Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-10-21 13:21 UTC

humanmade / altis-privacy

Privacy-first solutions and features for Altis.

PHPGPL-3.0★ 2 stars⑂ 1 forksince Dec 2020View on GitHub ↗

humanmade/altis-privacy holds a health index of 65 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (85/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (27/100). It was last updated 40 days ago. 2 contributors account for most of its recent work.

65
overall / 100
Good

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.

65
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 60 is calibrated to 65 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Human MadeOrganization · verified domain
333 followers574 public repossince Mar 2011

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
Packagistaltis/privacy28.0.03,69796117 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

65Good · 21% of overall
How it's scored
18/36Push recency — last push 40 days ago
10.4/36Commit cadence — 15/52 weeks with commits
12.9/18Commit volume — 26 commits in the last year
1/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 2 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 1
Inputs used
commits_last_year26
human_commit_share0.97
days_since_last_push40
active_weeks_last_year15

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 96 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 40 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~12.4 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count96
latest_release_tag28.0.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release40
mean_days_between_releases12.4
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?

33At Risk · 17% of overall
How it's scored
0/60Stars — 2 stars
0/25Forks — 1 forks
6.5/15Watchers — 16 watchers
Inputs used
forks1
stars2
watchers16
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (GPL-3.0)
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_servicesshields.io
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
47.6/80Monthly downloads — 3,697 downloads/month across packagist
3.2/20Registry dependents — 2 packages depend on it
Inputs used
packagesaltis/privacy
dependents2
ecosystemspackagist
total_downloads214,913
monthly_downloads3,697
unverified_packages_excluded—

Sustainability & Governance

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

85Excellent · 23% of overall
How it's scored
25.2/54Bus factor — 2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
15.4/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 31% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 11 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 6 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor2
contributors_sampled11
top_contributor_share0.314
How it's scored
35/42Issue resolution — 83% of issues closed
27/30PR acceptance — 135/150 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
15/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — all changesets reviewed
Inputs used
merged_prs135
open_issues1
closed_issues5
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio0.833
closed_unmerged_prs15
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 backing — organization-owned
20/20Verified domain
18.1/25Owner reach — 333 followers of humanmade
25/25Track record — 574 public repos, account ~15 yr old
Inputs used
followers333
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedyes
owner_loginhumanmade
public_repos574
account_age_days5,713

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on packagist
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 117 days ago
20/20Version history — 96 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesaltis/privacy
ecosystemspackagist
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish117

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

57Moderate · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 4 workflow(s)
0/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
14/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 11 out of 14 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 7
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsno
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

85Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 6 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsaltis, altis-module, composer-package, php, privacy, wordpress
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?

56Moderate · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — no data
1.8/2.5CI-Tests — 11 out of 14 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 7
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
7.5/7.5Code-Review — all changesets reviewed
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 6 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
0.8/7.5Maintained — 2 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 1
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 — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated15
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive3
scorecard_aggregate5.6
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, 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.

27At Risk · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
30.2/40Legible commit history — 55 of 97 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.567
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
6/10Demonstrated agent practice — 3 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
8/8Automated maintenance — 3 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
lockfiles—
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0.03
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0.03
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — PHP without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/3 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePHP
largest_source_bytes1,003
source_files_sampled3
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

2GitHub stars
11contributors
26commits, last 12 months
40days since last push
96releases
2bus factor
1open issues
Packagistpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • No resolved dependencies carried a version and a supported ecosystem

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.6 / 10
5.6aggregate

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 · 2026-10-21 13:20 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
n/aBranch-Protectioninternal 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
7CI-Tests11 out of 14 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 7
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
10Code-Reviewall changesets reviewed
10Contributorsproject has 6 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
1Maintained2 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 1
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
Packagistaltis/consent~1.0.15composer.json
All dependencies 2

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

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
Packagistaltis/consent—direct
Packagistphp—indirect
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 v0.34.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

How one result sits in the wider record: aggregate statistics — Packagist.