Public record
Software health reportschema 0.12.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-17 16:05 UTC

jweiland-net / video_shariff

This extension provides more privacy when embedding videos in frontend.

PHP · ShellCustom license★ 5 stars⑂ 6 forkssince May 2018View on GitHub ↗

jweiland-net/video_shariff holds a health index of 67 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (79/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (31/100). It was last updated 30 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

67
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.

67
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 61 is calibrated to 67 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

jweiland.netOrganization
8 followers69 public repossince Apr 2013

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
Packagistjweiland/video-shariff5.1.34,5492556 days agovideotypo3typo3-cmsshariffgdprdsgvo

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

69Good · 21% of overall
How it's scored
28.8/36Push recencylast push 30 days ago
2.8/36Commit cadence4/52 weeks with commits
17.5/18Commit volume88 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year88
human_commit_share
days_since_last_push30
active_weeks_last_year4
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases22 releases published
36/36Release recencylatest release 56 days ago
12.6/27Release cadencea release every ~211 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count22
latest_release_tag5.1.3
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release56
mean_days_between_releases211
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?

34At Risk · 17% of overall
How it's scored
9.8/60Stars5 stars
5.8/25Forks6 forks
0/15Watchers2 watchers
Inputs used
forks6
stars5
watchers2
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
16.9/22.5Licenselicense file present, not a recognized license
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
48.8/80Monthly downloads4,549 downloads/month across packagist
0/20Registry dependents0 packages depend on it
Inputs used
packagesjweiland/video-shariff
dependents0
ecosystemspackagist
total_downloads137,993
monthly_downloads4,549
unverified_packages_excluded

Sustainability & Governance

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

72Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
11/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 51% of commits
12.2/13.5Contributor breadth9 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled9
top_contributor_share0.51
How it's scored
40.6/42Issue resolution97% of issues closed
28.2/30PR acceptance31/33 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 0/10 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs31
open_issues1
closed_issues28
prs_merged_7d
prs_decided_7d
prs_merged_30d
prs_decided_30d
issue_closed_ratio0.966
closed_unmerged_prs2
first_time_authors_30d
first_time_prs_merged_30d
first_time_prs_decided_30d
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backingorganization-owned
0/20Verified domainverified-domain status not read for this organization
6.9/25Owner reach8 followers of jweiland-net
25/25Track record69 public repos, account ~13 yr old
Inputs used
followers8
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified
owner_loginjweiland-net
public_repos69
account_age_days4,844
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable1 package(s) on packagist
35/35Publish recencylatest publish 56 days ago
20/20Version history25 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesjweiland/video-shariff
ecosystemspackagist
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish56

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

79Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows1 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
18/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests9 out of 10 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

90Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage sitehttps://extensions.typo3.org/extension/video_shariff
10/10Repository description
0/10Topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://extensions.typo3.org/extension/video_shariff
docs_sitehttps://extensions.typo3.org/extension/video_shariff
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

47Weak · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protectionno data
2.2/2.5CI-Tests9 out of 10 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-ReviewFound 0/10 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
2.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
0/10Dangerous-Workflowno data
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.2/2.5Licenselicense file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packagingno data
0/5Pinned-Dependenciesno data
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-Permissionsno data
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated12
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive6
scorecard_aggregate4.7
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, Dangerous-Workflow, Packaging, Pinned-Dependencies, Signed-Releases, 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.

31At Risk · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
0/40Legible commit historyno 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.
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environmentlockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno data
0/8Automated maintenanceno data
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesno data
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilespackage-lock.json
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.
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable codePHP without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes0/21 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePHP
largest_source_bytes9,603
source_files_sampled21
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

5GitHub stars
9contributors
88commits, last 12 months
30days since last push
22releases
1bus factor
1open issues
npm, Packagistpackage ecosystems

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.7 / 10
4.7aggregate

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 · 2026-07-17 16:04 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
9CI-Tests9 out of 10 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 0/10 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
10Contributorsproject has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
9Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
n/aPinned-Dependenciesno dependencies found
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
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 1
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Packagisttypo3/cms-core^14.3composer.json
All dependencies 33

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 1 direct and 32 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
Packagisttypo3/cms-coredirect
npm@esbuild/aix-ppc640.25.12indirect
npm@esbuild/android-arm0.25.12indirect
npm@esbuild/android-arm640.25.12indirect
npm@esbuild/android-x640.25.12indirect
npm@esbuild/darwin-arm640.25.12indirect
npm@esbuild/darwin-x640.25.12indirect
npm@esbuild/freebsd-arm640.25.12indirect
npm@esbuild/freebsd-x640.25.12indirect
npm@esbuild/linux-arm0.25.12indirect
npm@esbuild/linux-arm640.25.12indirect
npm@esbuild/linux-ia320.25.12indirect
npm@esbuild/linux-loong640.25.12indirect
npm@esbuild/linux-mips64el0.25.12indirect
npm@esbuild/linux-ppc640.25.12indirect
npm@esbuild/linux-riscv640.25.12indirect
npm@esbuild/linux-s390x0.25.12indirect
npm@esbuild/linux-x640.25.12indirect
npm@esbuild/netbsd-arm640.25.12indirect
npm@esbuild/netbsd-x640.25.12indirect
npm@esbuild/openbsd-arm640.25.12indirect
npm@esbuild/openbsd-x640.25.12indirect
npm@esbuild/openharmony-arm640.25.12indirect
npm@esbuild/sunos-x640.25.12indirect
npm@esbuild/win32-arm640.25.12indirect
npm@esbuild/win32-ia320.25.12indirect
npm@esbuild/win32-x640.25.12indirect
npmesbuild0.25.12indirect
Packagistergebnis/composer-normalizeindirect
Packagistphpindirect
Packagistssch/typo3-rectorindirect
Packagisttypo3/coding-standardsindirect
Packagisttypo3/testing-frameworkindirect
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 v0.12.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

How one result sits in the wider record: aggregate statisticsPackagist.