Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-02 21:03 UTC

oroinc / customer-portal

OroCommerce package with customer portal and non authenticated visitor website base features.

PHPCustom license★ 14 stars⑂ 18 forkssince Mar 2017View on GitHub ↗

oroinc/customer-portal holds a health index of 28 out of 100, placing it in the At Risk band. It scores highest on Vitality (92/100) and lowest on Security (22/100). It was last updated today. 7 contributors account for most of its recent work.

28
overall / 100
At Risk

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.

28
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 55 is calibrated to 57 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02). High-Risk Jurisdiction Policy applies a 50% multiplier to weighted overall health and gives it an At Risk ceiling of 34.

Ownership

Oro, Inc.Organization
122 followers104 public repossince Apr 2013

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
Packagistoro/customer-portal7.0.42,10817631 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

92Excellent · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 0 days ago
29.8/36Commit cadence43/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume127 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained29 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year127
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year43
How it's scored
16.2/27Ships releases100 version tags (no GitHub releases)
36/36Release recencylatest release 31 days ago
27/27Release cadencea release every ~22 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count100
latest_release_tag7.0.4
releases_from_tagsyes
days_since_latest_release31
mean_days_between_releases22
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?

42Weak · 17% of overall
How it's scored
18.1/60Stars14 stars
10.3/25Forks18 forks
9/15Watchers42 watchers
Inputs used
forks18
stars14
watchers42
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
16.9/22.5Licenselicense file present, not a recognized license
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges0
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
44.3/80Monthly downloads2,108 downloads/month across packagist
3.2/20Registry dependents2 packages depend on it
Inputs used
packagesoro/customer-portal
dependents2
ecosystemspackagist
total_downloads56,042
monthly_downloads2,108
unverified_packages_excluded

Sustainability & Governance

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

73Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
51.3/54Bus factor7 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
18.9/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 16% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth100 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 9 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor7
contributors_sampled100
top_contributor_share0.16
How it's scored
24/42Issue resolution57% of issues closed
0/30PR acceptance0/6 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs0
open_issues3
closed_issues4
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio0.571
closed_unmerged_prs6
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 domain
15/25Owner reach122 followers of oroinc
25/25Track record104 public repos, account ~13 yr old
Inputs used
followers122
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_loginoroinc
public_repos104
account_age_days4,887

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable1 package(s) on packagist
35/35Publish recencylatest publish 31 days ago
20/20Version history176 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesoro/customer-portal
ecosystemspackagist
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish31

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

34At Risk · 19% of overall
How it's scored
0/24CI workflows
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Testsno data
Inputs used
has_cino
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
0/10Topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics
has_wikino
homepage
docs_site
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

22At Risk · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protectionno data
0/2.5CI-Testsno data
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-ReviewFound 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
2.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 9 contributing companies or organizations
0/10Dangerous-Workflowno data
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.2/2.5Licenselicense file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained29 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packagingno data
0/5Pinned-Dependenciesno data
0/5SASTno SAST tool detected
0/5Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releasesno data
0/7.5Token-Permissionsno data
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated11
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive7
scorecard_aggregate4.5
high_risk_jurisdiction_cap34
high_risk_jurisdiction_multiplier50
security_posture_after_multiplier22
security_posture_before_jurisdiction45
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, CI-Tests, Dangerous-Workflow, Packaging, Pinned-Dependencies, Signed-Releases, Token-Permissions. Remaining weights renormalized. High-Risk Jurisdiction Policy applies a 50% multiplier and gives Security posture an At risk ceiling of 34.

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.

36Weak · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
37.9/40Legible commit history71 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.71
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
0/11Static type checking
0/10Reproducible environment
2/10Demonstrated agent practice1 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
0/8Automated maintenanceno automated dependency updates observed
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesno data
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share0.01
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable codePHP without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes0/1,842 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePHP
largest_source_bytes49,881
source_files_sampled1,842
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

14GitHub stars
100contributors
127commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
100releases
7bus factor
3open issues
Packagistpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • No resolved dependencies carried a version and a supported ecosystem

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 18 ⇿
0Stars
18Forks
94Releases

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.

0481216201822017-072021-122026-04
Major 3Minor 4Patch 60

Each point covers 8 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.5 / 10
4.5aggregate

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 · 2026-09-02 21:03 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
n/aBranch-Protectioninternal 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
n/aCI-Testsno pull request found
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
10Contributorsproject has 9 contributing companies or organizations
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
9Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained29 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
n/aPinned-Dependenciesno dependencies found
0SASTno SAST tool detected
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
n/aToken-PermissionsNo tokens found
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 5
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Packagistoro/platform7.1.*composer.json
Packagistoro/platform-serialised-fields7.1.*composer.json
Packagistoro/calendar-bundle7.1.*composer.json
Packagistoro/marketing7.1.*composer.json
Packagistoro/commerce7.1.*composer.json
All dependencies 5

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 5 direct and 0 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
Packagistoro/calendar-bundledirect
Packagistoro/commercedirect
Packagistoro/marketingdirect
Packagistoro/platformdirect
Packagistoro/platform-serialised-fieldsdirect
Dependency advisories not assessed

Advisory matching could not run for this report: No resolved dependencies carried a version and a supported ecosystem

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 v0.34.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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