# magewirephp/magewire — health index 68/100 (Moderate)

> Inspection of the public repository magewirephp/magewire by inspect.software. It holds a health index of 68 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate 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/magewirephp/magewire
- Report page: https://inspect.software/software/magewirephp/magewire
- Full JSON report: https://inspect.software/api/repositories/magewirephp/magewire/report
- Badge: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/inspect-software/badges/main/v1/m/magewirephp/magewire.svg
- Inspected: 2026-07-15
- Methodology: metrics 1.13.0, report schema 0.11.0 (https://inspect.software/methodology.md)

## Category summary

| Category | Weight | Index | Band |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vitality | 22% | 81/100 | Good |
| Community & Adoption | 18% | 72/100 | Good |
| Sustainability & Governance | 24% | 58/100 | Moderate |
| Engineering Quality | 20% | 69/100 | Moderate |
| Security | 16% | 57/100 | Moderate |
| AI Readiness | not counted | 30/100 | At risk |

## Repository facts

| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Description | Magewire is a Laravel Livewire port for Magento 2. The goal is to make it fun and easy to build modern, reactive and dynamic interfaces, without leaving the comfort of Magento's core layout and template systems. Magewire can be the missing piece when you intend to build dynamic and reactive features, but don't require or feel comfortable working with a full JavaScript framework like Vue or React. |
| Primary language | JavaScript |
| License | MIT |
| Stars | 262 |
| Forks | 46 |
| Created | 2021-10-08 |
| Last push | 2026-07-14 |
| Latest release | 3.2.0 |
| Commits (last year) | 82 |
| Bus factor | 1 |
| Topics | magento2, magento2-module |

## Published packages

| Registry | Package | Latest | Monthly downloads |
|---|---|---|---|
| packagist | magewirephp/magewire | 3.2.0 | 81,047 |

## Vitality — 81/100 (Good)

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

### Development activity — 73/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Push recency | met | 36 / 36 | last push 0 days ago |
| Commit cadence | partial | 9.7 / 36 | 14/52 weeks with commits |
| Commit volume | partial | 17.2 / 18 | 82 commits in the last year |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained | met | 10 / 10 | 30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10 |

### Release discipline — 92/100 (Excellent)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ships releases | met | 27 / 27 | 53 releases published |
| Release recency | met | 36 / 36 | latest release 30 days ago |
| Release cadence | partial | 19.8 / 27 | a release every ~53.2 days |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases | excluded | 0 / 10 | no releases found |

### 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 — 72/100 (Good)

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

### Popularity & adoption — 59/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stars | partial | 39.2 / 60 | 262 stars |
| Forks | partial | 13.8 / 25 | 46 forks |
| Watchers | partial | 6.2 / 15 | 14 watchers |

### Community health — 85/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| README | met | 22.5 / 22.5 | — |
| License | met | 22.5 / 22.5 | recognized license (MIT) |
| CONTRIBUTING guide | met | 18 / 18 | — |
| Code of conduct | met | 13.5 / 13.5 | — |
| Issue template | not met | 0 / 7.2 | — |
| PR template | not met | 0 / 6.3 | — |

### Ecosystem adoption (downloads) — 76/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Monthly downloads | partial | 65.4 / 80 | 81,047 downloads/month across packagist |
| Registry dependents | partial | 10.8 / 20 | 40 packages depend on it |

## Sustainability & Governance — 58/100 (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) — 40/100 (At risk)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bus factor | partial | 9 / 54 | 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits |
| Commit distribution | partial | 7.2 / 22.5 | top contributor authored 68% of commits |
| Contributor breadth | met | 13.5 / 13.5 | 27 contributors |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors | met | 10 / 10 | project has 9 contributing companies or organizations |

### Issue & PR responsiveness — 55/100 (Moderate)

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

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue resolution | excluded | 0 / 46.8 | no issues or no data |
| PR acceptance | partial | 29.2 / 38.2 | 149/195 decided PRs merged |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review | not met | 0 / 15 | Found 1/28 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0 |

### Ownership & stewardship — 50/100 (Moderate)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership backing | partial | 10 / 30 | personal (user) account |
| Verified domain | excluded | 0 / 20 | not applicable to user accounts |
| Owner reach | partial | 13.2 / 25 | 68 followers of magewirephp |
| Track record | partial | 17.2 / 25 | 10 public repos, account ~4 yr old |

### Package maintenance — 100/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Published & resolvable | met | 25 / 25 | 1 package(s) on packagist |
| Publish recency | met | 35 / 35 | latest publish 30 days ago |
| Version history | met | 20 / 20 | 53 published versions |
| Not deprecated | met | 20 / 20 | active, not deprecated or yanked |

## Engineering Quality — 69/100 (Moderate)

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

### Engineering practices — 82/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| CI workflows | met | 24 / 24 | 5 workflow(s) |
| Tests present | met | 24 / 24 | — |
| Linter config | met | 16 / 16 | .php-cs-fixer.dist.php |
| Pre-commit hooks | not met | 0 / 9.6 | — |
| .editorconfig | not met | 0 / 6.4 | — |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests | partial | 18 / 20 | 10 out of 11 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9 |

### Documentation — 50/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| README | met | 30 / 30 | — |
| Documentation directory | not met | 0 / 25 | — |
| Documentation / homepage site | not met | 0 / 15 | — |
| Repository description | met | 10 / 10 | — |
| Topics | met | 10 / 10 | 2 topics |
| Wiki | not met | 0 / 10 | — |

## Security — 57/100 (Moderate)

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 — 57/100 (Moderate)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging, Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Binary-Artifacts | met | 7.5 / 7.5 | no binaries found in the repo |
| Branch-Protection | partial | 0.8 / 7.5 | branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches |
| CI-Tests | partial | 2.2 / 2.5 | 10 out of 11 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9 |
| 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 1/28 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 | met | 7.5 / 7.5 | 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 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10 |
| Packaging | excluded | 0 / 5 | packaging workflow not detected |
| Pinned-Dependencies | not met | 0 / 5 | dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0 |
| SAST | not met | 0 / 5 | SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0 |
| Security-Policy | met | 5 / 5 | security policy file detected |
| Signed-Releases | excluded | 0 / 7.5 | no releases found |
| Token-Permissions | not met | 0 / 7.5 | detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions |
| Vulnerabilities | met | 7.5 / 7.5 | 0 existing vulnerabilities detected |

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

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 — 30/100 (At risk)

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 — 1/100 (Critical)

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

| 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 | excluded | 0 / 40 | no data |

### Verify loop (build / test / typecheck) — 42/100 (At risk)

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

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| One-command bootstrap | not met | 0 / 18 | — |
| Automated tests | met | 22 / 22 | — |
| Lint / format config | met | 11 / 11 | .php-cs-fixer.dist.php |
| Static type checking | not met | 0 / 11 | — |
| Reproducible environment | not met | 0 / 10 | — |
| Demonstrated agent practice | excluded | 0 / 10 | no data |
| Automated maintenance | partial | 5 / 8 | dependency automation configured, none observed in the sampled commits |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies | not met | 0 / 10 | dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0 |

### Code legibility for models — 54/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Type-checkable code | not met | 0 / 45 | JavaScript without a type-check config |
| Manageable file sizes | partial | 54 / 55 | 6/321 source files over 60KB |

## 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