Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-27 06:56 UTC

fgtclb / environment-state-manager

Environment builder and state manager for TYPO3 CMS

PHP · ShellGPL-2.0★ 0 stars⑂ 0 forkssince Jun 2026View on GitHub ↗
KindPluginLibraryhow this is determined

fgtclb/environment-state-manager holds a health index of 63 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (90/100) and lowest on Security (39/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

63
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.

63
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 59 is calibrated to 63 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

FGTCLBOrganization
5 followers23 public repossince May 2019

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
Packagistfgtclb/environment-state-manager2.0.111,410336 days agotestingenvironmenttypo3typo3-cms-extensionstate-managerenvironment-buildertsfe

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

70Good · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 0 days ago
3.5/36Commit cadence5/52 weeks with commits
16.1/18Commit volume61 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintainedproject was created within the last 90 days. Please review its contents carefully
Inputs used
commits_last_year61
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year5
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases3 releases published
36/36Release recencylatest release 36 days ago
27/27Release cadencea release every ~15.3 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count3
latest_release_tag2.0.1
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release36
mean_days_between_releases15.3

Community & Adoption

Does the project have users, downloads, attention, and a welcoming setup for contributors?

40Weak · 17% of overall
How it's scored
0/60Stars0 stars
0/25Forks0 forks
0/15Watchers0 watchers
Inputs used
forks0
stars0
watchers0
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)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges6
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesposer.pugx.org, shields.io
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
54.1/80Monthly downloads11,410 downloads/month across packagist
7.8/20Registry dependents14 packages depend on it
Inputs used
packagesfgtclb/environment-state-manager
dependents14
ecosystemspackagist
total_downloads12,617
monthly_downloads11,410
unverified_packages_excluded

Sustainability & Governance

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

52Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 100% of commits
1.4/13.5Contributor breadth1 contributors
6/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled1
top_contributor_share1
How it's scored
21/42Issue resolution50% of issues closed
30/30PR acceptance36/36 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 0/23 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs36
open_issues1
closed_issues1
prs_merged_7d3
prs_decided_7d3
prs_merged_30d9
prs_decided_30d9
issue_closed_ratio0.5
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 domain
5.6/25Owner reach5 followers of fgtclb
22.1/25Track record23 public repos, account ~7 yr old
Inputs used
followers5
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_loginfgtclb
public_repos23
account_age_days2,667
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable1 package(s) on packagist
35/35Publish recencylatest publish 36 days ago
12/20Version history3 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesfgtclb/environment-state-manager
ecosystemspackagist
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish36

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

90Excellent · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows6 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter configphpstan.neon
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests22 out of 22 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

90Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage sitehttps://www.fgtclb.com/
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics1 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicssbom-own-pipeline
has_wikino
homepage
docs_sitehttps://www.fgtclb.com/
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

39Weak · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
3.8/7.5Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
2.5/2.5CI-Tests22 out of 22 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-ReviewFound 0/23 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
1.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
0/10Dangerous-Workflowno data
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5Licenselicense file detected
0/7.5Maintainedproject was created within the last 90 days. Please review its contents carefully
0/5Packagingno data
0/5Pinned-Dependenciesno data
0/5SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
5/5Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
0/7.5Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0/7.5Token-Permissionsno data
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated14
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive4
scorecard_aggregate3.9
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Dangerous-Workflow, Packaging, Pinned-Dependencies, Token-Permissions. 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.

52Moderate · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
15/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)llms.txt served by the project website (https://docs.typo3.org/llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history54 of 62 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtyes
llms_txt_urlhttps://docs.typo3.org/llms.txt
legible_history_share0.871
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format configphpstan.neon
0/11Static type checking
0/10Reproducible environment
10/10Demonstrated agent practice12 of the last 62 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
0/8Automated maintenanceno automated dependency updates observed
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesno data
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share0.194
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable codePHP without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes0/44 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePHP
largest_source_bytes16,776
source_files_sampled44
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

0GitHub stars
1contributors
61commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
3releases
1bus factor
1open issues
Packagistpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • GitHub dependency-graph SBOM unavailable (404); the dependency graph may be disabled for this repository

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 3.9 / 10
3.9aggregate

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 · 2026-08-27 06:56 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
5Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
10CI-Tests22 out of 22 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 0/23 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
0Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
n/aToken-PermissionsNo tokens found
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 5
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Packagistsymfony/dependency-injection^6.4 || ^7.0composer.json
Packagisttypo3/cms-backend^13.4 || ^14.3composer.json
Packagisttypo3/cms-core^13.4 || ^14.3composer.json
Packagisttypo3/cms-extbase^13.4 || ^14.3composer.json
Packagisttypo3/cms-frontend^13.4 || ^14.3composer.json
All dependencies not collected

The resolved dependency set could not be collected for this report: GitHub dependency-graph SBOM unavailable (404); the dependency graph may be disabled for this repository

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 statisticsPackagist.