Public record
Software health reportschema 0.26.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-22 06:17 UTC

alleyinteractive / meta-inspector

See your post, term, and user meta data.

PHPGPL-2.0★ 21 stars⑂ 1 forksince Mar 2017View on GitHub ↗

alleyinteractive/meta-inspector holds a health index of 59 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (70/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (24/100). It was last updated 30 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

59
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.

59
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 56 is calibrated to 59 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

AlleyOrganization
114 followers273 public repossince May 2012

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
Packagistalleyinteractive/meta-inspectorv1.2.028,4896222 days agowordpressdeveloperwordpress-plugin

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

51Moderate · 21% of overall
How it's scored
28.8/36Push recencylast push 30 days ago
2.1/36Commit cadence3/52 weeks with commits
11.9/18Commit volume20 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
commits_last_year20
human_commit_share0.952
days_since_last_push30
active_weeks_last_year3
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases6 releases published
16.2/36Release recencylatest release 222 days ago
12.6/27Release cadencea release every ~231.6 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count6
latest_release_tagv1.2.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release222
mean_days_between_releases231.6
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?

56Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
21.1/60Stars21 stars
0/25Forks1 forks
8.5/15Watchers35 watchers
Inputs used
forks1
stars21
watchers35
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonbelow_threshold

Community health

85Excellent
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (GPL-2.0)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_services
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
59.4/80Monthly downloads28,489 downloads/month across packagist
0/20Registry dependents0 packages depend on it
Inputs used
packagesalleyinteractive/meta-inspector
dependents0
ecosystemspackagist
total_downloads396,138
monthly_downloads28,489
unverified_packages_excluded

Sustainability & Governance

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

70Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
9.3/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 59% of commits
6.8/13.5Contributor breadth5 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 4 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled5
top_contributor_share0.588
How it's scored
36/42Issue resolution86% of issues closed
26.2/30PR acceptance21/24 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
4.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 6/16 approved changesets -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
merged_prs21
open_issues1
closed_issues6
prs_merged_7d
prs_decided_7d
prs_merged_30d
prs_decided_30d
issue_closed_ratio0.857
closed_unmerged_prs3
first_time_authors_30d
first_time_prs_merged_30d
first_time_prs_decided_30d
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backingorganization-owned
0/20Verified domainverified-domain status not read for this organization
14.8/25Owner reach114 followers of alleyinteractive
25/25Track record273 public repos, account ~14 yr old
Inputs used
followers114
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified
owner_loginalleyinteractive
public_repos273
account_age_days5,183
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable1 package(s) on packagist
26/35Publish recencylatest publish 222 days ago
20/20Version history6 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesalleyinteractive/meta-inspector
ecosystemspackagist
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish222

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

50Moderate · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows3 workflow(s)
0/24Tests present
16/16Linter configphpcs.xml
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
4/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests2 out of 8 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 2
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsno
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

50Moderate
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics2 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicswordpress, wordpress-plugin
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?

56Moderate · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protectionno data
0.5/2.5CI-Tests2 out of 8 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 2
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
2.2/7.5Code-ReviewFound 6/16 approved changesets -- score normalized to 3
2.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 4 contributing companies or organizations
0/10Dangerous-Workflowno data
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5Licenselicense file detected
0/7.5Maintained0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
0/5Packagingno data
0/5Pinned-Dependenciesno data
0/5SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
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_evaluated12
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive6
scorecard_aggregate5.6
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.

24At Risk · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
12.2/40Legible commit history18 of 79 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.228
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
0/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format configphpcs.xml
0/11Static type checking
0/10Reproducible environment
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno agent-authored commits among the last 83
8/8Automated maintenance2 of the last 83 commits are automated dependency updates
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesno data
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsno
lockfiles
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share0.024
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable codePHP without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes0/11 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePHP
largest_source_bytes10,828
source_files_sampled11
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

21GitHub stars
5contributors
20commits, last 12 months
30days since last push
6releases
1bus factor
1open issues
Packagistpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • No resolved dependencies carried a version and a supported ecosystem

More detail

Star and fork history 21 ★ / 1 ⇿
21Stars
1Forks
6Releases

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.

0481216202421122017-042021-102026-04
Major 1Minor 2Patch 3

Each point covers 9 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.6 / 10
5.6aggregate

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 · 2026-07-22 06:17 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
2CI-Tests2 out of 8 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 2
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
3Code-ReviewFound 6/16 approved changesets -- score normalized to 3
10Contributorsproject has 4 contributing companies or organizations
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
0Maintained0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
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
All dependencies 2

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 2 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
Packagistalleyinteractive/alley-coding-standardsindirect
Packagistphpindirect
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 v0.26.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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