matching could not run for this report: No resolved dependencies carried a version and a supported ecosystem

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.

Related records

Inspected repositories sharing catalogue tags or ecosystems with Apen/additional_reports. Read them side by side →

96netresearch/t3x-rte_ckeditor_imageImage support in CKEditor for the TYPO3 ecosystem - by NetresearchExceptional92netresearch/t3x-nr-llmThe shared AI foundation for TYPO3 — one LLM setup for every extension on your siteExcellent92TYPO3/typo3The TYPO3 Core - Enterprise Content Management System. Synchronized mirror of https://review.typo3.org/q/project:Packages/TYPO3.CMSExcellent90netresearch/t3x-contextsContexts for TYPO3 – can be used to modify page behaviour in the frontend based on several conditionsExcellent90TYPO3-Solr/ext-solrA TYPO3 extension that integrates the Apache Solr search server with TYPO3 CMS. dkd Internet Service GmbH is developing the extension. Community contributions are welcome. See CONTRIBUTING.md for details.Excellent89netresearch/t3x-nr-passkeys-beTYPO3 extension for passwordless backend authentication via WebAuthn/FIDO2 PasskeysExcellent

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 v0.31.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

How one result sits in the wider record: aggregate statistics — Packagist.