Automattic / gutenberg-ramp
Control conditions under which Gutenberg loads - either from your theme code or from a UI
Automattic/gutenberg-ramp holds a health index of 13 out of 100, placing it in the Critical band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (73/100) and lowest on Vitality (18/100). The repository is archived, so no further maintenance is expected.
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.
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 38 is calibrated to 33 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).
Ownership
This repository is backed by an organization — shared, accountable stewardship that can outlive any single maintainer.
Metrics by category
Vitality
Is the project alive — is code being written and are releases shipping?
Development activity
Work has arrived and nobody has attended to it
Silence alone is never the finding — a small, finished library may need no commits for years. This alert requires both: no human commit for a long time, and obligations the project is visibly not discharging. Automated commits do not count as maintenance.
How abandonment is assessedHow it's scored
| 0/36 | Push recency — last push 1,955 days ago |
| 0/36 | Commit cadence — 0/52 weeks with commits |
| 0/18 | Commit volume — 0 commits in the last year |
| 0/10 | OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — project is archived |
Inputs used
| commits_last_year | 0 |
| human_commit_share | 1 |
| days_since_last_push | 1,955 |
| active_weeks_last_year | 0 |
Release discipline
How it's scored
| 27/27 | Ships releases — 6 releases published |
| 0/36 | Release recency — latest release 1,955 days ago |
| 12.6/27 | Release cadence — a release every ~219.1 days |
| 0/10 | OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data |
Inputs used
| releases_count | 6 |
| latest_release_tag | v1.2 |
| releases_from_tags | no |
| days_since_latest_release | 1,955 |
| mean_days_between_releases | 219.1 |
Community & Adoption
Does the project have users, downloads, attention, and a welcoming setup for contributors?
Popularity & adoption
How it's scored
| 30.4/60 | Stars — 76 stars |
| 9.6/25 | Forks — 15 forks |
| 2.7/15 | Watchers — 4 watchers |
Inputs used
| forks | 15 |
| stars | 76 |
| watchers | 4 |
| growth_state | unverified |
| growth_factor_pct | 100 |
| growth_unverified_reason | no_history |
Community health
How it's scored
| 22.5/22.5 | README |
| 0/22.5 | License — no license file detected |
| 0/18 | CONTRIBUTING guide |
| 0/13.5 | Code of conduct |
| 0/7.2 | Issue template |
| 0/6.3 | PR template |
Inputs used
| has_readme | yes |
| has_license | no |
| readme_badges | 0 |
| has_contributing | no |
| has_issue_template | no |
| has_code_of_conduct | no |
| readme_badge_services | — |
| has_pull_request_template | no |
Sustainability & Governance
Will the project survive its people — bus factor, responsiveness, who backs it, and package upkeep?
Maintainer resilience (bus factor)
How it's scored
| 25.2/54 | Bus factor — 2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits |
| 13.1/22.5 | Commit distribution — top contributor authored 42% of commits |
| 10.8/13.5 | Contributor breadth — 8 contributors |
| 6/10 | OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6 |
Inputs used
| bus_factor | 2 |
| contributors_sampled | 8 |
| top_contributor_share | 0.417 |
How it's scored
| 31.8/42 | Issue resolution — 76% of issues closed |
| 23.8/30 | PR acceptance — 31/39 decided PRs merged |
| 0/13 | Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d |
| 3/15 | OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 4/16 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2 |
Inputs used
| merged_prs | 31 |
| open_issues | 11 |
| closed_issues | 34 |
| prs_merged_7d | 0 |
| prs_decided_7d | 0 |
| prs_merged_30d | 0 |
| prs_decided_30d | 0 |
| issue_closed_ratio | 0.756 |
| closed_unmerged_prs | 8 |
| first_time_authors_30d | 0 |
| first_time_prs_merged_30d | 0 |
| first_time_prs_decided_30d | 0 |
Ownership & stewardship
How it's scored
| 30/30 | Ownership backing — organization-owned |
| 20/20 | Verified domain |
| 25/25 | Owner reach — 3,351 followers of Automattic |
| 25/25 | Track record — 1,405 public repos, account ~15 yr old |
Inputs used
| followers | 3,351 |
| owner_type | Organization |
| is_verified | yes |
| owner_login | Automattic |
| public_repos | 1,405 |
| account_age_days | 5,560 |
Engineering Quality
Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?
Engineering practices
How it's scored
| 0/24 | CI workflows |
| 0/24 | Tests present |
| 0/16 | Linter config |
| 0/9.6 | Pre-commit hooks |
| 0/6.4 | .editorconfig |
| 0/20 | OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 0 out of 5 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0 |
Inputs used
| has_ci | no |
| has_tests | no |
| has_editorconfig | no |
| has_linter_config | no |
| has_precommit_config | no |
Documentation
How it's scored
| 30/30 | README |
| 0/25 | Documentation directory |
| 15/15 | Documentation / homepage site — https://wordpress.org/plugins/gutenberg-ramp/ |
| 10/10 | Repository description |
| 10/10 | Topics — 4 topics |
| 10/10 | Wiki |
Inputs used
| topics | gutenberg, wordpress, wordpress-plugins, wpvip-plugin |
| has_wiki | yes |
| homepage | https://wordpress.org/plugins/gutenberg-ramp/ |
| docs_site | https://wordpress.org/plugins/gutenberg-ramp/ |
| has_readme | yes |
| has_docs_dir | no |
| has_description | yes |
Security
Are visible security and supply-chain practices strong, without unresolved high-risk jurisdiction exposure?
Security posture
How it's scored
| 7.5/7.5 | Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo |
| 0/7.5 | Branch-Protection — no data |
| 0/2.5 | CI-Tests — 0 out of 5 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0 |
| 0/2.5 | CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected |
| 1.5/7.5 | Code-Review — Found 4/16 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2 |
| 1.5/2.5 | Contributors — project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6 |
| 0/10 | Dangerous-Workflow — no data |
| 0/7.5 | Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected |
| 0/5 | Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed |
| 0/2.5 | License — license file not detected |
| 0/7.5 | Maintained — project is archived |
| 0/5 | Packaging — no data |
| 0/5 | Pinned-Dependencies — no data |
| 0/5 | SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0 |
| 0/5 | Security-Policy — security policy file not detected |
| 0/7.5 | Signed-Releases — no data |
| 0/7.5 | Token-Permissions — no data |
| 7.5/7.5 | Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected |
Inputs used
| source | openssf_scorecard |
| checks_evaluated | 12 |
| scorecard_version | v5.5.0 |
| checks_inconclusive | 6 |
| scorecard_aggregate | 2.9 |
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.
Agent context & guidance
How it's scored
| 0/45 | Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules |
| 15/15 | Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) — llms.txt served by the project website (https://wordpress.org/llms.txt) |
| 17.1/40 | Legible commit history — 32 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body) |
Inputs used
| has_llms_txt | yes |
| llms_txt_url | https://wordpress.org/llms.txt |
| legible_history_share | 0.32 |
| agent_instruction_files | — |
| agent_instruction_max_bytes | — |
How it's scored
| 0/18 | One-command bootstrap |
| 0/22 | Automated tests |
| 0/11 | Lint / format config |
| 0/11 | Static type checking |
| 0/10 | Reproducible environment |
| 0/10 | Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100 |
| 0/8 | Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed |
| 0/10 | OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — no data |
Inputs used
| has_nix | no |
| has_tests | no |
| lockfiles | — |
| has_dockerfile | no |
| typed_language | no |
| bootstrap_files | — |
| has_devcontainer | no |
| has_linter_config | no |
| typecheck_configs | — |
| agent_commit_share | 0 |
| toolchain_manifests | — |
| dependency_bot_commit_share | 0 |
Code legibility for models
How it's scored
| 0/45 | Type-checkable code — PHP without a type-check config |
| 55/55 | Manageable file sizes — 0/6 source files over 60KB |
Inputs used
| primary_language | PHP |
| largest_source_bytes | 8,119 |
| source_files_sampled | 6 |
| oversized_source_files | 0 |
Key facts
Data collection warnings
- Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
More detail
Star and fork history 0 ★ / 15 ⇿
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.
Each point covers 7 days.
OpenSSF Scorecard 2.9 / 10
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).
| 10 | Binary-Artifacts | no binaries found in the repo |
| n/a | Branch-Protection | internal error: error during branchesHandler.setup: internal error: some github tokens can't read classic branch protection rules: https://github.com/ossf/scorecard-action/blob/main/docs/authentication/fine-grained-auth-token.md |
| 0 | CI-Tests | 0 out of 5 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0 |
| 0 | CII-Best-Practices | no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected |
| 2 | Code-Review | Found 4/16 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2 |
| 6 | Contributors | project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6 |
| n/a | Dangerous-Workflow | no workflows found |
| 0 | Dependency-Update-Tool | no update tool detected |
| 0 | Fuzzing | project is not fuzzed |
| 0 | License | license file not detected |
| 0 | Maintained | project is archived |
| n/a | Packaging | packaging workflow not detected |
| n/a | Pinned-Dependencies | no dependencies found |
| 0 | SAST | SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0 |
| 0 | Security-Policy | security policy file not detected |
| n/a | Signed-Releases | no releases found |
| n/a | Token-Permissions | No tokens found |
| 10 | Vulnerabilities | 0 existing vulnerabilities detected |
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.
| Registry | Package | Version | Relation |
|---|
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.
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.