Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-10-07 20:08 UTC

awesomemotive / wp-crontrol

Take control of the cron events on your WordPress website or WooCommerce store

PHPGPL-2.0★ 226 stars⑂ 43 forkssince Aug 2013View on GitHub ↗

#wordpress #wordpress-plugin #cron #wp-cron #woocommerce

awesomemotive/wp-crontrol holds a health index of 80 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Vitality (85/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (45/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

overall / 100

Excellent

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.

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)

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 68 is calibrated to 80 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Awesome Motive, Inc.Organization

182 followers40 public repossince Aug 2014

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

Package ecosystems

Registry	Package	Version	Downloads / mo	Versions	Last publish
Packagist	johnbillion/wp-crontrolpoints to another repo — not scored	1.21.2	3,707	45	38 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

85Excellent · 21% of overall

Development activity

81Excellent

How it's scored

36/36	Push recency — last push 0 days ago
17.3/36	Commit cadence — 25/52 weeks with commits
18/18	Commit volume — 168 commits in the last year
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 23 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10

Inputs used

commits_last_year	168
human_commit_share	0.99
days_since_last_push	0
active_weeks_last_year	25

Release discipline

92Excellent

How it's scored

27/27	Ships releases — 53 releases published
36/36	Release recency — latest release 38 days ago
19.8/27	Release cadence — a release every ~71.7 days
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data

Inputs used

releases_count	53
latest_release_tag	1.21.2
releases_from_tags	no
days_since_latest_release	38
mean_days_between_releases	71.7

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?

73Good · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

56Moderate

How it's scored

38.2/60	Stars — 226 stars
13.5/25	Forks — 43 forks
3.9/15	Watchers — 6 watchers

Inputs used

forks	43
stars	226
watchers	6
growth_state	unverified
growth_factor_pct	100
growth_unverified_reason	no_history

Community health

92Excellent

How it's scored

22.5/22.5	README
22.5/22.5	License — recognized license (GPL-2.0)
18/18	CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5	Code of conduct
0/7.2	Issue template
6.3/6.3	PR template

Inputs used

has_readme	yes
has_license	yes
readme_badges	2
has_contributing	yes
has_issue_template	no
has_code_of_conduct	yes
readme_badge_services	shields.io
has_pull_request_template	yes

Sustainability & Governance

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

51Moderate · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

33At Risk

How it's scored

9/54	Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0.7/22.5	Commit distribution — top contributor authored 97% of commits
13.5/13.5	Contributor breadth — 11 contributors
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 8 contributing companies or organizations

Inputs used

bus_factor	1
contributors_sampled	11
top_contributor_share	0.968

Issue & PR responsiveness

55Moderate

How it's scored

37.1/42	Issue resolution — 88% of issues closed
10.8/30	PR acceptance — 73/203 decided PRs merged
0/13	Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15	OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 2/24 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

merged_prs	73
open_issues	9
closed_issues	68
prs_merged_7d	0
prs_decided_7d	0
prs_merged_30d	0
prs_decided_30d	0
issue_closed_ratio	0.883
closed_unmerged_prs	130
first_time_authors_30d	0
first_time_prs_merged_30d	0
first_time_prs_decided_30d	0

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.

Ownership & stewardship

70Good

How it's scored

30/30	Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20	Verified domain
16.3/25	Owner reach — 182 followers of awesomemotive
23.7/25	Track record — 40 public repos, account ~12 yr old

Inputs used

followers	182
owner_type	Organization
is_verified	no
owner_login	awesomemotive
public_repos	40
account_age_days	4,430

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

74Good · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

74Good

How it's scored

24/24	CI workflows — 9 workflow(s)
24/24	Tests present
0/16	Linter config
0/9.6	Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4	.editorconfig
20/20	OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 5 out of 5 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10

Inputs used

has_ci	yes
has_tests	yes
has_editorconfig	yes
has_linter_config	no
has_precommit_config	no

Documentation

75Good

How it's scored

30/30	README
0/25	Documentation directory
15/15	Documentation / homepage site — https://wp-crontrol.com
10/10	Repository description
10/10	Topics — 5 topics
10/10	Wiki

Inputs used

topics	wordpress, wordpress-plugin, cron, wp-cron, woocommerce
has_wiki	yes
homepage	https://wp-crontrol.com
docs_site	https://wp-crontrol.com
has_readme	yes
has_docs_dir	no
has_description	yes

Security

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

62Moderate · 16% of overall

Security posture

52Moderate

How it's scored

7.5/7.5	Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5	Branch-Protection — branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
2.5/2.5	CI-Tests — 5 out of 5 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5	CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5	Code-Review — Found 2/24 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
2.5/2.5	Contributors — project has 8 contributing companies or organizations
0/10	Dangerous-Workflow — no data
0/7.5	Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5	Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5	License — license file detected
7.5/7.5	Maintained — 23 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5	Packaging — no data
0/5	Pinned-Dependencies — no data
2/5	SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 4
4.5/5	Security-Policy — security policy file detected
0/7.5	Signed-Releases — no data
0/7.5	Token-Permissions — no data
7.5/7.5	Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected

Inputs used

source	openssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated	13
scorecard_version	v5.5.0
checks_inconclusive	5
scorecard_aggregate	5.2

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Dangerous-Workflow, Packaging, Pinned-Dependencies, Signed-Releases, Token-Permissions. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional

How it's scored

35/35	Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25	Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40	No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date

Inputs used

source	osv
advisories	19
affected_packages	7
assessed_packages	159
unassessed_packages	2
affected_by_severity	high 7
direct_affected_packages	0

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories, No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 159 resolved dependencies against OSV. 2 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list. 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.

45Weak · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

21At Risk

How it's scored

18/45	Agent instructions — AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md (stub)
0/15	Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
2.7/40	Legible commit history — 5 of 99 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)

Inputs used

has_llms_txt	no
llms_txt_url	—
legible_history_share	0.051
agent_instruction_files	AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes	17

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

50Moderate

How it's scored

0/18	One-command bootstrap
22/22	Automated tests
0/11	Lint / format config
11/11	Static type checking — tsconfig.json
10/10	Reproducible environment — Dockerfile, lockfile
2/10	Demonstrated agent practice — 1 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
0/8	Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — no data

Inputs used

has_nix	no
has_tests	yes
lockfiles	package-lock.json
has_dockerfile	yes
typed_language	no
bootstrap_files	—
has_devcontainer	no
has_linter_config	no
typecheck_configs	tsconfig.json
agent_commit_share	0.01
toolchain_manifests	—
dependency_bot_commit_share	0

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies. Remaining weights renormalized.

Code legibility for models

81Excellent

How it's scored

27/45	Type-checkable code — PHP with type-check config (tsconfig.json)
54.2/55	Manageable file sizes — 1/65 source files over 60KB

Inputs used

primary_language	PHP
largest_source_bytes	96,434
source_files_sampled	65
oversized_source_files	1

Key facts

226GitHub stars

11contributors

168commits, last 12 months

0days since last push

53releases

1bus factor

9open issues

npm, Packagistpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
packagist package 'johnbillion/wp-crontrol' points at a different repository (https://github.com/crontrol/wp-crontrol); excluded from ecosystem scoring

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 43 ⇿

0Stars

43Forks

53Releases

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.

Major 0Minor 16Patch 28

Each point covers 11 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.2 / 10

5.2aggregate

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 · 2026-10-07 20:08 UTC

10	Binary-Artifacts	no binaries found in the repo
0	Branch-Protection	branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
10	CI-Tests	5 out of 5 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0	CII-Best-Practices	no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0	Code-Review	Found 2/24 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
10	Contributors	project has 8 contributing companies or organizations
n/a	Dangerous-Workflow	no workflows found
0	Dependency-Update-Tool	no update tool detected
0	Fuzzing	project is not fuzzed
10	License	license file detected
10	Maintained	23 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/a	Packaging	packaging workflow not detected
n/a	Pinned-Dependencies	no dependencies found
4	SAST	SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 4
9	Security-Policy	security policy file detected
n/a	Signed-Releases	no releases found
n/a	Token-Permissions	No tokens found
10	Vulnerabilities	0 existing vulnerabilities detected

All dependencies 161

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 161 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

Registry	Package	Version	Relation
npm	@emnapi/runtime	`1.9.2`	indirect
npm	@img/sharp-darwin-arm64	`0.34.2`	indirect
npm	@img/sharp-darwin-x64	`0.34.2`	indirect
npm	@img/sharp-libvips-darwin-arm64	`1.1.0`	indirect
npm	@img/sharp-libvips-darwin-x64	`1.1.0`	indirect
npm	@img/sharp-libvips-linux-arm	`1.1.0`	indirect
npm	@img/sharp-libvips-linux-arm64	`1.1.0`	indirect
npm	@img/sharp-libvips-linux-ppc64	`1.1.0`	indirect
npm	@img/sharp-libvips-linux-s390x	`1.1.0`	indirect
npm	@img/sharp-libvips-linux-x64	`1.1.0`	indirect
npm	@img/sharp-libvips-linuxmusl-arm64	`1.1.0`	indirect
npm	@img/sharp-libvips-linuxmusl-x64	`1.1.0`	indirect
npm	@img/sharp-linux-arm	`0.34.2`	indirect
npm	@img/sharp-linux-arm64	`0.34.2`	indirect
npm	@img/sharp-linux-s390x	`0.34.2`	indirect
npm	@img/sharp-linux-x64	`0.34.2`	indirect
npm	@img/sharp-linuxmusl-arm64	`0.34.2`	indirect
npm	@img/sharp-linuxmusl-x64	`0.34.2`	indirect
npm	@img/sharp-wasm32	`0.34.2`	indirect
npm	@img/sharp-win32-arm64	`0.34.2`	indirect
npm	@img/sharp-win32-ia32	`0.34.2`	indirect
npm	@img/sharp-win32-x64	`0.34.2`	indirect
npm	@isaacs/cliui	`9.0.0`	indirect
npm	@johnbillion/plugin-infrastructure	`2.9.7`	indirect
npm	@jsdevtools/ez-spawn	`3.0.4`	indirect
npm	@jsdevtools/version-bump-prompt	`6.1.0`	indirect
npm	@nodelib/fs.scandir	`2.1.5`	indirect
npm	@nodelib/fs.stat	`2.0.5`	indirect
npm	@nodelib/fs.walk	`1.2.8`	indirect
npm	@playwright/test	`1.56.0`	indirect
npm	@types/node	`24.4.0`	indirect
npm	ansi-escapes	`4.3.2`	indirect
npm	ansi-regex	`5.0.1`	indirect
npm	ansi-styles	`4.3.0`	indirect
npm	array-back	`3.1.0`	indirect
npm	array-union	`2.1.0`	indirect
npm	balanced-match	`4.0.4`	indirect
npm	brace-expansion	`5.0.5`	indirect
npm	braces	`3.0.3`	indirect
npm	bubble-stream-error	`1.0.0`	indirect
npm	call-me-maybe	`1.0.2`	indirect
npm	chalk	`4.1.2`	indirect
npm	chardet	`0.7.0`	indirect
npm	cli-cursor	`3.1.0`	indirect
npm	cli-width	`3.0.0`	indirect
npm	cliui	`8.0.1`	indirect
npm	color	`4.2.3`	indirect
npm	color-convert	`2.0.1`	indirect
npm	color-name	`1.1.4`	indirect
npm	color-string	`1.9.1`	indirect
npm	command-line-args	`5.2.1`	indirect
npm	cross-spawn	`7.0.6`	indirect
npm	detect-indent	`6.1.0`	indirect
npm	detect-libc	`2.1.2`	indirect
npm	detect-newline	`3.1.0`	indirect
npm	dir-glob	`3.0.1`	indirect
npm	emoji-regex	`8.0.0`	indirect
npm	escalade	`3.2.0`	indirect
npm	escape-string-regexp	`1.0.5`	indirect
npm	external-editor	`3.1.0`	indirect
npm	fast-glob	`3.3.3`	indirect
npm	fastq	`1.19.1`	indirect
npm	figures	`3.2.0`	indirect
npm	fill-range	`7.1.1`	indirect
npm	find-replace	`3.0.0`	indirect
npm	foreground-child	`3.3.1`	indirect
npm	fsevents	`2.3.2`	indirect
npm	get-caller-file	`2.0.5`	indirect
npm	glob	`11.0.3`	indirect
npm	glob-parent	`5.1.2`	indirect
npm	globby	`11.1.0`	indirect
npm	has-flag	`4.0.0`	indirect
npm	iconv-lite	`0.4.24`	indirect
npm	ignore	`5.3.2`	indirect
npm	inquirer	`7.3.3`	indirect
npm	is-arrayish	`0.3.4`	indirect
npm	is-directory	`0.3.1`	indirect
npm	is-extglob	`2.1.1`	indirect
npm	is-fullwidth-code-point	`3.0.0`	indirect
npm	is-glob	`4.0.3`	indirect
npm	is-number	`7.0.0`	indirect
npm	is-unicode-supported	`0.1.0`	indirect
npm	isexe	`2.0.0`	indirect
npm	jackspeak	`4.2.3`	indirect
npm	lodash	`4.17.21`	indirect
npm	lodash._baseflatten	`3.1.4`	indirect
npm	lodash._basefor	`3.0.3`	indirect
npm	lodash._bindcallback	`3.0.1`	indirect
npm	lodash._pickbyarray	`3.0.2`	indirect
npm	lodash._pickbycallback	`3.0.0`	indirect
npm	lodash.camelcase	`4.3.0`	indirect
npm	lodash.isarguments	`3.1.0`	indirect
npm	lodash.isarray	`3.0.4`	indirect
npm	lodash.keysin	`3.0.8`	indirect
npm	lodash.pick	`3.1.0`	indirect
npm	lodash.restparam	`3.6.1`	indirect
npm	log-symbols	`4.1.0`	indirect
npm	lru-cache	`11.2.7`	indirect
npm	merge2	`1.4.1`	indirect
npm	micromatch	`4.0.8`	indirect
npm	mimic-fn	`2.1.0`	indirect
npm	minimatch	`10.2.5`	indirect
npm	minipass	`7.1.3`	indirect
npm	mute-stream	`0.0.8`	indirect
npm	once	`1.4.0`	indirect
npm	onetime	`5.1.2`	indirect
npm	os-tmpdir	`1.0.2`	indirect
npm	package-json-from-dist	`1.0.1`	indirect
npm	path-key	`3.1.1`	indirect
npm	path-scurry	`2.0.2`	indirect
npm	path-type	`4.0.0`	indirect
npm	picomatch	`2.3.1`	indirect
npm	playwright	`1.56.0`	indirect
npm	playwright-core	`1.56.0`	indirect
npm	queue-microtask	`1.2.3`	indirect
npm	require-directory	`2.1.1`	indirect
npm	restore-cursor	`3.1.0`	indirect
npm	reusify	`1.1.0`	indirect
npm	run-async	`2.4.1`	indirect
npm	run-parallel	`1.2.0`	indirect
npm	rxjs	`6.6.7`	indirect
npm	safer-buffer	`2.1.2`	indirect
npm	semver	`7.7.4`	indirect
npm	sharp	`0.34.2`	indirect
npm	sharp-cli	`5.2.0`	indirect
npm	shebang-command	`2.0.0`	indirect
npm	shebang-regex	`3.0.0`	indirect
npm	signal-exit	`3.0.7`	indirect
npm	signal-exit	`4.1.0`	indirect
npm	simple-swizzle	`0.2.4`	indirect
npm	slash	`3.0.0`	indirect
npm	sliced	`1.0.1`	indirect
npm	string-argv	`0.3.2`	indirect
npm	string-width	`4.2.3`	indirect
npm	strip-ansi	`6.0.1`	indirect
npm	supports-color	`7.2.0`	indirect
npm	through	`2.3.8`	indirect
npm	tmp	`0.0.33`	indirect
npm	to-regex-range	`5.0.1`	indirect
npm	tslib	`1.14.1`	indirect
npm	tslib	`2.8.1`	indirect
npm	type-detect	`4.1.0`	indirect
npm	type-fest	`0.21.3`	indirect
npm	typescript	`5.9.3`	indirect
npm	typical	`4.0.0`	indirect
npm	undici-types	`7.11.0`	indirect
npm	which	`2.0.2`	indirect
npm	wrap-ansi	`7.0.0`	indirect
npm	wrappy	`1.0.2`	indirect
npm	y18n	`5.0.8`	indirect
npm	yargs	`17.7.2`	indirect
npm	yargs-parser	`21.1.1`	indirect
Packagist	composer/installers	`—`	indirect
Packagist	johnbillion/plugin-infrastructure	`2.9.7`	indirect
Packagist	johnbillion/wp-compat	`2.0.1`	indirect
Packagist	php	`—`	indirect
Packagist	php-stubs/wordpress-stubs	`7.1.0`	indirect
Packagist	phpcompatibility/phpcompatibility-wp	`2.1.8`	indirect
Packagist	phpstan/phpstan	`2.1.33`	indirect
Packagist	szepeviktor/phpstan-wordpress	`2.0.4`	indirect
Packagist	wp-coding-standards/wpcs	`3.4.1`	indirect

Dependency advisories 7

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 159 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 7 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct. 2 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list.

Package	Version	Relation	Severity	Advisories	Fixed in
brace-expansion	`5.0.5`	indirect	high	7	`5.0.12`
braces	`3.0.3`	indirect	high	1	—
glob	`11.0.3`	indirect	high	1	`11.1.0`
lodash	`4.17.21`	indirect	high	3	`4.18.0`
picomatch	`2.3.1`	indirect	high	2	`4.0.4`
sharp	`0.34.2`	indirect	high	3	`0.35.5`
tmp	`0.0.33`	indirect	high	2	`0.2.6`

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.

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.

Software health index

Score profile

Ownership

Package ecosystems

Metrics by category

Key facts

Data collection warnings

More detail

Feedback

Related records