Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-31 08:28 UTC

in2code-de / powermail_cond

Add conditions (via AJAX) to TYPO3 powermail forms for fields and pages

PHP · JavaScriptNo license detected★ 11 stars⑂ 31 forkssince Apr 2017View on GitHub ↗
KindPluginLibraryhow this is determined

in2code-de/powermail_cond holds a health index of 59 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (79/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (28/100). 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

In2code GmbHOrganization · verified domain
28 followers99 public repossince Feb 2015

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
Packagistin2code/powermail_cond13.1.210,26350169 days agoformtypo3mailformspamprevention

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

61Moderate · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 0 days ago
5.5/36Commit cadence8/52 weeks with commits
11.1/18Commit volume16 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
commits_last_year16
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year8
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases7 releases published
27/36Release recencylatest release 169 days ago
12.6/27Release cadencea release every ~208.5 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count7
latest_release_tag13.1.2
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release169
mean_days_between_releases208.5
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?

36Weak · 17% of overall
How it's scored
16.2/60Stars11 stars
12.3/25Forks31 forks
5.8/15Watchers12 watchers
Inputs used
forks31
stars11
watchers12
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
0/22.5Licenseno license file detected
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseno
readme_badges0
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
53.5/80Monthly downloads10,263 downloads/month across packagist
0/20Registry dependents0 packages depend on it
Inputs used
packagesin2code/powermail_cond
dependents0
ecosystemspackagist
total_downloads587,828
monthly_downloads10,263
unverified_packages_excluded

Sustainability & Governance

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

69Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
8.6/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 62% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth21 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 8 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled21
top_contributor_share0.62
How it's scored
32.8/42Issue resolution78% of issues closed
16.2/30PR acceptance21/39 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
3/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 6/27 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
Inputs used
merged_prs21
open_issues19
closed_issues68
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio0.782
closed_unmerged_prs18
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
20/20Verified domain
10.5/25Owner reach28 followers of in2code-de
25/25Track record99 public repos, account ~11 yr old
Inputs used
followers28
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedyes
owner_loginin2code-de
public_repos99
account_age_days4,209

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable1 package(s) on packagist
35/35Publish recencylatest publish 169 days ago
20/20Version history50 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesin2code/powermail_cond
ecosystemspackagist
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish169

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

79Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows2 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config.php-cs-fixer.php
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
12/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests4 out of 6 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics4 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicstypo3, powermail, typo3-cms-extension, conditions
has_wikino
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?

33At Risk · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
1.5/2.5CI-Tests4 out of 6 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 6
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
1.5/7.5Code-ReviewFound 6/27 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
2.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 8 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
0/2.5Licenselicense file not detected
0/7.5Maintained0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
0/5Packagingno data
0/5Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0/5SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releasesno data
0/7.5Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate3.3
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): 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.

28At Risk · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
6.9/40Legible commit history13 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.13
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config.php-cs-fixer.php
0/11Static type checking
0/10Reproducible environment
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno agent-authored commits among the last 100
0/8Automated maintenanceno automated dependency updates observed
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable codePHP without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes0/25 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePHP
largest_source_bytes11,049
source_files_sampled25
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

11GitHub stars
21contributors
16commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
7releases
1bus factor
19open 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

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 31 ⇿
0Stars
31Forks
7Releases

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.

01325383112017-072021-112026-03
Major 1Minor 1Patch 5

Each point covers 8 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 3.3 / 10
3.3aggregate

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 · 2026-08-31 08:28 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
6CI-Tests4 out of 6 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 6
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
2Code-ReviewFound 6/27 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
10Contributorsproject has 8 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update 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
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 2
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Packagisttypo3/cms-core^13.4composer.json
Packagistin2code/powermail^13.0 || @devcomposer.json
All dependencies 28

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 2 direct and 26 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
Packagistin2code/powermaildirect
Packagisttypo3/cms-coredirect
Packagistext-jsonindirect
Packagistext-pdoindirect
Packagistfriendsofphp/php-cs-fixerindirect
Packagisthelhum/typo3-consoleindirect
Packagisthelmich/typo3-typoscript-lintindirect
Packagistmikey179/vfsstreamindirect
Packagistphpindirect
Packagistroave/security-advisoriesindirect
Packagistsymfony/configindirect
Packagisttypo3/cms-adminpanelindirect
Packagisttypo3/cms-belogindirect
Packagisttypo3/cms-extbaseindirect
Packagisttypo3/cms-extensionmanagerindirect
Packagisttypo3/cms-feloginindirect
Packagisttypo3/cms-filelistindirect
Packagisttypo3/cms-fluid-styled-contentindirect
Packagisttypo3/cms-frontendindirect
Packagisttypo3/cms-infoindirect
Packagisttypo3/cms-installindirect
Packagisttypo3/cms-lowlevelindirect
Packagisttypo3/cms-recordlistindirect
Packagisttypo3/cms-rte-ckeditorindirect
Packagisttypo3/cms-schedulerindirect
Packagisttypo3/cms-setupindirect
Packagisttypo3/cms-t3editorindirect
Packagisttypo3/cms-tstemplateindirect
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 statisticsPackagist.