# lalternativefabrique/packages — health index 31/100 (At Risk)

> Inspection of the public repository lalternativefabrique/packages by inspect.software. It holds a health index of 31 out of 100, placing it in the At Risk band. The index is a signal derived from publicly visible practice, not a warranty, a security audit, or an endorsement, and it is independent of payment.

- Repository: https://github.com/lalternativefabrique/packages
- Report page: https://inspect.software/software/lalternativefabrique/packages
- Full JSON report: https://inspect.software/api/repositories/lalternativefabrique/packages/report
- Badge: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/inspect-software/badges/main/v1/l/lalternativefabrique/packages.svg
- Inspected: 2026-08-22
- Methodology: metrics 2.10.0, report schema 0.34.0 (https://inspect.software/methodology.md)

## Category summary

| Category | Weight | Index | Band |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vitality | 21% | 44/100 | Weak |
| Community & Adoption | 17% | 12/100 | Critical |
| Sustainability & Governance | 23% | 46/100 | Weak |
| Engineering Quality | 19% | 46/100 | Weak |
| Security | 16% | 25/100 | At Risk |
| AI Readiness | 4% | 66/100 | Good |

The weighted overall 37 is calibrated to 31 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

## Repository facts

| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Classification | library, network-service |
| Primary language | PHP |
| Stars | 0 |
| Forks | 0 |
| Created | 2026-06-17 |
| Last push | 2026-08-21 |
| Commits (last year) | 204 |
| Bus factor | 1 |

## Published packages

| Registry | Package | Latest | Monthly downloads |
|---|---|---|---|
| npm | @lalternative/auth | 0.10.6 | 5,094 |
| npm | @lalternative/admin | 0.8.1 | 2,274 |
| npm | @lalternative/editor | 0.8.7 | 1,585 |
| go | github.com/lalternative/packages/go/eda | v0.8.0 | — |
| go | github.com/lalternative/packages/go/tts | v0.2.0 | — |
| go | github.com/lalternative/packages/go/agent | v0.1.0 | — |
| go | github.com/lalternative/packages/go/webhooks | v0.3.0 | — |
| go | github.com/lalternative/packages/lungor/core | v0.7.0 | — |
| go | github.com/lalternative/packages/spore/sdk-go | v0.1.0 | — |
| go | github.com/lalternative/packages/lungor/policy | v0.3.0 | — |
| go | github.com/lalternative/packages/lungor/sdk-go | v0.20.0 | — |

## Vitality — 44/100 (Weak)

Is the project alive — is code being written and are releases shipping? Weight: 21% of the overall index.

### Development activity — 72/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Push recency | met | 36 / 36 | last push 1 days ago |
| Commit cadence | partial | 11.1 / 36 | 16/52 weeks with commits |
| Commit volume | met | 18 / 18 | 204 commits in the last year |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained | excluded | 0 / 10 | OpenSSF Scorecard unavailable |

### Release discipline — 1/100 (Critical)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ships releases | not met | 0 / 27 | no releases published |
| Release recency | not met | 0 / 36 | no releases |
| Release cadence | not met | 0 / 27 | no releases |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases | excluded | 0 / 10 | OpenSSF Scorecard unavailable |

### Abandonment — 100/100 (Exceptional)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Project is still maintained | met | 100 / 100 | maintenance record not established from the collected data |

## Community & Adoption — 12/100 (Critical)

Does the project have users, downloads, attention, and a welcoming setup for contributors? Weight: 17% of the overall index.

### Popularity & adoption — 1/100 (Critical)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stars | not met | 0 / 60 | 0 stars |
| Forks | not met | 0 / 25 | 0 forks |
| Watchers | not met | 0 / 15 | 0 watchers |

### Community health — 25/100 (At Risk)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| README | met | 22.5 / 22.5 | — |
| License | not met | 0 / 22.5 | no license file detected |
| CONTRIBUTING guide | not met | 0 / 18 | — |
| Code of conduct | not met | 0 / 13.5 | — |
| Issue template | not met | 0 / 7.2 | — |
| PR template | not met | 0 / 6.3 | — |

## Sustainability & Governance — 46/100 (Weak)

Will the project survive its people — bus factor, responsiveness, who backs it, and package upkeep? Weight: 23% of the overall index.

### Maintainer resilience (bus factor) — 12/100 (Critical)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bus factor | partial | 9 / 54 | 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits |
| Commit distribution | not met | 0 / 22.5 | top contributor authored 100% of commits |
| Contributor breadth | partial | 1.4 / 13.5 | 1 contributors |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors | excluded | 0 / 10 | OpenSSF Scorecard unavailable |

### Issue & PR responsiveness — 97/100 (Exceptional)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Issue resolution, Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue resolution | excluded | 0 / 42 | no issues or no data |
| PR acceptance | partial | 29.1 / 30 | 63/65 decided PRs merged |
| Newcomer PR acceptance | excluded | 0 / 13 | no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review | excluded | 0 / 15 | OpenSSF Scorecard unavailable |

### Ownership & stewardship — 35/100 (Weak)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership backing | met | 30 / 30 | organization-owned |
| Verified domain | not met | 0 / 20 | — |
| Owner reach | not met | 0 / 25 | 0 followers of lalternativefabrique |
| Track record | partial | 4.8 / 25 | 3 public repos, account ~0 yr old |

## Engineering Quality — 46/100 (Weak)

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place? Weight: 19% of the overall index.

### Engineering practices — 50/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| CI workflows | not met | 0 / 24 | — |
| Tests present | met | 24 / 24 | — |
| Linter config | met | 16 / 16 | .php-cs-fixer.dist.php, .rubocop.yml, spore/sdk-python/pyproject.toml ([tool.pylint]), spore/sdk-python/setup.cfg ([flake8]), tox.ini |
| Pre-commit hooks | not met | 0 / 9.6 | — |
| .editorconfig | not met | 0 / 6.4 | — |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests | excluded | 0 / 20 | OpenSSF Scorecard unavailable |

### Documentation — 40/100 (Weak)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| README | met | 30 / 30 | — |
| Documentation directory | not met | 0 / 25 | — |
| Documentation / homepage site | not met | 0 / 15 | — |
| Repository description | not met | 0 / 10 | — |
| Topics | not met | 0 / 10 | — |
| Wiki | met | 10 / 10 | — |

## Security — 25/100 (At Risk)

Are visible security and supply-chain practices strong, with no malicious dependency and no unresolved high-risk jurisdiction exposure? Weight: 16% of the overall index.

### Security posture — 25/100 (At Risk)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Security policy (SECURITY.md) | not met | 0 / 30 | — |
| Dependabot config | not met | 0 / 25 | — |
| Dependency lockfiles | met | 25 / 25 | go.sum, package-lock.json, pnpm-lock.yaml |
| CodeQL workflow | not met | 0 / 20 | — |

### High-Risk Jurisdiction Exposure — 100/100 (Exceptional)

Only high-confidence self-published location evidence affects this multiplier. Ambiguous matches are review-only; country evidence is not proof of nationality, citizenship, legal registration, malicious intent, or sanctions status.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Policy exposure multiplier | met | 100 / 100 | no confirmed policy-scope location match |

## AI Readiness — 66/100 (Good)

How well is the repo equipped to be developed and maintained with AI coding agents? Carries a deliberately small weight: agent tooling is a real maintenance signal, but its absence must never gate the top of the scale (calibration saturates at raw 91, so 100/100 remains reachable with AI Readiness at zero).

### Agent context & guidance — 40/100 (Weak)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agent instructions | not met | 0 / 45 | no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules |
| Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) | not met | 0 / 15 | — |
| Legible commit history | met | 40 / 40 | 84 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body) |

### Verify loop (build / test / typecheck) — 74/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| One-command bootstrap | partial | 12.6 / 18 | go/agent/go.mod, go/composition/go.mod, go/eda/go.mod (toolchain convention, no task runner) |
| Automated tests | met | 22 / 22 | — |
| Lint / format config | met | 11 / 11 | .php-cs-fixer.dist.php, .rubocop.yml, spore/sdk-python/pyproject.toml ([tool.pylint]), spore/sdk-python/setup.cfg ([flake8]), tox.ini |
| Static type checking | met | 11 / 11 | admin/tsconfig.json, auth/tsconfig.json, editor/tsconfig.json, skalpai/sdk-browser/tsconfig.json, skalpai/sdk-feedback-widget/tsconfig.json, skalpai/sdk-node/tsconfig.json, skalpai/sdk-react/tsconfig.json, spore/sdk-node/tsconfig.json, spore/sdk-python/spore_email/py.typed |
| Reproducible environment | met | 10 / 10 | lockfile |
| Demonstrated agent practice | not met | 0 / 10 | no agent-authored commits among the last 100 |
| Automated maintenance | not met | 0 / 8 | no automated dependency updates observed |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies | excluded | 0 / 10 | OpenSSF Scorecard unavailable |

### Code legibility for models — 81/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Type-checkable code | partial | 27 / 45 | PHP with type-check config (admin/tsconfig.json, auth/tsconfig.json, editor/tsconfig.json, skalpai/sdk-browser/tsconfig.json, skalpai/sdk-feedback-widget/tsconfig.json, skalpai/sdk-node/tsconfig.json, skalpai/sdk-react/tsconfig.json, spore/sdk-node/tsconfig.json, spore/sdk-python/spore_email/py.typed) |
| Manageable file sizes | partial | 54.4 / 55 | 8/699 source files over 60KB |

### Machine-readable interfaces — 80/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) | met | 40 / 40 | spore/openapi.json |
| MCP server | not met | 0 / 20 | — |
| Runnable examples | met | 40 / 40 | examples |

## Collection warnings

- npm package '@lalternative/auth' points at a different repository (https://github.com/lalternative/packages); excluded from ecosystem scoring
- npm package '@lalternative/admin' points at a different repository (https://github.com/lalternative/packages); excluded from ecosystem scoring
- npm package '@lalternative/editor' points at a different repository (https://github.com/lalternative/packages); excluded from ecosystem scoring
- go package 'github.com/lalternative/packages/go/eda' points at a different repository (https://github.com/lalternative/packages); excluded from ecosystem scoring
- go package 'github.com/lalternative/packages/go/tts' points at a different repository (https://github.com/lalternative/packages); excluded from ecosystem scoring
- go package 'github.com/lalternative/packages/go/agent' points at a different repository (https://github.com/lalternative/packages); excluded from ecosystem scoring
- go package 'github.com/lalternative/packages/go/webhooks' points at a different repository (https://github.com/lalternative/packages); excluded from ecosystem scoring
- go package 'github.com/lalternative/packages/lungor/core' points at a different repository (https://github.com/lalternative/packages); excluded from ecosystem scoring
- go package 'github.com/lalternative/packages/spore/sdk-go' points at a different repository (https://github.com/lalternative/packages); excluded from ecosystem scoring
- go package 'github.com/lalternative/packages/lungor/policy' points at a different repository (https://github.com/lalternative/packages); excluded from ecosystem scoring
- go package 'github.com/lalternative/packages/lungor/sdk-go' points at a different repository (https://github.com/lalternative/packages); excluded from ecosystem scoring
- GitHub dependency-graph SBOM unavailable (404); the dependency graph may be disabled for this repository
- OpenSSF Scorecard timed out after 240s; skipping Scorecard checks

## What this report is

inspect.software measures public repositories against a single published, versioned methodology and reports the result as a 1–100 health index. Findings are signals derived from what is visible in public repository data — they are not a security audit, a warranty, or an endorsement, and no result depends on payment.

- Methodology, formulas and weights: https://inspect.software/methodology.md
- What a result does and does not claim: https://inspect.software/wiki/signals-not-warranties.md
- Rating bands: https://inspect.software/wiki/scoring-bands.md
- Corrections: https://inspect.software/contact.md
- Index of all documents: https://inspect.software/llms.txt