Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-12 07:18 UTC

Yoast / yoastcs

Yoast coding standards

PHPMIT★ 22 stars⑂ 1 forksince Feb 2015View on GitHub ↗

Yoast/yoastcs holds a health index of 77 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Vitality (75/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (39/100). It was last updated 22 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

77
overall / 100
Good

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.

77
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 66 is calibrated to 77 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

YoastOrganization · verified domain
183 followers77 public repossince Jun 2013

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
Packagistyoast/yoastcs3.4.317,4243036 days agowordpressstatic-analysisstandardsphpcsyoast

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

75Good · 21% of overall
How it's scored
28.8/36Push recency — last push 22 days ago
12.5/36Commit cadence — 18/52 weeks with commits
17.7/18Commit volume — 92 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 22 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year92
human_commit_share0.87
days_since_last_push22
active_weeks_last_year18
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 30 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 36 days ago
12.6/27Release cadence — a release every ~145.1 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count30
latest_release_tag3.4.3
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release36
mean_days_between_releases145.1
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?

52Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
21.4/60Stars — 22 stars
0/25Forks — 1 forks
6/15Watchers — 13 watchers
Inputs used
forks1
stars22
watchers13
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (MIT)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges1
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicescoveralls.io
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
56.5/80Monthly downloads — 17,424 downloads/month across packagist
10/20Registry dependents — 31 packages depend on it
Inputs used
packagesyoast/yoastcs
dependents31
ecosystemspackagist
total_downloads1,260,893
monthly_downloads17,424
unverified_packages_excluded—

Sustainability & Governance

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

73Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
5.1/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 77% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 18 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 9 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled18
top_contributor_share0.774
How it's scored
31.2/42Issue resolution — 74% of issues closed
29/30PR acceptance — 372/385 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
4.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 3/10 approved changesets -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
merged_prs372
open_issues16
closed_issues46
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio0.742
closed_unmerged_prs13
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
20/20Verified domain
16.3/25Owner reach — 183 followers of Yoast
25/25Track record — 77 public repos, account ~13 yr old
Inputs used
followers183
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedyes
owner_loginYoast
public_repos77
account_age_days4,838

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on packagist
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 36 days ago
20/20Version history — 30 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesyoast/yoastcs
ecosystemspackagist
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish36

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

61Moderate · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 5 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 17 out of 17 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

50Moderate
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 3 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsphp, coding-standards, mess-detector
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?

72Good · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — no data
2.5/2.5CI-Tests — 17 out of 17 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
2.2/7.5Code-Review — Found 3/10 approved changesets -- score normalized to 3
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 9 contributing companies or organizations
0/10Dangerous-Workflow — no data
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained — 22 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packaging — no data
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — no data
0/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
5/5Security-Policy — security policy file 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_evaluated12
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive6
scorecard_aggregate7.2
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, 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.

39Weak · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history — 71 of 87 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.816
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 100
8/8Automated maintenance — 13 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
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_share0.13
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 — 0/36 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePHP
largest_source_bytes16,494
source_files_sampled36
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

22GitHub stars
18contributors
92commits, last 12 months
22days since last push
30releases
1bus factor
16open 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

OpenSSF Scorecard 7.2 / 10
7.2aggregate

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 · 2026-09-12 07:18 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
10CI-Tests17 out of 17 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
3Code-ReviewFound 3/10 approved changesets -- score normalized to 3
10Contributorsproject has 9 contributing companies or organizations
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained22 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
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
10Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
n/aToken-PermissionsNo tokens found
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 5
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Packagistautomattic/vipwpcs^3.0.1composer.json
Packagistsirbrillig/phpcs-variable-analysis^2.13.0composer.json
Packagistslevomat/coding-standard^8.15.0composer.json
Packagistsquizlabs/php_codesniffer^3.13.6composer.json
Packagistwp-coding-standards/wpcs^3.4.1composer.json
All dependencies 15

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 5 direct and 10 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
Packagistautomattic/vipwpcs—direct
Packagistsirbrillig/phpcs-variable-analysis—direct
Packagistslevomat/coding-standard—direct
Packagistsquizlabs/php_codesniffer—direct
Packagistwp-coding-standards/wpcs—direct
Packagistext-tokenizer—indirect
Packagistphp—indirect
Packagistphp-parallel-lint/php-console-highlighter—indirect
Packagistphp-parallel-lint/php-parallel-lint—indirect
Packagistphpcompatibility/php-compatibility—indirect
Packagistphpcompatibility/phpcompatibility-wp—indirect
Packagistphpcsstandards/phpcsdevtools—indirect
Packagistphpcsstandards/phpcsextra—indirect
Packagistphpcsstandards/phpcsutils—indirect
Packagistphpunit/phpunit—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.

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 — Packagist.