Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-15 22:35 UTC

neos / setup

An extensible setup tool for Flow based applications

PHP · HTMLMIT★ 6 stars⑂ 16 forkssince Aug 2015View on GitHub ↗

neos/setup holds a health index of 48 out of 100, placing it in the Weak band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (82/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (17/100). It was last updated 166 days ago. 3 contributors account for most of its recent work.

overall / 100

Weak

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.

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)

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 49 is calibrated to 48 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

NeosOrganization · verified domain

95 followers152 public repossince Mar 2015

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

Package ecosystems

Registry	Package	Version	Downloads / mo	Versions	Last publish
Packagist	neos/setup	6.1.0	6,055	33	310 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

35Weak · 21% of overall

Development activity

17Critical

How it's scored

9.9/36	Push recency — last push 166 days ago
0.7/36	Commit cadence — 1/52 weeks with commits
6.3/18	Commit volume — 4 commits in the last year
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

commits_last_year	4
human_commit_share	1
days_since_last_push	166
active_weeks_last_year	1

Release discipline

62Moderate

How it's scored

27/27	Ships releases — 18 releases published
16.2/36	Release recency — latest release 310 days ago
12.6/27	Release cadence — a release every ~306.1 days
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data

Inputs used

releases_count	18
latest_release_tag	6.1.0
releases_from_tags	no
days_since_latest_release	310
mean_days_between_releases	306.1

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?

54Moderate · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

24At Risk

How it's scored

11.3/60	Stars — 6 stars
9.8/25	Forks — 16 forks
2.7/15	Watchers — 4 watchers

Inputs used

forks	16
stars	6
watchers	4
growth_state	unverified
growth_factor_pct	100
growth_unverified_reason	no_history

Community health

85Excellent

How it's scored

22.5/22.5	README
22.5/22.5	License — recognized license (MIT)
18/18	CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5	Code of conduct
0/7.2	Issue template
0/6.3	PR template

Inputs used

has_readme	yes
has_license	yes
readme_badges	—
has_contributing	yes
has_issue_template	no
has_code_of_conduct	yes
readme_badge_services	—
has_pull_request_template	no

Ecosystem adoption (downloads)

57Moderate

How it's scored

50.4/80	Monthly downloads — 6,055 downloads/month across packagist
6.4/20	Registry dependents — 8 packages depend on it

Inputs used

packages	neos/setup
dependents	8
ecosystems	packagist
total_downloads	646,788
monthly_downloads	6,055
unverified_packages_excluded	—

Sustainability & Governance

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

82Excellent · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

77Good

How it's scored

36/54	Bus factor — 3 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
17.6/22.5	Commit distribution — top contributor authored 22% of commits
13.5/13.5	Contributor breadth — 29 contributors
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 18 contributing companies or organizations

Inputs used

bus_factor	3
contributors_sampled	29
top_contributor_share	0.216

Issue & PR responsiveness

73Good

How it's scored

38.2/42	Issue resolution — 91% of issues closed
22.2/30	PR acceptance — 34/46 decided PRs merged
0/13	Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
3/15	OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 2/7 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2

Inputs used

merged_prs	34
open_issues	2
closed_issues	20
prs_merged_7d	0
prs_decided_7d	0
prs_merged_30d	0
prs_decided_30d	0
issue_closed_ratio	0.909
closed_unmerged_prs	12
first_time_authors_30d	0
first_time_prs_merged_30d	0
first_time_prs_decided_30d	0

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

Ownership & stewardship

89Excellent

How it's scored

30/30	Ownership backing — organization-owned
20/20	Verified domain
14.3/25	Owner reach — 95 followers of neos
25/25	Track record — 152 public repos, account ~11 yr old

Inputs used

followers	95
owner_type	Organization
is_verified	yes
owner_login	neos
public_repos	152
account_age_days	4,197

Package maintenance

91Excellent

How it's scored

25/25	Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on packagist
26/35	Publish recency — latest publish 310 days ago
20/20	Version history — 33 published versions
20/20	Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked

Inputs used

packages	neos/setup
ecosystems	packagist
any_deprecated	no
min_days_since_publish	310

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

31At Risk · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

1Critical

How it's scored

0/24	CI workflows
0/24	Tests present
0/16	Linter config
0/9.6	Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4	.editorconfig
0/20	OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 0 out of 3 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

has_ci	no
has_tests	no
has_editorconfig	no
has_linter_config	no
has_precommit_config	no

Documentation

75Good

How it's scored

30/30	README
25/25	Documentation directory
0/15	Documentation / homepage site
10/10	Repository description
10/10	Topics — 1 topics
0/10	Wiki

Inputs used

topics	hacktoberfest
has_wiki	no
homepage	—
docs_site	—
has_readme	yes
has_docs_dir	yes
has_description	yes

Security

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

44Weak · 16% of overall

Security posture

30At Risk

How it's scored

7.5/7.5	Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5	Branch-Protection — no data
0/2.5	CI-Tests — 0 out of 3 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5	CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
1.5/7.5	Code-Review — Found 2/7 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
2.5/2.5	Contributors — project has 18 contributing companies or organizations
0/10	Dangerous-Workflow — no data
0/7.5	Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5	Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5	License — license file detected
0/7.5	Maintained — 0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
0/5	Packaging — no data
0/5	Pinned-Dependencies — no data
0/5	SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
4.5/5	Security-Policy — security policy file detected
0/7.5	Signed-Releases — no data
0/7.5	Token-Permissions — no data
0/7.5	Vulnerabilities — 28 existing vulnerabilities detected

Inputs used

source	openssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated	12
scorecard_version	v5.5.0
checks_inconclusive	6
scorecard_aggregate	3

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, Dangerous-Workflow, Packaging, Pinned-Dependencies, Signed-Releases, Token-Permissions. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional

How it's scored

35/35	Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25	Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40	No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date

Inputs used

source	osv
advisories	29
affected_packages	12
assessed_packages	139
unassessed_packages	2
affected_by_severity	critical 1, high 7, moderate 4
direct_affected_packages	0

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories, No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 139 resolved dependencies against OSV. 2 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.

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.

17Critical · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

5Critical

How it's scored

0/45	Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15	Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
5.3/40	Legible commit history — 10 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)

Inputs used

has_llms_txt	no
llms_txt_url	—
legible_history_share	0.1
agent_instruction_files	—
agent_instruction_max_bytes	—

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

11Critical

How it's scored

0/18	One-command bootstrap
0/22	Automated tests
0/11	Lint / format config
0/11	Static type checking
10/10	Reproducible environment — lockfile
0/10	Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
0/8	Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — no data

Inputs used

has_nix	no
has_tests	no
lockfiles	pnpm-lock.yaml
has_dockerfile	no
typed_language	no
bootstrap_files	—
has_devcontainer	no
has_linter_config	no
typecheck_configs	—
agent_commit_share	0
toolchain_manifests	—
dependency_bot_commit_share	0

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

Code legibility for models

55Moderate

How it's scored

0/45	Type-checkable code — PHP without a type-check config
55/55	Manageable file sizes — 0/26 source files over 60KB

Inputs used

primary_language	PHP
largest_source_bytes	9,488
source_files_sampled	26
oversized_source_files	0

Key facts

6GitHub stars

29contributors

4commits, last 12 months

166days since last push

18releases

3bus factor

2open issues

Packagistpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 16 ⇿

0Stars

16Forks

17Releases

When each star and fork was added, collected from GitHub and bucketed by day. Cumulative growth sits directly above the daily additions it is made of, so the two read against each other: steady organic accretion looks nothing like an abrupt, short-lived burst. Where that difference is measurable, it is reported as growth authenticity.

Major 4Minor 1Patch 12

Each point covers 9 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 3.0 / 10

3.0aggregate

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 · 2026-09-15 22:35 UTC

10	Binary-Artifacts	no binaries found in the repo
n/a	Branch-Protection	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
0	CI-Tests	0 out of 3 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0	CII-Best-Practices	no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
2	Code-Review	Found 2/7 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
10	Contributors	project has 18 contributing companies or organizations
n/a	Dangerous-Workflow	no workflows found
0	Dependency-Update-Tool	no update tool detected
0	Fuzzing	project is not fuzzed
10	License	license file detected
0	Maintained	0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
n/a	Packaging	packaging workflow not detected
n/a	Pinned-Dependencies	no dependencies found
0	SAST	SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
9	Security-Policy	security policy file detected
n/a	Signed-Releases	no releases found
n/a	Token-Permissions	No tokens found
0	Vulnerabilities	28 existing vulnerabilities detected

Direct dependencies 1

Registry	Package	Version constraint	Manifest
Packagist	neos/flow	`~8.0.12 \|\| ~8.1.8 \|\| ~8.2.6 \|\| ~8.3.4 \|\| ^8.4 \|\| ^9.0`	composer.json

All dependencies 141

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 1 direct and 140 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

Registry	Package	Version	Relation
Packagist	neos/flow	`—`	direct
npm	@alloc/quick-lru	`5.2.0`	indirect
npm	@babel/runtime	`7.21.5`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/android-arm	`0.17.18`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/android-arm64	`0.17.18`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/android-x64	`0.17.18`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/darwin-arm64	`0.17.18`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/darwin-x64	`0.17.18`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/freebsd-arm64	`0.17.18`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/freebsd-x64	`0.17.18`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/linux-arm	`0.17.18`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/linux-arm64	`0.17.18`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/linux-ia32	`0.17.18`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/linux-loong64	`0.17.18`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/linux-mips64el	`0.17.18`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/linux-ppc64	`0.17.18`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/linux-riscv64	`0.17.18`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/linux-s390x	`0.17.18`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/linux-x64	`0.17.18`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/netbsd-x64	`0.17.18`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/openbsd-x64	`0.17.18`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/sunos-x64	`0.17.18`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/win32-arm64	`0.17.18`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/win32-ia32	`0.17.18`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/win32-x64	`0.17.18`	indirect
npm	@jridgewell/gen-mapping	`0.3.3`	indirect
npm	@jridgewell/resolve-uri	`3.1.0`	indirect
npm	@jridgewell/set-array	`1.1.2`	indirect
npm	@jridgewell/sourcemap-codec	`1.4.14`	indirect
npm	@jridgewell/sourcemap-codec	`1.4.15`	indirect
npm	@jridgewell/trace-mapping	`0.3.18`	indirect
npm	@nodelib/fs.scandir	`2.1.5`	indirect
npm	@nodelib/fs.stat	`2.0.5`	indirect
npm	@nodelib/fs.walk	`1.2.8`	indirect
npm	@vue/reactivity	`3.1.5`	indirect
npm	@vue/shared	`3.1.5`	indirect
npm	alpinejs	`3.12.0`	indirect
npm	ansi-regex	`5.0.1`	indirect
npm	ansi-styles	`4.3.0`	indirect
npm	any-promise	`1.3.0`	indirect
npm	anymatch	`3.1.3`	indirect
npm	arg	`5.0.2`	indirect
npm	balanced-match	`1.0.2`	indirect
npm	binary-extensions	`2.2.0`	indirect
npm	brace-expansion	`1.1.11`	indirect
npm	braces	`3.0.2`	indirect
npm	camelcase-css	`2.0.1`	indirect
npm	chalk	`4.1.2`	indirect
npm	chokidar	`3.5.3`	indirect
npm	cliui	`8.0.1`	indirect
npm	color-convert	`2.0.1`	indirect
npm	color-name	`1.1.4`	indirect
npm	commander	`4.1.1`	indirect
npm	concat-map	`0.0.1`	indirect
npm	concurrently	`8.0.1`	indirect
npm	cssesc	`3.0.0`	indirect
npm	date-fns	`2.30.0`	indirect
npm	didyoumean	`1.2.2`	indirect
npm	dlv	`1.1.3`	indirect
npm	emoji-regex	`8.0.0`	indirect
npm	esbuild	`0.17.18`	indirect
npm	escalade	`3.1.1`	indirect
npm	fast-glob	`3.2.12`	indirect
npm	fastq	`1.15.0`	indirect
npm	fill-range	`7.0.1`	indirect
npm	fs.realpath	`1.0.0`	indirect
npm	fsevents	`2.3.2`	indirect
npm	function-bind	`1.1.1`	indirect
npm	get-caller-file	`2.0.5`	indirect
npm	glob	`7.1.6`	indirect
npm	glob-parent	`5.1.2`	indirect
npm	glob-parent	`6.0.2`	indirect
npm	has	`1.0.3`	indirect
npm	has-flag	`4.0.0`	indirect
npm	inflight	`1.0.6`	indirect
npm	inherits	`2.0.4`	indirect
npm	is-binary-path	`2.1.0`	indirect
npm	is-core-module	`2.12.0`	indirect
npm	is-extglob	`2.1.1`	indirect
npm	is-fullwidth-code-point	`3.0.0`	indirect
npm	is-glob	`4.0.3`	indirect
npm	is-number	`7.0.0`	indirect
npm	jiti	`1.18.2`	indirect
npm	lilconfig	`2.1.0`	indirect
npm	lines-and-columns	`1.2.4`	indirect
npm	lodash	`4.17.21`	indirect
npm	merge2	`1.4.1`	indirect
npm	micromatch	`4.0.5`	indirect
npm	minimatch	`3.1.2`	indirect
npm	mz	`2.7.0`	indirect
npm	nanoid	`3.3.6`	indirect
npm	normalize-path	`3.0.0`	indirect
npm	object-assign	`4.1.1`	indirect
npm	object-hash	`3.0.0`	indirect
npm	once	`1.4.0`	indirect
npm	path-is-absolute	`1.0.1`	indirect
npm	path-parse	`1.0.7`	indirect
npm	picocolors	`1.0.0`	indirect
npm	picomatch	`2.3.1`	indirect
npm	pify	`2.3.0`	indirect
npm	pirates	`4.0.5`	indirect
npm	postcss	`8.4.23`	indirect
npm	postcss-import	`15.1.0`	indirect
npm	postcss-js	`4.0.1`	indirect
npm	postcss-load-config	`4.0.1`	indirect
npm	postcss-nested	`6.0.1`	indirect
npm	postcss-selector-parser	`6.0.12`	indirect
npm	postcss-value-parser	`4.2.0`	indirect
npm	queue-microtask	`1.2.3`	indirect
npm	read-cache	`1.0.0`	indirect
npm	readdirp	`3.6.0`	indirect
npm	regenerator-runtime	`0.13.11`	indirect
npm	require-directory	`2.1.1`	indirect
npm	resolve	`1.22.2`	indirect
npm	reusify	`1.0.4`	indirect
npm	run-parallel	`1.2.0`	indirect
npm	rxjs	`7.8.1`	indirect
npm	shell-quote	`1.8.1`	indirect
npm	source-map-js	`1.0.2`	indirect
npm	spawn-command	`0.0.2-1`	indirect
npm	string-width	`4.2.3`	indirect
npm	strip-ansi	`6.0.1`	indirect
npm	sucrase	`3.32.0`	indirect
npm	supports-color	`7.2.0`	indirect
npm	supports-color	`8.1.1`	indirect
npm	supports-preserve-symlinks-flag	`1.0.0`	indirect
npm	tailwindcss	`3.3.2`	indirect
npm	thenify	`3.3.1`	indirect
npm	thenify-all	`1.6.0`	indirect
npm	to-regex-range	`5.0.1`	indirect
npm	tree-kill	`1.2.2`	indirect
npm	ts-interface-checker	`0.1.13`	indirect
npm	tslib	`2.5.0`	indirect
npm	util-deprecate	`1.0.2`	indirect
npm	wrap-ansi	`7.0.0`	indirect
npm	wrappy	`1.0.2`	indirect
npm	y18n	`5.0.8`	indirect
npm	yaml	`2.2.2`	indirect
npm	yargs	`17.7.2`	indirect
npm	yargs-parser	`21.1.1`	indirect
Packagist	php	`—`	indirect

Dependency advisories 12

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 139 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 12 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct. 2 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list.

Package	Version	Relation	Severity	Advisories	Fixed in
shell-quote	`1.8.1`	indirect	critical	2	`1.9.0`
brace-expansion	`1.1.11`	indirect	high	5	`5.0.9`
braces	`3.0.2`	indirect	high	1	`3.0.3`
lodash	`4.17.21`	indirect	high	3	`4.18.0`
minimatch	`3.1.2`	indirect	high	3	`10.2.3`
nanoid	`3.3.6`	indirect	high	4	`5.1.16`
picomatch	`2.3.1`	indirect	high	2	`4.0.4`
postcss	`8.4.23`	indirect	high	5	`8.5.23`
@babel/runtime	`7.21.5`	indirect	moderate	1	`8.0.0-alpha.17`
esbuild	`0.17.18`	indirect	moderate	1	`0.25.0`
micromatch	`4.0.5`	indirect	moderate	1	`4.0.8`
yaml	`2.2.2`	indirect	moderate	1	`2.8.3`

An advisory means the version recorded in the dependency graph falls inside an advisory’s affected range. Reachability is not analysed, and the graph includes development and test pins — a finding may concern tooling rather than shipped software.

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.

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 v0.34.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

How one result sits in the wider record: aggregate statistics — Packagist.

Software health index

Score profile

Ownership

Package ecosystems

Metrics by category

Key facts

Data collection warnings

More detail

Feedback

Related records