Public record
Software health reportschema 0.31.0 · metrics 2.5.0 · 2026-08-06 21:52 UTC

VIPnytt / SitemapParser

XML Sitemap parser class compliant with the Sitemaps.org protocol.

PHPMIT★ 79 stars⑂ 34 forkssince Apr 2016View on GitHub ↗

VIPnytt/SitemapParser holds a health index of 51 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (64/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (30/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

51
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.

51
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 51 is calibrated to 51 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

VIP nyttOrganization
1 follower8 public repossince Jan 2016

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
Packagistvipnytt/sitemapparserv1.3.153,80516300 days agoxmlparsersitemaprobots.txtsitemaps.org

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

62Moderate · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
1.4/36Commit cadence — 2/52 weeks with commits
6.3/18Commit volume — 4 commits in the last year
3/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 3 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
commits_last_year4
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year2
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 17 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 0 days ago
12.6/27Release cadence — a release every ~237 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count17
latest_release_tagv1.3.2
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release0
mean_days_between_releases237
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?

52Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
30.7/60Stars — 79 stars
12.7/25Forks — 34 forks
0/15Watchers — 1 watchers
Inputs used
forks34
stars79
watchers1
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (MIT)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges3
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesposer.pugx.org, shields.io, travis-ci.org
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
63.1/80Monthly downloads — 53,805 downloads/month across packagist
7.8/20Registry dependents — 14 packages depend on it
Inputs used
packagesvipnytt/sitemapparser
dependents14
ecosystemspackagist
total_downloads2,404,995
monthly_downloads53,805

Sustainability & Governance

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

64Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
7/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 69% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 12 contributors
3/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled12
top_contributor_share0.69
How it's scored
42/42Issue resolution — 100% of issues closed
28.6/30PR acceptance — 20/21 decided PRs merged
13/13Newcomer PR acceptance — 1/1 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
9/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 17/27 approved changesets -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
merged_prs20
open_issues0
closed_issues9
prs_merged_7d1
prs_decided_7d1
prs_merged_30d1
prs_decided_30d1
issue_closed_ratio1
closed_unmerged_prs1
first_time_authors_30d1
first_time_prs_merged_30d1
first_time_prs_decided_30d1
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain
2.2/25Owner reach — 1 followers of VIPnytt
18.9/25Track record — 8 public repos, account ~10 yr old
Inputs used
followers1
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified
owner_loginVIPnytt
public_repos8
account_age_days3,854
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on packagist
26/35Publish recency — latest publish 300 days ago
20/20Version history — 16 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesvipnytt/sitemapparser
ecosystemspackagist
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish300

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

38Weak · 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 17 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

60Moderate
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 5 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicssitemap, parser, xml, sitemaps-org, xml-sitemap-parser
has_wikiyes
homepage
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

36Weak · 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 17 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
4.5/7.5Code-Review — Found 17/27 approved changesets -- score normalized to 6
0.8/2.5Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
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
2.2/7.5Maintained — 3 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 3
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
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated13
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive5
scorecard_aggregate3.6
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.

30At Risk · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
18.7/40Legible commit history — 21 of 60 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
legible_history_share0.35
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
0/11Static type checking
0/10Reproducible environment
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 60
0/8Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — no data
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests
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 — PHP without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/21 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePHP
largest_source_bytes14,945
source_files_sampled21
oversized_source_files0
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

Key facts

79GitHub stars
12contributors
4commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
17releases
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 ★ / 34 ⇿
0Stars
34Forks
16Releases

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.

01325383232016-042021-062026-07
Major 1Minor 3Patch 12

Each point covers 10 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 3.6 / 10
3.6aggregate

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 · 2026-08-06 21:52 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0CI-Tests0 out of 17 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
6Code-ReviewFound 17/27 approved changesets -- score normalized to 6
3Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
3Maintained3 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 3
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
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 1
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Packagistguzzlehttp/guzzle^6.0 || ^7.0composer.json
All dependencies 7

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 1 direct and 6 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
Packagistguzzlehttp/guzzledirect
Packagistcodeclimate/php-test-reporterindirect
Packagistext-mbstringindirect
Packagistext-simplexmlindirect
Packagistlib-libxmlindirect
Packagistphpindirect
Packagistphpunit/phpunitindirect
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

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 v2.5.0, schema v0.31.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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