Public record
Software health reportschema 0.31.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-14 21:06 UTC

netresearch / t3x-contexts

Contexts for TYPO3 – can be used to modify page behaviour in the frontend based on several conditions

PHPAGPL-3.0★ 11 stars⑂ 11 forkssince Mar 2013View on GitHub ↗
KindPluginLibraryhow this is determined

netresearch/t3x-contexts holds a health index of 90 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (84/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (56/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

90
overall / 100
Excellent

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.

90
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)
VitalityCommunity &AdoptionSustainability &GovernanceEngineeringQualitySecurityAI Readiness

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 76 is calibrated to 90 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

39 followers281 public repossince Nov 2009

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
Packagistnetresearch/contextsv5.0.12,959915 days agoextensiontypo3contexts

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

82Excellent · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 0 days ago
19.4/36Commit cadence28/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume270 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained30 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year270
human_commit_share0.73
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year28
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases8 releases published
36/36Release recencylatest release 15 days ago
12.6/27Release cadencea release every ~239.8 days
4/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases1 out of the last 2 releases have a total of 1 signed artifacts.
Inputs used
releases_count8
latest_release_tagv5.0.1
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release15
mean_days_between_releases239.8

Community & Adoption

Does the project have users, downloads, attention, and a welcoming setup for contributors?

56Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
16.2/60Stars11 stars
8.3/25Forks11 forks
5.6/15Watchers11 watchers
Inputs used
forks11
stars11
watchers11
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

92Excellent
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (AGPL-3.0)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
6.3/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges10
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_servicescodecov.io, github.com, shields.io, www.bestpractices.dev
has_pull_request_templateyes
How it's scored
46.3/80Monthly downloads2,959 downloads/month across packagist
2/20Registry dependents1 packages depend on it
Inputs used
packagesnetresearch/contexts
dependents1
ecosystemspackagist
total_downloads22,036
monthly_downloads2,959
unverified_packages_excluded

Sustainability & Governance

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

74Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
4.8/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 79% of commits
12.2/13.5Contributor breadth9 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 6 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled9
top_contributor_share0.786
How it's scored
39.8/42Issue resolution95% of issues closed
23.4/30PR acceptance124/159 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
15/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Reviewall changesets reviewed
Inputs used
merged_prs124
open_issues1
closed_issues18
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d19
prs_decided_30d21
issue_closed_ratio0.947
closed_unmerged_prs35
first_time_authors_30d0
first_time_prs_merged_30d0
first_time_prs_decided_30d0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backingorganization-owned
0/20Verified domainverified-domain status not read for this organization
11.5/25Owner reach39 followers of netresearch
25/25Track record281 public repos, account ~16 yr old
Inputs used
followers39
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified
owner_loginnetresearch
public_repos281
account_age_days6,121
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable1 package(s) on packagist
35/35Publish recencylatest publish 15 days ago
20/20Version history9 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesnetresearch/contexts
ecosystemspackagist
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish15

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

84Excellent · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows19 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config.php-cs-fixer.dist.php, phpcs.xml, phpstan.neon
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests17 out of 17 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics2 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsmulti-channel, typo3-extension
has_wikino
homepage
docs_site
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

84Excellent · 16% of overall

Security posture

80Excellent
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
3.8/7.5Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
2.5/2.5CI-Tests17 out of 17 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
1.2/2.5CII-Best-Practicesbadge detected: Passing
7.5/7.5Code-Reviewall changesets reviewed
2.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 6 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5Licenselicense file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained30 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packagingno data
0/5Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
5/5SASTSAST tool is run on all commits
5/5Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
3/7.5Signed-Releases1 out of the last 2 releases have a total of 1 signed artifacts.
7.5/7.5Token-PermissionsGitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated17
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive1
scorecard_aggregate8.1
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisoriesno direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisoriestransitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40No advisories left outstandingno advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories0
affected_packages0
assessed_packages6
unassessed_packages8
affected_by_severitynone
direct_affected_packages0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories, No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 6 resolved dependencies against OSV. 8 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.

72Good · 4% of overall
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructions.github/copilot-instructions.md, AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md, Classes/AGENTS.md, Configuration/AGENTS.md, Documentation/AGENTS.md, Tests/AGENTS.md
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history72 of 73 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.986
agent_instruction_files.github/copilot-instructions.md, AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md, Classes/AGENTS.md, Configuration/AGENTS.md, Documentation/AGENTS.md, Tests/AGENTS.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes10,143
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrapMakefile
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config.php-cs-fixer.dist.php, phpcs.xml, phpstan.neon
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environmentDockerfile, lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno agent-authored commits among the last 100
8/8Automated maintenance26 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilespackage-lock.json
has_dockerfileyes
typed_languageno
bootstrap_filesMakefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share0.26
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable codePHP without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes0/121 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePHP
largest_source_bytes45,804
source_files_sampled121
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

11GitHub stars
9contributors
270commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
8releases
1bus factor
1open 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 ★ / 11 ⇿
0Stars
11Forks

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.

0246810121112013-072017-022020-10

Each point covers 7 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 8.1 / 10
8.1aggregate

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 · 2026-08-14 21:06 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
5Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
10CI-Tests17 out of 17 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
5CII-Best-Practicesbadge detected: Passing
10Code-Reviewall changesets reviewed
10Contributorsproject has 6 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
0Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
10SASTSAST tool is run on all commits
10Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
4Signed-Releases1 out of the last 2 releases have a total of 1 signed artifacts.
10Token-PermissionsGitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 3
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Packagisttypo3/cms-backend^13.4 || ^14.3composer.json
Packagisttypo3/cms-core^13.4 || ^14.3composer.json
Packagisttypo3/cms-frontend^13.4 || ^14.3composer.json
All dependencies 14

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 3 direct and 11 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
Packagisttypo3/cms-backenddirect
Packagisttypo3/cms-coredirect
Packagisttypo3/cms-frontenddirect
npm@axe-core/playwright4.13.0indirect
npm@playwright/test1.62.1indirect
npmaxe-core4.13.0indirect
npmfsevents2.3.2indirect
npmplaywright1.62.1indirect
npmplaywright-core1.62.1indirect
Packagistext-pdoindirect
Packagistnetresearch/typo3-ci-workflowsindirect
Packagistphpindirect
Packagistphpunit/phpunitindirect
Packagistsquizlabs/php_codesnifferindirect
Dependency advisories 0

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 6 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct. 8 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list.

No known advisories affect the assessed dependencies.

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.

The message is kept through sign-in.

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 v0.31.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

How one result sits in the wider record: aggregate statisticsPackagist.