Public record
Software health reportschema 0.31.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-13 14:56 UTC

captcha-eu / typo3

PHP · HTML · JavaScriptGPL-2.0★ 0 stars⑂ 6 forkssince Sep 2023View on GitHub ↗
KindPluginLibraryhow this is determined

captcha-eu/typo3 holds a health index of 42 out of 100, placing it in the Weak band. It scores highest on Vitality (62/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (17/100). It was last updated 2 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

42
overall / 100
Weak

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.

42
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 45 is calibrated to 42 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Captcha GmbHOrganization
6 followers14 public repossince Jun 2023

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
Packagistcaptcha-eu/typo3v2.0.12,02114162 days agocaptchatypo3anti-spaminvisible-captchagdprdsgvospam-protectionbot-protectioncaptchaeunon-intrusive

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 recencylast push 2 days ago
2.8/36Commit cadence4/52 weeks with commits
9.7/18Commit volume11 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_year11
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push2
active_weeks_last_year4
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases11 releases published
27/36Release recencylatest release 162 days ago
19.8/27Release cadencea release every ~73.7 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count11
latest_release_tagv2.0.1
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release162
mean_days_between_releases73.7
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?

31At Risk · 17% of overall
How it's scored
0/60Stars0 stars
5.8/25Forks6 forks
0/15Watchers1 watchers
Inputs used
forks6
stars0
watchers1
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (GPL-2.0)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges1
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesgithub.com
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
44.1/80Monthly downloads2,021 downloads/month across packagist
0/20Registry dependents0 packages depend on it
Inputs used
packagescaptcha-eu/typo3
dependents0
ecosystemspackagist
total_downloads24,920
monthly_downloads2,021
unverified_packages_excluded

Sustainability & Governance

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

60Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
3/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 86% of commits
6.8/13.5Contributor breadth5 contributors
6/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled5
top_contributor_share0.865
How it's scored
25.2/42Issue resolution60% of issues closed
30/30PR acceptance11/11 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
3/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 4/16 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
Inputs used
merged_prs11
open_issues4
closed_issues6
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio0.6
closed_unmerged_prs0
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 backingorganization-owned
0/20Verified domainverified-domain status not read for this organization
6.1/25Owner reach6 followers of captcha-eu
14.9/25Track record14 public repos, account ~3 yr old
Inputs used
followers6
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified
owner_logincaptcha-eu
public_repos14
account_age_days1,159
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable1 package(s) on packagist
35/35Publish recencylatest publish 162 days ago
20/20Version history14 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagescaptcha-eu/typo3
ecosystemspackagist
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish162

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

34At Risk · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows1 workflow(s)
0/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
6/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests3 out of 9 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsno
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
0/10Repository description
0/10Topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics
has_wikiyes
homepage
docs_site
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionno

Security

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

34At Risk · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0.8/2.5CI-Tests3 out of 9 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 3
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
1.5/7.5Code-ReviewFound 4/16 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
1.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
10/10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolno update 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-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0/5SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releasesno data
0/7.5Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate3.4
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging, Signed-Releases. 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.

17Critical · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
14.8/40Legible commit history13 of 47 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.277
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
0/10Reproducible environment
4.3/10Demonstrated agent practice1 of the last 47 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
0/8Automated maintenanceno automated dependency updates observed
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsno
lockfiles
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share0.021
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable codePHP without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes0/10 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePHP
largest_source_bytes3,329
source_files_sampled10
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

0GitHub stars
5contributors
11commits, last 12 months
2days since last push
11releases
1bus factor
4open issues
Packagistpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • No resolved dependencies carried a version and a supported ecosystem

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 6 ⇿
0Stars
6Forks
10Releases

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.

123456612023-102024-122026-02
Major 1Minor 0Patch 9

Each point covers 3 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 3.4 / 10
3.4aggregate

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 · 2026-08-13 14:56 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
3CI-Tests3 out of 9 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 3
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
2Code-ReviewFound 4/16 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
6Contributorsproject has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update 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
0Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 1
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Packagisttypo3/cms-core^12.4 || ^13.4 || ^14.0composer.json
All dependencies 4

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 1 direct and 3 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
Packagisttypo3/cms-coredirect
Packagistphpindirect
Packagistphpunit/phpunitindirect
Packagisttypo3/testing-frameworkindirect
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 v0.31.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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