Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-10-22 10:55 UTC

contenir / contenir-preview

The Contenir preview protocol: signed preview tokens from the CMS, verified and rendered by the site

PHPMIT★ 0 stars⑂ 0 forkssince Oct 2026View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryhow this is determined

contenir/contenir-preview holds a health index of 59 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (71/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (31/100). It was last updated today. 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

ContenirOrganization
1 follower52 public repossince Dec 2021

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
Packagistcontenir/contenir-previewv0.1.02,04514 days agocmspreviewcontenir

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

62Moderate · 21% of overall

Development activity

47Weak
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
0.7/36Commit cadence — 1/52 weeks with commits
10.3/18Commit volume — 13 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — project was created within the last 90 days. Please review its contents carefully
Inputs used
commits_last_year13
human_commit_share—
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year1

Release discipline

84Excellent
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 1 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 0 days ago
12.6/27Release cadence — cadence unknown (single release)
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count1
latest_release_tagv0.1.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release0
mean_days_between_releases—
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?

45Weak · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

1Critical
How it's scored
0/60Stars — 0 stars
0/25Forks — 0 forks
0/15Watchers — 0 watchers
Inputs used
forks0
stars0
watchers0
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

92Excellent
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (MIT)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
6.3/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges0
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_services—
has_pull_request_templateyes

Ecosystem adoption (downloads)

48Weak
How it's scored
44.1/80Monthly downloads — 2,045 downloads/month across packagist
4/20Registry dependents — 3 packages depend on it
Inputs used
packagescontenir/contenir-preview
dependents3
ecosystemspackagist
total_downloads2,045
monthly_downloads2,045
unverified_packages_excluded—

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)

16Critical
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 100% of commits
1.4/13.5Contributor breadth — 1 contributors
6/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled1
top_contributor_share1

Issue & PR responsiveness

62Moderate
How it's scored
0/42Issue resolution — no issues or no data
25/30PR acceptance — 5/6 decided PRs merged
10.8/13Newcomer PR acceptance — 5/6 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/10 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs5
open_issues0
closed_issues0
prs_merged_7d5
prs_decided_7d6
prs_merged_30d5
prs_decided_30d6
issue_closed_ratio—
closed_unmerged_prs1
first_time_authors_30d1
first_time_prs_merged_30d5
first_time_prs_decided_30d6
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Issue resolution. Remaining weights renormalized.

Ownership & stewardship

54Moderate
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain
2.2/25Owner reach — 1 followers of contenir
22.3/25Track record — 52 public repos, account ~4 yr old
Inputs used
followers1
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_logincontenir
public_repos52
account_age_days1,782

Package maintenance

84Excellent
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on packagist
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 4 days ago
4/20Version history — 1 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagescontenir/contenir-preview
ecosystemspackagist
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish4

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

71Good · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

68Good
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 2 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 5 out of 5 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

75Good
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
0/10Topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics—
has_wikiyes
homepage—
docs_site—
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

53Moderate · 16% of overall

Security posture

41Weak
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
2.2/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
2.5/2.5CI-Tests — 5 out of 5 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
0/7.5Code-Review — Found 0/10 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
1.5/2.5Contributors — project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
0/10Dangerous-Workflow — no data
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
0/7.5Maintained — project was created within the last 90 days. Please review its contents carefully
0/5Packaging — no data
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — no data
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 — no data
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated13
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive5
scorecard_aggregate4.1
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
35/35Direct 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_packages62
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 62 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.

31At Risk · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

1Critical
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
0/40Legible commit history — no data
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share—
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Legible commit history. Remaining weights renormalized.

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

44Weak
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environment — lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no data
0/8Automated maintenance — no data
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — no data
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilescomposer.lock
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share—
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Demonstrated agent practice, Automated maintenance, OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies. Remaining weights renormalized.

Code legibility for models

55Moderate
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — PHP without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/78 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePHP
largest_source_bytes13,772
source_files_sampled78
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

0GitHub stars
1contributors
13commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
1releases
1bus factor
0open issues
Packagistpackage ecosystems

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.1 / 10
4.1aggregate

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 · 2026-10-22 10:55 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
3Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
10CI-Tests5 out of 5 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 0/10 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
6Contributorsproject has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
0Maintainedproject was created within the last 90 days. Please review its contents carefully
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
Direct dependencies 3
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Packagistpsr/clock^1.0composer.json
Packagistpsr/container^1.1 || ^2.0composer.json
Packagistpsr/simple-cache^1.0 || ^2.0 || ^3.0composer.json
All dependencies 62

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 3 direct and 59 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
Packagistpsr/clock1.0.0direct
Packagistpsr/container2.0.2direct
Packagistpsr/simple-cache3.0.0direct
Packagistcolinodell/json53.0.0indirect
Packagistcomposer/pcre3.4.0indirect
Packagistcomposer/xdebug-handler3.0.5indirect
Packagistcontenir/contenir-qa-tools 0.1-dev.0indirect
Packagistfidry/cpu-core-counter1.4.1indirect
Packagistinfection/abstract-testframework-adapter0.5.1indirect
Packagistinfection/extension-installer0.1.2indirect
Packagistinfection/include-interceptor1.0.0indirect
Packagistinfection/infection0.35.8indirect
Packagistinfection/mutator0.4.1indirect
Packagistjustinrainbow/json-schema6.13.1indirect
Packagistmarc-mabe/php-enum4.7.2indirect
Packagistmyclabs/deep-copy1.14.0indirect
Packagistnikic/php-parser5.9.0indirect
Packagistondram/ci-detector4.2.0indirect
Packagistphar-io/manifest2.0.4indirect
Packagistphar-io/version3.2.1indirect
Packagistphpunit/php-code-coverage11.0.12indirect
Packagistphpunit/php-file-iterator5.1.1indirect
Packagistphpunit/php-invoker5.0.1indirect
Packagistphpunit/php-text-template4.0.1indirect
Packagistphpunit/php-timer7.0.1indirect
Packagistphpunit/phpunit11.5.57indirect
Packagistpsr/log3.0.2indirect
Packagistsanmai/di-container0.2indirect
Packagistsanmai/duoclock0.1.3indirect
Packagistsanmai/later0.1.8indirect
Packagistsanmai/pipeline7.12indirect
Packagistsebastian/cli-parser3.0.2indirect
Packagistsebastian/code-unit3.0.3indirect
Packagistsebastian/code-unit-reverse-lookup4.0.1indirect
Packagistsebastian/comparator6.3.3indirect
Packagistsebastian/complexity4.0.1indirect
Packagistsebastian/diff6.0.2indirect
Packagistsebastian/environment7.2.1indirect
Packagistsebastian/exporter6.3.2indirect
Packagistsebastian/global-state7.0.2indirect
Packagistsebastian/lines-of-code3.0.1indirect
Packagistsebastian/object-enumerator6.0.1indirect
Packagistsebastian/object-reflector4.0.1indirect
Packagistsebastian/recursion-context6.0.3indirect
Packagistsebastian/type5.1.3indirect
Packagistsebastian/version5.0.2indirect
Packagiststaabm/side-effects-detector1.0.5indirect
Packagistsymfony/console7.4.21indirect
Packagistsymfony/deprecation-contracts3.7.1indirect
Packagistsymfony/filesystem7.4.21indirect
Packagistsymfony/finder7.4.20indirect
Packagistsymfony/polyfill-ctype1.37.0indirect
Packagistsymfony/polyfill-intl-grapheme1.43.0indirect
Packagistsymfony/polyfill-intl-normalizer1.43.0indirect
Packagistsymfony/polyfill-mbstring1.43.0indirect
Packagistsymfony/polyfill-php851.43.0indirect
Packagistsymfony/process7.4.21indirect
Packagistsymfony/service-contracts3.7.3indirect
Packagistsymfony/string7.4.21indirect
Packagistthecodingmachine/safe3.4.0indirect
Packagisttheseer/tokenizer1.3.1indirect
Packagistwebmozart/assert2.5.0indirect
Dependency advisories 0

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 62 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.

Related records

Inspected repositories sharing catalogue tags or ecosystems with contenir/contenir-preview. Read them side by side →

65scorpio-99/payload-better-editorBlock editor plugin for Payload CMS that adds a side-by-side live-preview iframe and sidebar to the edit view.Good65hygraph/preview-sdkGood96statamic/cmsThe core Laravel CMS Composer packageExceptional96pimcore/pimcoreCore Framework for the Open Core Data & Experience Management Platform (PIM, MDM, CDP, DAM, DXP/CMS & Digital Commerce)Exceptional94getkirby/kirbyKirby's core application folderExceptional94TYPO3/typo3The TYPO3 Core - Enterprise Content Management System. Synchronized mirror of https://review.typo3.org/q/project:Packages/TYPO3.CMSExceptional

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.