# lerd-env/lerd — health index 31/100 (At risk)

> Inspection of the public repository lerd-env/lerd 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/lerd-env/lerd
- Report page: https://inspect.software/software/lerd-env/lerd
- Full JSON report: https://inspect.software/api/repositories/lerd-env/lerd/report
- Badge: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/inspect-software/badges/main/v1/l/lerd-env/lerd.svg
- Inspected: 2026-07-20
- Methodology: metrics 1.13.0, report schema 0.16.0 (https://inspect.software/methodology.md)

## Category summary

| Category | Weight | Index | Band |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vitality | 22% | 82/100 | Good |
| Community & Adoption | 18% | 57/100 | Moderate |
| Sustainability & Governance | 24% | 52/100 | Moderate |
| Engineering Quality | 20% | 81/100 | Good |
| Security | 16% | 30/100 | At risk |
| AI Readiness | not counted | 80/100 | Good |

High-Risk Jurisdiction Policy applies a 50% multiplier to weighted overall health and gives it an At risk ceiling of 49.

## Repository facts

| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Description | Open-source, Herd-like local PHP development environment for Linux and macOS. Automatic .test domains, per-project PHP/Node isolation, one-command TLS. Podman-native, rootless. |
| Homepage | http://lerd.sh |
| Primary language | Go |
| License | MIT |
| Stars | 773 |
| Forks | 41 |
| Created | 2026-03-17 |
| Last push | 2026-07-20 |
| Latest release | v1.30.0-beta.2 |
| Commits (last year) | 1,596 |
| Bus factor | 1 |
| Topics | developer-tools, laravel, linux, local-development, nginx, php, php-development, podman, symfony, ubuntu, development-environment, lemp, web-development |

## Published packages

| Registry | Package | Latest | Monthly downloads |
|---|---|---|---|
| go | github.com/geodro/lerd | v1.29.0 | — |

## Vitality — 82/100 (Good)

Is the project alive — is code being written and are releases shipping? Weight: 22% of the overall index.

### Development activity — 76/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Push recency | met | 36 / 36 | last push 0 days ago |
| Commit cadence | partial | 12.5 / 36 | 18/52 weeks with commits |
| Commit volume | met | 18 / 18 | 1596 commits in the last year |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained | met | 10 / 10 | 30 commit(s) and 29 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10 |

### Release discipline — 90/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ships releases | met | 27 / 27 | 100 releases published |
| Release recency | met | 36 / 36 | latest release 0 days ago |
| Release cadence | met | 27 / 27 | a release every ~2.7 days |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases | not met | 0 / 10 | Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases. |

### Abandonment — 100/100 (Excellent)

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

## Community & Adoption — 57/100 (Moderate)

Does the project have users, downloads, attention, and a welcoming setup for contributors? Weight: 18% of the overall index.

### Popularity & adoption — 63/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stars | partial | 46.8 / 60 | 773 stars |
| Forks | partial | 13.4 / 25 | 41 forks |
| Watchers | partial | 2.7 / 15 | 4 watchers |

### Community health — 50/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| README | met | 22.5 / 22.5 | — |
| License | met | 22.5 / 22.5 | recognized license (MIT) |
| 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 — 52/100 (Moderate)

Will the project survive its people — bus factor, responsiveness, who backs it, and package upkeep? Weight: 24% of the overall index.

### Maintainer resilience (bus factor) — 34/100 (At risk)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bus factor | partial | 9 / 54 | 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits |
| Commit distribution | partial | 2 / 22.5 | top contributor authored 91% of commits |
| Contributor breadth | met | 13.5 / 13.5 | 12 contributors |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors | met | 10 / 10 | project has 9 contributing companies or organizations |

### Issue & PR responsiveness — 82/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue resolution | partial | 44.5 / 46.8 | 95% of issues closed |
| PR acceptance | partial | 37.1 / 38.2 | 695/717 decided PRs merged |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review | not met | 0 / 15 | Found 2/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0 |

### Ownership & stewardship — 42/100 (At risk)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership backing | met | 30 / 30 | organization-owned |
| Verified domain | not met | 0 / 20 | — |
| Owner reach | partial | 5.6 / 25 | 5 followers of lerd-env |
| Track record | partial | 6.7 / 25 | 7 public repos, account ~0 yr old |

## Engineering Quality — 81/100 (Good)

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place? Weight: 20% of the overall index.

### Engineering practices — 68/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| CI workflows | met | 24 / 24 | 5 workflow(s) |
| Tests present | met | 24 / 24 | — |
| Linter config | not met | 0 / 16 | — |
| Pre-commit hooks | not met | 0 / 9.6 | — |
| .editorconfig | not met | 0 / 6.4 | — |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests | met | 20 / 20 | 30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10 |

### Documentation — 100/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| README | met | 30 / 30 | — |
| Documentation directory | met | 25 / 25 | — |
| Documentation / homepage site | met | 15 / 15 | http://lerd.sh |
| Repository description | met | 10 / 10 | — |
| Topics | met | 10 / 10 | 13 topics |
| Wiki | met | 10 / 10 | — |

## Security — 30/100 (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 — 22/100 (Critical)

High-Risk Jurisdiction Policy applies a 50% multiplier to Security posture and gives it an At risk ceiling of 49.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Binary-Artifacts | met | 7.5 / 7.5 | no binaries found in the repo |
| Branch-Protection | partial | 3.8 / 7.5 | branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches |
| CI-Tests | met | 2.5 / 2.5 | 30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10 |
| CII-Best-Practices | not met | 0 / 2.5 | no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected |
| Code-Review | not met | 0 / 7.5 | Found 2/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0 |
| Contributors | met | 2.5 / 2.5 | project has 9 contributing companies or organizations |
| Dangerous-Workflow | met | 10 / 10 | no dangerous workflow patterns detected |
| Dependency-Update-Tool | not met | 0 / 7.5 | no update tool detected |
| Fuzzing | not met | 0 / 5 | project is not fuzzed |
| License | met | 2.5 / 2.5 | license file detected |
| Maintained | met | 7.5 / 7.5 | 30 commit(s) and 29 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10 |
| Packaging | met | 5 / 5 | packaging workflow detected |
| Pinned-Dependencies | partial | 0.5 / 5 | dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 1 |
| SAST | not met | 0 / 5 | SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0 |
| Security-Policy | not met | 0 / 5 | security policy file not detected |
| Signed-Releases | not met | 0 / 7.5 | Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases. |
| Token-Permissions | not met | 0 / 7.5 | detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions |
| Vulnerabilities | partial | 5.2 / 7.5 | 3 existing vulnerabilities detected |

### Dependency advisories — 62/100 (Moderate)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 489 resolved dependencies against OSV; 4 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.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Direct dependencies free of known advisories | partial | 6.5 / 35 | 2 affected: golang.org/x/crypto v0.49.0 (critical 10.0), golang.org/x/sys v0.42.0 (unknown) |
| Indirect dependencies free of known advisories | excluded | 0 / 25 | transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope |
| No advisories left outstanding | met | 40 / 40 | no advisory has been public longer than 90 days |

### Malicious dependencies — 100/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| No dependency reported as a malicious package | met | 100 / 100 | no dependency is reported as a malicious package |

### High-Risk Jurisdiction Exposure — 50/100 (Moderate)

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 | partial | 50 / 100 | Russia: contributor_organization (1); Russia: top_contributor (1) |

## AI Readiness — 80/100 (Good)

How well is the repo equipped to be developed and maintained with AI coding agents? An independent, experimental badge — weight 0.0, so it is surfaced on its own and does not affect the overall health score.

### Agent context & guidance — 75/100 (Good)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Legible commit history. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agent instructions | met | 45 / 45 | CLAUDE.md |
| Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) | not met | 0 / 15 | — |
| Legible commit history | excluded | 0 / 40 | no data |

### Verify loop (build / test / typecheck) — 76/100 (Good)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Demonstrated agent practice, Automated maintenance. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| One-command bootstrap | met | 18 / 18 | Makefile |
| Automated tests | met | 22 / 22 | — |
| Lint / format config | not met | 0 / 11 | — |
| Static type checking | met | 11 / 11 | internal/ui/web/tsconfig.json |
| Reproducible environment | met | 10 / 10 | lockfile |
| Demonstrated agent practice | excluded | 0 / 10 | no data |
| Automated maintenance | excluded | 0 / 8 | no data |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies | partial | 1 / 10 | dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 1 |

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

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Type-checkable code | met | 45 / 45 | Go (statically typed) |
| Manageable file sizes | partial | 54.8 / 55 | 5/1262 source files over 60KB |

## Collection warnings

- Could not fetch npm package 'lerd' from its registry
- go package 'github.com/geodro/lerd' points at a different repository (https://github.com/geodro/lerd); excluded from ecosystem scoring

## 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