Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-15 22:07 UTC

goalgorilla / open_social_scripts

Contains scripts for Open Social that are not generic enough to be in the Distro (e.g. Docker installation)

PHP · Shell · JavaScriptNo license detected★ 3 stars⑂ 2 forkssince Dec 2016View on GitHub ↗

goalgorilla/open_social_scripts holds a health index of 18 out of 100, placing it in the Critical band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (75/100) and lowest on Engineering Quality (9/100). It was last updated 3 days ago. 3 contributors account for most of its recent work.

18
overall / 100
Critical

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.

18
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 36 is calibrated to 30 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Open SocialOrganization · verified domain
31 followers26 public repossince Jan 2016

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
Packagistgoalgorilla/open_social_scripts4.0.21,80011508 days agodrupalscriptsopen-social

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

38Weak · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 3 days ago
0/36Commit cadence — 0/52 weeks with commits
0/18Commit volume — 0 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
commits_last_year0
human_commit_share0.95
days_since_last_push3
active_weeks_last_year0
How it's scored
16.2/27Ships releases — 11 version tags (no GitHub releases)
7.2/36Release recency — latest release 508 days ago
12.6/27Release cadence — a release every ~147 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count11
latest_release_tag4.0.2
releases_from_tagsyes
days_since_latest_release508
mean_days_between_releases147
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?

16Critical · 17% of overall
How it's scored
4.9/60Stars — 3 stars
0/25Forks — 2 forks
7.1/15Watchers — 20 watchers
Inputs used
forks2
stars3
watchers20
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
0/22.5README
0/22.5License — no license file detected
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeno
has_licenseno
readme_badges—
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services—
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
43.4/80Monthly downloads — 1,800 downloads/month across packagist
2/20Registry dependents — 1 packages depend on it
Inputs used
packagesgoalgorilla/open_social_scripts
dependents1
ecosystemspackagist
total_downloads351,286
monthly_downloads1,800
unverified_packages_excluded—

Sustainability & Governance

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

75Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
36/54Bus factor — 3 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
16/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 29% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 10 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 6 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor3
contributors_sampled10
top_contributor_share0.29
How it's scored
0/42Issue resolution — no issues or no data
22.3/30PR acceptance — 35/47 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
6/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 5/11 approved changesets -- score normalized to 4
Inputs used
merged_prs35
open_issues0
closed_issues0
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio—
closed_unmerged_prs12
first_time_authors_30d0
first_time_prs_merged_30d0
first_time_prs_decided_30d0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Issue resolution, Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
20/20Verified domain
10.8/25Owner reach — 31 followers of goalgorilla
22.4/25Track record — 26 public repos, account ~10 yr old
Inputs used
followers31
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedyes
owner_logingoalgorilla
public_repos26
account_age_days3,890
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on packagist
14/35Publish recency — latest publish 508 days ago
20/20Version history — 11 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesgoalgorilla/open_social_scripts
ecosystemspackagist
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish508

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

9Critical · 19% of overall
How it's scored
0/24CI workflows
0/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 0 out of 10 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_cino
has_testsno
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

20At Risk
How it's scored
0/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
0/10Topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics—
has_wikiyes
homepage—
docs_site—
has_readmeno
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

36Weak · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0/2.5CI-Tests — 0 out of 10 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
3/7.5Code-Review — Found 5/11 approved changesets -- score normalized to 4
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 6 contributing companies or organizations
0/10Dangerous-Workflow — no data
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
0/2.5License — license file not detected
0/7.5Maintained — 0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
0/5Packaging — no data
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — no data
0/7.5Token-Permissions — no data
0/7.5Vulnerabilities — 17 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated14
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive4
scorecard_aggregate2.7
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Dangerous-Workflow, Packaging, Signed-Releases, Token-Permissions. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
17.9/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories — 1 affected: request 2.81.0 (moderate 6.1)
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
34.7/40No advisories left outstanding — 1 advisory-carrying package(s) unaddressed past 90 days; oldest published 1,279 days ago
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories18
affected_packages11
assessed_packages62
unassessed_packages1
affected_by_severitycritical 1, high 6, moderate 4
direct_affected_packages1
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 62 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.

25At Risk · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
20.2/40Legible commit history — 36 of 95 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.379
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
10/10Reproducible environment — lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
8/8Automated maintenance — 5 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsno
lockfilesyarn.lock
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0.05
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — PHP without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/6 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePHP
largest_source_bytes33,600
source_files_sampled6
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

3GitHub stars
10contributors
0commits, last 12 months
3days since last push
11releases
3bus factor
0open issues
npm, Packagistpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • Could not fetch npm package 'patchchecker' from its registry

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 2 ⇿
0Stars
2Forks

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.

111222212017-082018-062019-03

Each point covers 2 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 2.7 / 10
2.7aggregate

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 · 2026-09-15 22:06 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0CI-Tests0 out of 10 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
4Code-ReviewFound 5/11 approved changesets -- score normalized to 4
10Contributorsproject has 6 contributing companies or organizations
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
0Licenselicense file not 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
n/aToken-PermissionsNo tokens found
0Vulnerabilities17 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 4
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
npmcli-table^0.3.1issue_checker/package.json
npmrequest^2.81.0issue_checker/package.json
npmrequest-promise-native^1.0.4issue_checker/package.json
npmxml2js-es6-promise^1.1.1issue_checker/package.json
All dependencies 63

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 4 direct and 59 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
npmcli-table0.3.1direct
npmrequest2.81.0direct
npmrequest-promise-native1.0.4direct
npmxml2js-es6-promise1.1.1direct
npmajv4.11.8indirect
npmasn10.2.6indirect
npmassert-plus0.2.0indirect
npmassert-plus1.0.0indirect
npmasynckit0.4.0indirect
npmaws-sign20.6.0indirect
npmaws41.6.0indirect
npmbcrypt-pbkdf1.0.2indirect
npmboom2.10.1indirect
npmcaseless0.12.0indirect
npmco4.6.0indirect
npmcolors1.0.3indirect
npmcombined-stream1.0.5indirect
npmcore-util-is1.0.2indirect
npmcryptiles2.0.5indirect
npmdashdash1.14.1indirect
npmdelayed-stream1.0.0indirect
npmecc-jsbn0.1.2indirect
npmextend3.0.2indirect
npmextsprintf1.3.0indirect
npmforever-agent0.6.1indirect
npmform-data2.1.4indirect
npmgetpass0.1.7indirect
npmhar-schema1.0.5indirect
npmhar-validator4.2.1indirect
npmhawk3.1.3indirect
npmhoek2.16.3indirect
npmhttp-signature1.1.1indirect
npmis-typedarray1.0.0indirect
npmisstream0.1.2indirect
npmjsbn0.1.1indirect
npmjson-schema0.2.3indirect
npmjson-stable-stringify1.0.1indirect
npmjson-stringify-safe5.0.1indirect
npmjsonify0.0.0indirect
npmjsprim1.4.1indirect
npmlodash4.17.21indirect
npmmime-db1.29.0indirect
npmmime-types2.1.16indirect
npmoauth-sign0.8.2indirect
npmperformance-now0.2.0indirect
npmpunycode1.4.1indirect
npmqs6.4.0indirect
npmrequest-promise-core1.1.1indirect
npmsafe-buffer5.1.1indirect
npmsafer-buffer2.1.2indirect
npmsax1.2.4indirect
npmsntp1.0.9indirect
npmsshpk1.17.0indirect
npmstealthy-require1.1.1indirect
npmstringstream0.0.6indirect
npmtough-cookie2.3.4indirect
npmtunnel-agent0.6.0indirect
npmtweetnacl0.14.5indirect
npmuuid3.1.0indirect
npmverror1.10.0indirect
npmxml2js0.4.19indirect
npmxmlbuilder9.0.4indirect
Packagistcomposer/installers—indirect
Dependency advisories 11

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

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
json-schema0.2.3indirectcritical10.4.0
form-data2.1.4indirecthigh24.0.6
hawk3.1.3indirecthigh19.0.1
hoek2.16.3indirecthigh29.0.3
lodash4.17.21indirecthigh34.18.0
qs6.4.0indirecthigh36.16.0
uuid3.1.0indirecthigh113.0.1
request2.81.0directmoderate13.0.0
ajv4.11.8indirectmoderate28.18.0
tough-cookie2.3.4indirectmoderate14.1.3
xml2js0.4.19indirectmoderate10.5.0

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.

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.