# mirichard/pm-tools-templates — health index 78/100 (Good)

> Inspection of the public repository mirichard/pm-tools-templates by inspect.software. It holds a health index of 78 out of 100, placing it in the Good 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/mirichard/pm-tools-templates
- Report page: https://inspect.software/software/mirichard/pm-tools-templates
- Full JSON report: https://inspect.software/api/repositories/mirichard/pm-tools-templates/report
- Badge: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/inspect-software/badges/main/v1/m/mirichard/pm-tools-templates.svg
- Inspected: 2026-08-04
- Methodology: metrics 2.10.0, report schema 0.30.0 (https://inspect.software/methodology.md)

## Category summary

| Category | Weight | Index | Band |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vitality | 21% | 90/100 | Excellent |
| Community & Adoption | 17% | 53/100 | Moderate |
| Sustainability & Governance | 23% | 48/100 | Weak |
| Engineering Quality | 19% | 94/100 | Exceptional |
| Security | 16% | 49/100 | Weak |
| AI Readiness | 4% | 53/100 | Moderate |

The weighted overall 67 is calibrated to 78 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

## Repository facts

| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Description | 🚀 Next-generation AI-powered project management ecosystem with 80+ proven templates, predictive analytics, blockchain automation, and intelligent workflows. Transform from static templates to data-driven insights with ML forecasting, smart contracts, and real-time collaboration. Open-source foundation with SaaS monetization. |
| Classification | cli, web-ui, network-service, library |
| Homepage | https://mirichard.github.io/pm-tools-templates |
| Primary language | HTML |
| Stars | 14 |
| Forks | 6 |
| Created | 2025-05-07 |
| Last push | 2026-08-03 |
| Latest release | v1.1.0-requirements-cli |
| Commits (last year) | 540 |
| Bus factor | 1 |
| Topics | agile, documentation, pmbok, project-management, project-planning, risk-management, stakeholder-management, templates, business-analysis, hybrid, pmi, project-manager, scrum, waterfall, ai-ml, automation, blockchain, machine-learning, predictive-analytics, saas |

## Vitality — 90/100 (Excellent)

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

### Development activity — 96/100 (Exceptional)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Push recency | met | 36 / 36 | last push 0 days ago |
| Commit cadence | partial | 32.5 / 36 | 47/52 weeks with commits |
| Commit volume | met | 18 / 18 | 540 commits in the last year |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained | met | 10 / 10 | 30 commit(s) and 27 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10 |

### Release discipline — 82/100 (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 | 5 releases published |
| Release recency | partial | 27 / 36 | latest release 145 days ago |
| Release cadence | partial | 19.8 / 27 | a release every ~54.4 days |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases | excluded | 0 / 10 | no releases found |

### Abandonment — 100/100 (Exceptional)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Project is still maintained | met | 100 / 100 | last human commit 19 days ago |

## Community & Adoption — 53/100 (Moderate)

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

### Popularity & adoption — 24/100 (At Risk)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stars | partial | 18.1 / 60 | 14 stars |
| Forks | partial | 5.8 / 25 | 6 forks |
| Watchers | not met | 0 / 15 | 2 watchers |

### Community health — 86/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| README | met | 22.5 / 22.5 | — |
| License | partial | 16.9 / 22.5 | license file present, not a recognized license |
| CONTRIBUTING guide | met | 18 / 18 | — |
| Code of conduct | met | 13.5 / 13.5 | — |
| Issue template | not met | 0 / 7.2 | — |
| PR template | met | 6.3 / 6.3 | — |

## Sustainability & Governance — 48/100 (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) — 34/100 (At Risk)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bus factor | partial | 9 / 54 | 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits |
| Commit distribution | partial | 10.5 / 22.5 | top contributor authored 53% of commits |
| Contributor breadth | partial | 4.1 / 13.5 | 3 contributors |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors | met | 10 / 10 | project has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10 |

### Issue & PR responsiveness — 70/100 (Good)

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

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue resolution | partial | 33.5 / 42 | 80% of issues closed |
| PR acceptance | partial | 27.3 / 30 | 393/432 decided PRs merged |
| Newcomer PR acceptance | excluded | 0 / 13 | no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review | not met | 0 / 15 | Found 0/8 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0 |

### Ownership & stewardship — 43/100 (Weak)

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 | 6.1 / 25 | 6 followers of mirichard |
| Track record | partial | 18.2 / 25 | 6 public repos, account ~12 yr old |

## Engineering Quality — 94/100 (Exceptional)

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

### Engineering practices — 90/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| CI workflows | met | 24 / 24 | 68 workflow(s) |
| Tests present | met | 24 / 24 | — |
| Linter config | met | 16 / 16 | .eslintrc, .eslintrc.js, .eslintrc.yml, eslint.config.js, eslint.config.mjs |
| Pre-commit hooks | not met | 0 / 9.6 | — |
| .editorconfig | met | 6.4 / 6.4 | — |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests | met | 20 / 20 | 22 out of 22 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10 |

### Documentation — 100/100 (Exceptional)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| README | met | 30 / 30 | — |
| Documentation directory | met | 25 / 25 | — |
| Documentation / homepage site | met | 15 / 15 | https://mirichard.github.io/pm-tools-templates |
| Repository description | met | 10 / 10 | — |
| Topics | met | 10 / 10 | 20 topics |
| Wiki | met | 10 / 10 | — |

## Security — 49/100 (Weak)

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 — 56/100 (Moderate)

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

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Binary-Artifacts | partial | 6.8 / 7.5 | binaries present in source code |
| Branch-Protection | excluded | 0 / 7.5 | internal 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 |
| CI-Tests | met | 2.5 / 2.5 | 22 out of 22 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 0/8 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0 |
| Contributors | met | 2.5 / 2.5 | project has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10 |
| 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 | partial | 2.2 / 2.5 | license file detected |
| Maintained | met | 7.5 / 7.5 | 30 commit(s) and 27 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 | partial | 3.5 / 5 | SAST tool detected but not run on all commits |
| 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 | not met | 0 / 7.5 | 72 existing vulnerabilities detected |

### Dependency advisories — 20/100 (At Risk)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 2736 resolved dependencies against OSV; 57 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 | 2.8 / 35 | 17 affected: axios 1.11.0 (high 8.7), axios 1.13.6 (high 8.7), express-rate-limit 8.1.0 (high 7.5), +14 more |
| 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 | partial | 12.4 / 40 | 12 advisory-carrying package(s) unaddressed past 90 days; oldest published 326 days ago |

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

| 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 — 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 — 53/100 (Moderate)

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 — 10/100 (Critical)

| 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 | partial | 10.3 / 40 | 10 of 52 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body) |

### Verify loop (build / test / typecheck) — 80/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| One-command bootstrap | met | 18 / 18 | workflow-orchestration/node_modules/delayed-stream/Makefile |
| Automated tests | met | 22 / 22 | — |
| Lint / format config | met | 11 / 11 | .eslintrc, .eslintrc.js, .eslintrc.yml, eslint.config.js, eslint.config.mjs |
| Static type checking | met | 11 / 11 | PM Tools Templates - Q3 2025 Delivery Cycle/Implementation/template-selector/tsconfig.json, dashboard-mvp/tsconfig.json, demo/288/tsconfig.json, demos/288-template-customization/tsconfig.json, docs/site/tsconfig.json, integrations/asana/tsconfig.json, integrations/jira-asana-sync/tsconfig.json, web-mvp/tsconfig.json, workflow-orchestration/node_modules/@bcoe/v8-coverage/dist/lib/tsconfig.json, workflow-orchestration/node_modules/@bcoe/v8-coverage/tsconfig.json, workflow-orchestration/node_modules/call-bind-apply-helpers/tsconfig.json, workflow-orchestration/node_modules/call-bound/tsconfig.json, workflow-orchestration/node_modules/dunder-proto/tsconfig.json, workflow-orchestration/node_modules/es-define-property/tsconfig.json, workflow-orchestration/node_modules/es-errors/tsconfig.json, workflow-orchestration/node_modules/es-object-atoms/tsconfig.json, workflow-orchestration/node_modules/es-set-tostringtag/tsconfig.json, workflow-orchestration/node_modules/fastq/test/tsconfig.json, workflow-orchestration/node_modules/get-proto/tsconfig.json, workflow-orchestration/node_modules/gopd/tsconfig.json, workflow-orchestration/node_modules/has-symbols/tsconfig.json, workflow-orchestration/node_modules/has-tostringtag/tsconfig.json, workflow-orchestration/node_modules/hasown/tsconfig.json, workflow-orchestration/node_modules/math-intrinsics/tsconfig.json, workflow-orchestration/node_modules/nodemon/jsconfig.json, workflow-orchestration/node_modules/reusify/tsconfig.json, workflow-orchestration/node_modules/side-channel-list/tsconfig.json, workflow-orchestration/node_modules/side-channel-map/tsconfig.json, workflow-orchestration/node_modules/side-channel-weakmap/tsconfig.json, workflow-orchestration/node_modules/side-channel/tsconfig.json |
| Reproducible environment | met | 10 / 10 | Dockerfile, lockfile |
| Demonstrated agent practice | not met | 0 / 10 | no agent-authored commits among the last 100 |
| Automated maintenance | met | 8 / 8 | 48 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies | not met | 0 / 10 | dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0 |

### Code legibility for models — 82/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Type-checkable code | partial | 27 / 45 | HTML with type-check config (PM Tools Templates - Q3 2025 Delivery Cycle/Implementation/template-selector/tsconfig.json, dashboard-mvp/tsconfig.json, demo/288/tsconfig.json, demos/288-template-customization/tsconfig.json, docs/site/tsconfig.json, integrations/asana/tsconfig.json, integrations/jira-asana-sync/tsconfig.json, web-mvp/tsconfig.json, workflow-orchestration/node_modules/@bcoe/v8-coverage/dist/lib/tsconfig.json, workflow-orchestration/node_modules/@bcoe/v8-coverage/tsconfig.json, workflow-orchestration/node_modules/call-bind-apply-helpers/tsconfig.json, workflow-orchestration/node_modules/call-bound/tsconfig.json, workflow-orchestration/node_modules/dunder-proto/tsconfig.json, workflow-orchestration/node_modules/es-define-property/tsconfig.json, workflow-orchestration/node_modules/es-errors/tsconfig.json, workflow-orchestration/node_modules/es-object-atoms/tsconfig.json, workflow-orchestration/node_modules/es-set-tostringtag/tsconfig.json, workflow-orchestration/node_modules/fastq/test/tsconfig.json, workflow-orchestration/node_modules/get-proto/tsconfig.json, workflow-orchestration/node_modules/gopd/tsconfig.json, workflow-orchestration/node_modules/has-symbols/tsconfig.json, workflow-orchestration/node_modules/has-tostringtag/tsconfig.json, workflow-orchestration/node_modules/hasown/tsconfig.json, workflow-orchestration/node_modules/math-intrinsics/tsconfig.json, workflow-orchestration/node_modules/nodemon/jsconfig.json, workflow-orchestration/node_modules/reusify/tsconfig.json, workflow-orchestration/node_modules/side-channel-list/tsconfig.json, workflow-orchestration/node_modules/side-channel-map/tsconfig.json, workflow-orchestration/node_modules/side-channel-weakmap/tsconfig.json, workflow-orchestration/node_modules/side-channel/tsconfig.json) |
| Manageable file sizes | partial | 54.8 / 55 | 1/316 source files over 60KB |

### Machine-readable interfaces — 40/100 (Weak)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) | not met | 0 / 40 | — |
| MCP server | not met | 0 / 20 | — |
| Runnable examples | met | 40 / 40 | demos, example, examples, samples |

## Collection warnings

- Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
- Could not fetch npm package 'pm-tools-templates' from its registry
- Could not fetch npm package 'template-curation-backend' from its registry
- Could not fetch npm package 'ai-insights' from its registry
- Could not fetch npm package '@pm-tools/analytics-platform' from its registry
- Could not fetch npm package 'workflow-orchestration' from its registry
- Could not fetch npm package '@pm-tools/asana-integration' from its registry
- Could not fetch npm package 'pm-template-generator' from its registry
- Could not fetch npm package 'pm-requirements-structuring' from its registry

## 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