Software health reportschema 0.31.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-06 13:28 UTC

contao-components / choices

Choices.js integration

JavaScriptNo license detected★ 0 stars⑂ 2 forkssince Mar 2022View on GitHub ↗

contao-components/choices holds a health index of 39 out of 100, placing it in the Weak band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (68/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (14/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

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.

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 43 is calibrated to 39 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Contao componentsOrganization

2 followers30 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	contao-components/choices	11.2.3.1	21,023	18	0 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

61Moderate · 21% of overall

Development activity

55Moderate

How it's scored

36/36	Push recency — last push 0 days ago
6.9/36	Commit cadence — 10/52 weeks with commits
11.7/18	Commit volume — 19 commits in the last year
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 1 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

commits_last_year	19
human_commit_share	1
days_since_last_push	0
active_weeks_last_year	10

Release discipline

70Good

How it's scored

16.2/27	Ships releases — 9 version tags (no GitHub releases)
27/36	Release recency — latest release 93 days ago
19.8/27	Release cadence — a release every ~57 days
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data

Inputs used

releases_count	9
latest_release_tag	11.2.3
releases_from_tags	yes
days_since_latest_release	93
mean_days_between_releases	57

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?

25At Risk · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

2Critical

How it's scored

0/60	Stars — 0 stars
0/25	Forks — 2 forks
1.7/15	Watchers — 3 watchers

Inputs used

forks	2
stars	0
watchers	3
growth_state	unverified
growth_factor_pct	100
growth_unverified_reason	no_history

Community health

25At Risk

How it's scored

22.5/22.5	README
0/22.5	License — no license file detected
0/18	CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5	Code of conduct
0/7.2	Issue template
0/6.3	PR template

Inputs used

has_readme	yes
has_license	no
readme_badges	0
has_contributing	no
has_issue_template	no
has_code_of_conduct	no
readme_badge_services	—
has_pull_request_template	no

Ecosystem adoption (downloads)

61Moderate

How it's scored

57.6/80	Monthly downloads — 21,023 downloads/month across packagist
3.2/20	Registry dependents — 2 packages depend on it

Inputs used

packages	contao-components/choices
dependents	2
ecosystems	packagist
total_downloads	219,321
monthly_downloads	21,023
unverified_packages_excluded	—

Sustainability & Governance

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

68Good · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

32At Risk

How it's scored

9/54	Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
7.3/22.5	Commit distribution — top contributor authored 68% of commits
5.4/13.5	Contributor breadth — 4 contributors
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10

Inputs used

bus_factor	1
contributors_sampled	4
top_contributor_share	0.676

Issue & PR responsiveness

85Excellent

How it's scored

42/42	Issue resolution — 100% of issues closed
27.7/30	PR acceptance — 12/13 decided PRs merged
0/13	Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
4.5/15	OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 9/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 3

Inputs used

merged_prs	12
open_issues	0
closed_issues	1
prs_merged_7d	1
prs_decided_7d	1
prs_merged_30d	1
prs_decided_30d	1
issue_closed_ratio	1
closed_unmerged_prs	1
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 — verified-domain status not read for this organization
3.4/25	Owner reach — 2 followers of contao-components
22.9/25	Track record — 30 public repos, account ~11 yr old

Inputs used

followers	2
owner_type	Organization
is_verified	—
owner_login	contao-components
public_repos	30
account_age_days	4,368

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

100Exceptional

How it's scored

25/25	Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on packagist
35/35	Publish recency — latest publish 0 days ago
20/20	Version history — 18 published versions
20/20	Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked

Inputs used

packages	contao-components/choices
ecosystems	packagist
any_deprecated	no
min_days_since_publish	0

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

17Critical · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

1Critical

How it's scored

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

Inputs used

has_ci	no
has_tests	no
has_editorconfig	no
has_linter_config	no
has_precommit_config	no

Documentation

40Weak

How it's scored

30/30	README
0/25	Documentation directory
0/15	Documentation / homepage site
10/10	Repository description
0/10	Topics
0/10	Wiki

Inputs used

topics	—
has_wiki	no
homepage	—
docs_site	—
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?

43Weak · 16% of overall

Security posture

29At Risk

How it's scored

7.5/7.5	Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5	Branch-Protection — no data
0/2.5	CI-Tests — 0 out of 10 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5	CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
2.2/7.5	Code-Review — Found 9/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 3
2.5/2.5	Contributors — project has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
0/10	Dangerous-Workflow — no data
0/7.5	Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5	Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
0/2.5	License — license file not detected
0/7.5	Maintained — 1 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
0/5	Packaging — no data
0/5	Pinned-Dependencies — no data
0/5	SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5	Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5	Signed-Releases — no data
0/7.5	Token-Permissions — no data
6/7.5	Vulnerabilities — 2 existing vulnerabilities detected

Inputs used

source	openssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated	12
scorecard_version	v5.5.0
checks_inconclusive	6
scorecard_aggregate	2.9

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, 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	2
affected_packages	1
assessed_packages	159
unassessed_packages	1
affected_by_severity	high 1
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. 1 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.

14Critical · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

17Critical

How it's scored

0/45	Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15	Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
17.3/40	Legible commit history — 12 of 37 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)

Inputs used

has_llms_txt	no
llms_txt_url	—
legible_history_share	0.324
agent_instruction_files	—
agent_instruction_max_bytes	—

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

11Critical

How it's scored

0/18	One-command bootstrap
0/22	Automated tests
0/11	Lint / format config
0/11	Static type checking
10/10	Reproducible environment — lockfile
0/10	Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 37
0/8	Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — no data

Inputs used

has_nix	no
has_tests	no
lockfiles	package-lock.json
has_dockerfile	no
typed_language	no
bootstrap_files	—
has_devcontainer	no
has_linter_config	no
typecheck_configs	—
agent_commit_share	0
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

18Critical

How it's scored

0/45	Type-checkable code — JavaScript without a type-check config
18.3/55	Manageable file sizes — 2/3 source files over 60KB

Inputs used

primary_language	JavaScript
largest_source_bytes	208,565
source_files_sampled	3
oversized_source_files	2

Key facts

0GitHub stars

4contributors

19commits, last 12 months

0days since last push

9releases

1bus factor

0open issues

npm, Packagistpackage ecosystems

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 2 ⇿

0Stars

2Forks

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.

Major 0Minor 2Patch 4

Each point covers 2 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 2.9 / 10

2.9aggregate

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 · 2026-08-06 13:28 UTC

10	Binary-Artifacts	no binaries found in the repo
n/a	Branch-Protection	internal 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
0	CI-Tests	0 out of 10 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0	CII-Best-Practices	no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
3	Code-Review	Found 9/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 3
10	Contributors	project has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
n/a	Dangerous-Workflow	no workflows found
0	Dependency-Update-Tool	no update tool detected
0	Fuzzing	project is not fuzzed
0	License	license file not detected
0	Maintained	1 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
n/a	Packaging	packaging workflow not detected
n/a	Pinned-Dependencies	no dependencies found
0	SAST	SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0	Security-Policy	security policy file not detected
n/a	Signed-Releases	no releases found
n/a	Token-Permissions	No tokens found
8	Vulnerabilities	2 existing vulnerabilities detected

Direct dependencies 1

Registry	Package	Version constraint	Manifest
Packagist	contao-components/installer	`^1.0.9`	composer.json

All dependencies 160

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 1 direct and 159 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

Registry	Package	Version	Relation
Packagist	contao-components/installer	`—`	direct
npm	@gulpjs/messages	`1.1.0`	indirect
npm	@gulpjs/to-absolute-glob	`4.0.0`	indirect
npm	ansi-colors	`1.1.0`	indirect
npm	ansi-regex	`5.0.1`	indirect
npm	ansi-styles	`4.3.0`	indirect
npm	ansi-wrap	`0.1.0`	indirect
npm	anymatch	`3.1.3`	indirect
npm	arr-diff	`4.0.0`	indirect
npm	arr-union	`3.1.0`	indirect
npm	array-each	`1.0.1`	indirect
npm	array-slice	`1.1.0`	indirect
npm	assign-symbols	`1.0.0`	indirect
npm	async-done	`2.0.0`	indirect
npm	async-settle	`2.0.0`	indirect
npm	b4a	`1.6.7`	indirect
npm	bach	`2.0.1`	indirect
npm	bare-events	`2.6.1`	indirect
npm	base64-js	`1.5.1`	indirect
npm	binary-extensions	`2.3.0`	indirect
npm	bl	`5.1.0`	indirect
npm	braces	`3.0.3`	indirect
npm	buffer	`6.0.3`	indirect
npm	chalk	`4.1.2`	indirect
npm	chokidar	`3.6.0`	indirect
npm	cliui	`7.0.4`	indirect
npm	clone	`2.1.2`	indirect
npm	color-convert	`2.0.1`	indirect
npm	color-name	`1.1.4`	indirect
npm	convert-source-map	`2.0.0`	indirect
npm	copy-props	`4.0.0`	indirect
npm	css-tree	`1.1.3`	indirect
npm	csso	`4.2.0`	indirect
npm	detect-file	`1.0.0`	indirect
npm	each-props	`3.0.0`	indirect
npm	emoji-regex	`8.0.0`	indirect
npm	end-of-stream	`1.4.5`	indirect
npm	escalade	`3.2.0`	indirect
npm	expand-tilde	`2.0.2`	indirect
npm	extend	`3.0.2`	indirect
npm	extend-shallow	`3.0.2`	indirect
npm	fast-fifo	`1.3.2`	indirect
npm	fast-levenshtein	`3.0.0`	indirect
npm	fastest-levenshtein	`1.0.16`	indirect
npm	fastq	`1.19.1`	indirect
npm	fill-range	`7.1.1`	indirect
npm	findup-sync	`5.0.0`	indirect
npm	fined	`2.0.0`	indirect
npm	flagged-respawn	`2.0.0`	indirect
npm	for-in	`1.0.2`	indirect
npm	for-own	`1.0.0`	indirect
npm	fs-mkdirp-stream	`2.0.1`	indirect
npm	fsevents	`2.3.3`	indirect
npm	function-bind	`1.1.2`	indirect
npm	get-caller-file	`2.0.5`	indirect
npm	glob-parent	`5.1.2`	indirect
npm	glob-parent	`6.0.2`	indirect
npm	glob-stream	`8.0.3`	indirect
npm	glob-watcher	`6.0.0`	indirect
npm	global-modules	`1.0.0`	indirect
npm	global-prefix	`1.0.2`	indirect
npm	glogg	`2.2.0`	indirect
npm	graceful-fs	`4.2.11`	indirect
npm	gulp	`5.0.1`	indirect
npm	gulp-cli	`3.1.0`	indirect
npm	gulp-csso	`4.0.1`	indirect
npm	gulp-rename	`2.1.0`	indirect
npm	gulplog	`2.2.0`	indirect
npm	has-flag	`4.0.0`	indirect
npm	hasown	`2.0.2`	indirect
npm	homedir-polyfill	`1.0.3`	indirect
npm	iconv-lite	`0.6.3`	indirect
npm	ieee754	`1.2.1`	indirect
npm	inherits	`2.0.4`	indirect
npm	ini	`1.3.8`	indirect
npm	interpret	`3.1.1`	indirect
npm	is-absolute	`1.0.0`	indirect
npm	is-binary-path	`2.1.0`	indirect
npm	is-core-module	`2.16.1`	indirect
npm	is-extendable	`1.0.1`	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-negated-glob	`1.0.0`	indirect
npm	is-number	`7.0.0`	indirect
npm	is-plain-object	`2.0.4`	indirect
npm	is-plain-object	`5.0.0`	indirect
npm	is-relative	`1.0.0`	indirect
npm	is-unc-path	`1.0.0`	indirect
npm	is-valid-glob	`1.0.0`	indirect
npm	is-windows	`1.0.2`	indirect
npm	isexe	`2.0.0`	indirect
npm	isobject	`3.0.1`	indirect
npm	last-run	`2.0.0`	indirect
npm	lead	`4.0.0`	indirect
npm	liftoff	`5.0.1`	indirect
npm	map-cache	`0.2.2`	indirect
npm	mdn-data	`2.0.14`	indirect
npm	micromatch	`4.0.8`	indirect
npm	mute-stdout	`2.0.0`	indirect
npm	normalize-path	`3.0.0`	indirect
npm	now-and-later	`3.0.0`	indirect
npm	object.defaults	`1.1.0`	indirect
npm	object.pick	`1.3.0`	indirect
npm	once	`1.4.0`	indirect
npm	parse-filepath	`1.0.2`	indirect
npm	parse-passwd	`1.0.0`	indirect
npm	path-parse	`1.0.7`	indirect
npm	path-root	`0.1.1`	indirect
npm	path-root-regex	`0.1.2`	indirect
npm	picomatch	`2.3.1`	indirect
npm	plugin-error	`1.0.1`	indirect
npm	readable-stream	`3.6.2`	indirect
npm	readdirp	`3.6.0`	indirect
npm	rechoir	`0.8.0`	indirect
npm	remove-trailing-separator	`1.1.0`	indirect
npm	replace-ext	`2.0.0`	indirect
npm	replace-homedir	`2.0.0`	indirect
npm	require-directory	`2.1.1`	indirect
npm	resolve	`1.22.10`	indirect
npm	resolve-dir	`1.0.1`	indirect
npm	resolve-options	`2.0.0`	indirect
npm	reusify	`1.1.0`	indirect
npm	safe-buffer	`5.2.1`	indirect
npm	safer-buffer	`2.1.2`	indirect
npm	semver	`6.3.1`	indirect
npm	semver-greatest-satisfied-range	`2.0.0`	indirect
npm	source-map	`0.5.7`	indirect
npm	source-map	`0.6.1`	indirect
npm	sparkles	`2.1.0`	indirect
npm	stream-composer	`1.0.2`	indirect
npm	stream-exhaust	`1.0.2`	indirect
npm	streamx	`2.22.1`	indirect
npm	string-width	`4.2.3`	indirect
npm	string_decoder	`1.3.0`	indirect
npm	strip-ansi	`6.0.1`	indirect
npm	supports-color	`7.2.0`	indirect
npm	supports-preserve-symlinks-flag	`1.0.0`	indirect
npm	sver	`1.8.4`	indirect
npm	teex	`1.0.1`	indirect
npm	text-decoder	`1.2.3`	indirect
npm	to-regex-range	`5.0.1`	indirect
npm	to-through	`3.0.0`	indirect
npm	unc-path-regex	`0.1.2`	indirect
npm	undertaker	`2.0.0`	indirect
npm	undertaker-registry	`2.0.0`	indirect
npm	util-deprecate	`1.0.2`	indirect
npm	v8flags	`4.0.1`	indirect
npm	value-or-function	`4.0.0`	indirect
npm	vinyl	`3.0.1`	indirect
npm	vinyl-contents	`2.0.0`	indirect
npm	vinyl-fs	`4.0.2`	indirect
npm	vinyl-sourcemap	`2.0.0`	indirect
npm	vinyl-sourcemaps-apply	`0.2.1`	indirect
npm	which	`1.3.1`	indirect
npm	wrap-ansi	`7.0.0`	indirect
npm	wrappy	`1.0.2`	indirect
npm	y18n	`5.0.8`	indirect
npm	yargs	`16.2.0`	indirect
npm	yargs-parser	`20.2.9`	indirect

Dependency advisories 1

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: 1 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct. 1 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list.

Package	Version	Relation	Severity	Advisories	Fixed in
picomatch	`2.3.1`	indirect	high	2	`4.0.4`

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 v0.31.0 — 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

More detail

Feedback

Related records