Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-10-19 12:49 UTC

alphagov / govuk-prototype-kit-common-templates

Plugin for GOV.UK Prototype Kit containing common service templates

HTML · JavaScriptMIT★ 3 stars⑂ 2 forkssince Jan 2023View on GitHub ↗

alphagov/govuk-prototype-kit-common-templates holds a health index of 73 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (83/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (24/100). It was last updated 3 days ago. 3 contributors account for most of its recent work.

73
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.

73
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 64 is calibrated to 73 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

1,639 followers1,461 public repossince Feb 2011

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
npm@govuk-prototype-kit/common-templates3.0.118,7331040 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

73Good · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 3 days ago
4.8/36Commit cadence — 7/52 weeks with commits
13.8/18Commit volume — 33 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 26 commit(s) and 2 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year33
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push3
active_weeks_last_year7
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 9 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 40 days ago
12.6/27Release cadence — a release every ~158.1 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count9
latest_release_tagv3.0.1
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release40
mean_days_between_releases158.1
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
4.9/60Stars — 3 stars
0/25Forks — 2 forks
5.6/15Watchers — 11 watchers
Inputs used
forks2
stars3
watchers11
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
13.5/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges0
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_services—
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
57/80Monthly downloads — 18,733 downloads/month across npm
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packages@govuk-prototype-kit/common-templates
dependents—
ecosystemsnpm
total_downloads—
monthly_downloads18,733
unverified_packages_excluded—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Registry dependents. Remaining weights renormalized.

Sustainability & Governance

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

83Excellent · 23% of overall
How it's scored
36/54Bus factor — 3 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
16.2/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 28% of commits
10.8/13.5Contributor breadth — 8 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 6 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor3
contributors_sampled8
top_contributor_share0.28
How it's scored
42/42Issue resolution — 100% of issues closed
25.8/30PR acceptance — 31/36 decided PRs merged
3.7/13Newcomer PR acceptance — 2/7 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
15/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — all changesets reviewed
Inputs used
merged_prs31
open_issues0
closed_issues12
prs_merged_7d2
prs_decided_7d7
prs_merged_30d3
prs_decided_30d8
issue_closed_ratio1
closed_unmerged_prs5
first_time_authors_30d2
first_time_prs_merged_30d2
first_time_prs_decided_30d7
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain
23.1/25Owner reach — 1,639 followers of alphagov
25/25Track record — 1,461 public repos, account ~15 yr old
Inputs used
followers1,639
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_loginalphagov
public_repos1,461
account_age_days5,737

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on npm
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 40 days ago
20/20Version history — 10 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packages@govuk-prototype-kit/common-templates
ecosystemsnpm
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish40

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

52Moderate · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 4 workflow(s)
0/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 8 out of 8 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsno
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://www.npmjs.com/package/@govuk-prototype-kit/common-templates
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 1 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsprototype-kit
has_wikino
homepagehttps://www.npmjs.com/package/@govuk-prototype-kit/common-templates
docs_sitehttps://www.npmjs.com/package/@govuk-prototype-kit/common-templates
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
4.5/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
2.5/2.5CI-Tests — 8 out of 8 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
7.5/7.5Code-Review — all changesets reviewed
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 6 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained — 26 commit(s) and 2 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5Packaging — packaging workflow detected
1/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 2
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 — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated17
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive1
scorecard_aggregate6.5
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories0
affected_packages0
assessed_packages2
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severitynone
direct_affected_packages0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories, No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 2 resolved dependencies against OSV. This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so the repository dependency graph was assessed instead. That graph mixes development and test pins with shipped dependencies, so only the declared runtime dependencies are scored; transitive findings are reported as context and excluded from the score. Reachability is not analyzed.

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 instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
24.1/40Legible commit history — 42 of 93 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.452
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
0/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environment — lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 93
0/8Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
2/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 2
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsno
lockfilespackage-lock.json
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — HTML without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/2 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageHTML
largest_source_bytes9,274
source_files_sampled2
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

3GitHub stars
8contributors
33commits, last 12 months
3days since last push
9releases
3bus factor
0open issues
npmpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 2 ⇿
0Stars
2Forks
5Releases

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.

111222212023-092024-102025-11
Major 1Minor 1Patch 3

Each point covers 2 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 6.5 / 10
6.5aggregate

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 · 2026-10-19 12:48 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
6Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
10CI-Tests8 out of 8 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
10Code-Reviewall changesets reviewed
10Contributorsproject has 6 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained26 commit(s) and 2 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
10Packagingpackaging workflow detected
2Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 2
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
10Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
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
npmgovuk-frontend6.5.0indirect
npmsemver7.8.5indirect
Dependency advisories 0

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 2 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct.

No known advisories affect the assessed dependencies.

An advisory means the version recorded in the dependency graph falls inside an advisory’s affected range. Reachability is not analysed, and the graph includes development and test pins — a finding may concern tooling rather than shipped software.

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 — npm.