Public record
Software health reportschema 0.16.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-20 16:52 UTC

Automattic / jetpack-changelogger

[READ ONLY] Allows for managing changelogs by dropping change files into a changelog directory with each PR. This repository is a mirror, for issue tracking and development head to: https://github.com/automattic/jetpack

PHPCustom license★ 10 stars⑂ 5 forkssince Mar 2021View on GitHub ↗
KindCommand-line toolLibraryhow this is determined

Automattic/jetpack-changelogger holds a health index of 57 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Vitality (81/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (11/100). It was last updated 4 days ago. 2 contributors account for most of its recent work.

57
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.

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

Ownership

AutomatticOrganization
3,219 followers1,373 public repossince Jul 2011

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
Packagistautomattic/jetpack-changeloggerv6.0.17186,1037635 days agoclidevchangelogkeepachangelog

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

81Excellent · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 4 days ago
15.9/36Commit cadence23/52 weeks with commits
14.9/18Commit volume45 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained20 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year45
human_commit_share
days_since_last_push4
active_weeks_last_year23
How it's scored
16.2/27Ships releases76 version tags (no GitHub releases)
36/36Release recencylatest release 35 days ago
27/27Release cadencea release every ~24.1 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count76
latest_release_tagv6.0.17
releases_from_tagsyes
days_since_latest_release35
mean_days_between_releases24.1
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?

44Weak · 17% of overall
How it's scored
15.5/60Stars10 stars
5/25Forks5 forks
1.7/15Watchers3 watchers
Inputs used
forks5
stars10
watchers3
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
16.9/22.5Licenselicense 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_badges
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
70.3/80Monthly downloads186,103 downloads/month across packagist
9.8/20Registry dependents29 packages depend on it
Inputs used
packagesautomattic/jetpack-changelogger
dependents29
ecosystemspackagist
total_downloads7,325,789
monthly_downloads186,103
unverified_packages_excluded

Sustainability & Governance

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

63Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
25.2/54Bus factor2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
11.7/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 48% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth38 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 4 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor2
contributors_sampled38
top_contributor_share0.482
How it's scored
0/42Issue resolutionno issues or no data
0/30PR acceptanceno decided pull requests or no data
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs0
open_issues0
closed_issues0
prs_merged_7d
prs_decided_7d
prs_merged_30d
prs_decided_30d
issue_closed_ratio
closed_unmerged_prs0
first_time_authors_30d
first_time_prs_merged_30d
first_time_prs_decided_30d
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Issue resolution, PR acceptance, Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backingorganization-owned
0/20Verified domainverified-domain status not read for this organization
25/25Owner reach3,219 followers of Automattic
25/25Track record1,373 public repos, account ~15 yr old
Inputs used
followers3,219
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified
owner_loginAutomattic
public_repos1,373
account_age_days5,498
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable1 package(s) on packagist
35/35Publish recencylatest publish 35 days ago
20/20Version history76 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesautomattic/jetpack-changelogger
ecosystemspackagist
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish35

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

34At Risk · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows1 workflow(s)
0/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Testsno data
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsno
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
0/10Topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics
has_wikino
homepage
docs_site
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

54Moderate · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protectionno data
0/2.5CI-Testsno data
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-ReviewFound 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
2.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 4 contributing companies or organizations
0/10Dangerous-Workflowno data
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.2/2.5Licenselicense file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained20 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packagingno data
0/5Pinned-Dependenciesno data
0/5SASTno SAST tool detected
5/5Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
0/7.5Signed-Releasesno data
0/7.5Token-Permissionsno data
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated11
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive7
scorecard_aggregate5.4
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, CI-Tests, 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.

11Critical · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
0/40Legible commit historyno data
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Legible commit history. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
0/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
0/11Static type checking
0/10Reproducible environment
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno data
0/8Automated maintenanceno data
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesno data
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsno
lockfiles
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Demonstrated agent practice, Automated maintenance, OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable codePHP without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes0/22 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePHP
largest_source_bytes25,147
source_files_sampled22
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

10GitHub stars
38contributors
45commits, last 12 months
4days since last push
76releases
2bus factor
0open issues
Packagistpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • No resolved dependencies carried a version and a supported ecosystem

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.4 / 10
5.4aggregate

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 · 2026-07-20 16:51 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
n/aBranch-Protectioninternal 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
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
10Contributorsproject has 4 contributing companies or organizations
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
9Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained20 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
n/aPinned-Dependenciesno dependencies found
0SASTno SAST tool detected
10Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
n/aToken-PermissionsNo tokens found
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 2
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Packagistsymfony/console^5.4 || ^6.4 || ^7.1composer.json
Packagistsymfony/process^5.4 || ^6.4 || ^7.1composer.json
All dependencies 6

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 2 direct and 4 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
Packagistsymfony/consoledirect
Packagistsymfony/processdirect
Packagistcomposer-runtime-apiindirect
Packagistphpindirect
Packagistwikimedia/testing-access-wrapperindirect
Packagistyoast/phpunit-polyfillsindirect
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.

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 v0.16.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

How one result sits in the wider record: aggregate statisticsPackagist.