# pimcore/customer-data-framework — health index 19/100 (Critical)

> Inspection of the public repository pimcore/customer-data-framework by inspect.software. It holds a health index of 19 out of 100, placing it in the Critical 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/pimcore/customer-data-framework
- Report page: https://inspect.software/software/pimcore/customer-data-framework
- Full JSON report: https://inspect.software/api/repositories/pimcore/customer-data-framework/report
- Badge: https://inspect.software/badge/v1/pimcore/customer-data-framework.svg
- Inspected: 2026-10-26
- Methodology: metrics 2.10.0, report schema 0.34.0 (https://inspect.software/methodology.md)

## Category summary

| Category | Weight | Index | Band |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vitality | 21% | 37/100 | Weak |
| Community & Adoption | 17% | 58/100 | Moderate |
| Sustainability & Governance | 23% | 79/100 | Good |
| Engineering Quality | 19% | 78/100 | Good |
| Security | 16% | 38/100 | Weak |
| AI Readiness | 4% | 42/100 | Weak |

The weighted overall 58 is calibrated to 62 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02). Abandonment Policy applies a 40% multiplier to weighted overall health and gives it a ceiling of 19.

## Repository facts

| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Description | Customer Data Framework community bundle adds capability for management of customer data to Pimcore. |
| Classification | library, cli |
| Homepage | https://pimcore.com/docs/platform/Customer_Management_Framework/ |
| Primary language | PHP |
| Stars | 83 |
| Forks | 87 |
| Created | 2017-06-09 |
| Last push | 2026-04-20 |
| Latest release | v4.2.4 |
| Commits (last year) | 9 |
| Bus factor | 3 |
| Archived | yes — the repository is no longer maintained on GitHub |

## Published packages

| Registry | Package | Latest | Monthly downloads |
|---|---|---|---|
| packagist | pimcore/customer-management-framework-bundle | v4.2.4 | 6,878 |

## Vitality — 37/100 (Weak)

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

### Development activity — 17/100 (Critical)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Push recency | partial | 3.6 / 36 | last push 189 days ago |
| Commit cadence | partial | 4.2 / 36 | 6/52 weeks with commits |
| Commit volume | partial | 9 / 18 | 9 commits in the last year |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained | not met | 0 / 10 | project is archived |

### Release discipline — 68/100 (Good)

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

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ships releases | met | 27 / 27 | 100 releases published |
| Release recency | partial | 7.2 / 36 | latest release 483 days ago |
| Release cadence | met | 27 / 27 | a release every ~36.3 days |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases | excluded | 0 / 10 | no releases found |

### Abandonment — 40/100 (Weak)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Project is still maintained | partial | 40 / 100 | the repository is archived on GitHub |

## Community & Adoption — 58/100 (Moderate)

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

### Popularity & adoption — 54/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stars | partial | 31 / 60 | 83 stars |
| Forks | partial | 16.1 / 25 | 87 forks |
| Watchers | partial | 7.1 / 15 | 20 watchers |

### Community health — 64/100 (Moderate)

| 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 | not met | 0 / 13.5 | — |
| Issue template | not met | 0 / 7.2 | — |
| PR template | not met | 0 / 6.3 | — |

### Ecosystem adoption (downloads) — 55/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Monthly downloads | partial | 51.2 / 80 | 6,878 downloads/month across packagist |
| Registry dependents | partial | 4 / 20 | 3 packages depend on it |

## Sustainability & Governance — 79/100 (Good)

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) — 76/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bus factor | partial | 36 / 54 | 3 contributor(s) cover half of all commits |
| Commit distribution | partial | 16.1 / 22.5 | top contributor authored 28% of commits |
| Contributor breadth | met | 13.5 / 13.5 | 67 contributors |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors | met | 10 / 10 | project has 8 contributing companies or organizations |

### Issue & PR responsiveness — 84/100 (Excellent)

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

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue resolution | met | 42 / 42 | 100% of issues closed |
| PR acceptance | partial | 26.6 / 30 | 336/379 decided PRs merged |
| Newcomer PR acceptance | excluded | 0 / 13 | no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review | partial | 4.5 / 15 | Found 9/29 approved changesets -- score normalized to 3 |

### Ownership & stewardship — 93/100 (Exceptional)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership backing | met | 30 / 30 | organization-owned |
| Verified domain | met | 20 / 20 | — |
| Owner reach | partial | 17.9 / 25 | 308 followers of pimcore |
| Track record | met | 25 / 25 | 71 public repos, account ~15 yr old |

### Package maintenance — 59/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Published & resolvable | met | 25 / 25 | 1 package(s) on packagist |
| Publish recency | partial | 14 / 35 | latest publish 495 days ago |
| Version history | met | 20 / 20 | 169 published versions |
| Not deprecated | not met | 0 / 20 | pimcore/customer-management-framework-bundle: deprecated/yanked on the registry |

## Engineering Quality — 78/100 (Good)

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

### Engineering practices — 76/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| CI workflows | met | 24 / 24 | 8 workflow(s) |
| Tests present | met | 24 / 24 | — |
| Linter config | met | 16 / 16 | .php-cs-fixer.dist.php, phpstan.neon |
| Pre-commit hooks | not met | 0 / 9.6 | — |
| .editorconfig | met | 6.4 / 6.4 | — |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests | partial | 6 / 20 | 7 out of 22 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 3 |

### Documentation — 80/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| README | met | 30 / 30 | — |
| Documentation directory | met | 25 / 25 | — |
| Documentation / homepage site | met | 15 / 15 | https://pimcore.com/docs/platform/Customer_Management_Framework/ |
| Repository description | met | 10 / 10 | — |
| Topics | not met | 0 / 10 | — |
| Wiki | not met | 0 / 10 | — |

## Security — 38/100 (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 — 31/100 (At Risk)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Dangerous-Workflow, Packaging, Pinned-Dependencies, Signed-Releases, Token-Permissions. 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 | 0.8 / 2.5 | 7 out of 22 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 3 |
| CII-Best-Practices | not met | 0 / 2.5 | no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected |
| Code-Review | partial | 2.2 / 7.5 | Found 9/29 approved changesets -- score normalized to 3 |
| Contributors | met | 2.5 / 2.5 | project has 8 contributing companies or organizations |
| Dangerous-Workflow | excluded | 0 / 10 | no workflows found |
| Dependency-Update-Tool | not met | 0 / 7.5 | no update tool detected |
| Fuzzing | not met | 0 / 5 | project is not fuzzed |
| License | partial | 2.2 / 2.5 | license file detected |
| Maintained | not met | 0 / 7.5 | project is archived |
| Packaging | excluded | 0 / 5 | packaging workflow not detected |
| Pinned-Dependencies | excluded | 0 / 5 | no dependencies found |
| SAST | partial | 0.5 / 5 | SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 1 |
| Security-Policy | met | 5 / 5 | security policy file detected |
| Signed-Releases | excluded | 0 / 7.5 | no releases found |
| Token-Permissions | excluded | 0 / 7.5 | No tokens found |
| Vulnerabilities | not met | 0 / 7.5 | 122 existing vulnerabilities detected |

### Dependency advisories — 66/100 (Good)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 476 resolved dependencies against OSV. 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 | 15.7 / 35 | 1 affected: jquery 3.2.1 (moderate 6.9) |
| 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 | 34.1 / 40 | 1 advisory-carrying package(s) unaddressed past 90 days; oldest published 2739 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 — 42/100 (Weak)

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 — 28/100 (At Risk)

| 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 | 27.7 / 40 | 52 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body) |

### Verify loop (build / test / typecheck) — 48/100 (Weak)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies. 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, phpstan.neon |
| Static type checking | not met | 0 / 11 | — |
| Reproducible environment | met | 10 / 10 | Dockerfile, lockfile |
| Demonstrated agent practice | not met | 0 / 10 | no agent-authored commits among the last 100 |
| Automated maintenance | not met | 0 / 8 | no automated dependency updates observed |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies | excluded | 0 / 10 | no dependencies found |

### Code legibility for models — 55/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Type-checkable code | not met | 0 / 45 | PHP without a type-check config |
| Manageable file sizes | partial | 54.7 / 55 | 2/408 source files over 60KB |

## Collection warnings

- Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
- Could not fetch npm package 'customerdataframework' 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