Public record
Software health reportschema 0.11.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-15 12:50 UTC

putyourlightson / craft-sprig

A reactive Twig component framework for Craft CMS.

JavaScript · PHPMIT★ 130 stars⑂ 9 forkssince May 2020View on GitHub ↗

putyourlightson/craft-sprig holds a health index of 54 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (69/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (16/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

54
overall / 100
Moderate

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.

54
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 53 is calibrated to 54 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

PutYourLightsOnOrganization
30 followers89 public repossince Sep 2012

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
Packagistputyourlightson/craft-sprig3.7.23,047107147 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

64Moderate · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 0 days ago
2.1/36Commit cadence3/52 weeks with commits
6.3/18Commit volume4 commits in the last year
1/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained1 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 1
Inputs used
commits_last_year4
human_commit_share
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year3
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases44 releases published
36/36Release recencylatest release 0 days ago
19.8/27Release cadencea release every ~50.5 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count44
latest_release_tag2.15.4
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release0
mean_days_between_releases50.5
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?

48Weak · 17% of overall
How it's scored
34.2/60Stars130 stars
7.5/25Forks9 forks
0/15Watchers2 watchers
Inputs used
forks9
stars130
watchers2
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (MIT)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
46.5/80Monthly downloads3,047 downloads/month across packagist
7.4/20Registry dependents12 packages depend on it
Inputs used
packagesputyourlightson/craft-sprig
dependents12
ecosystemspackagist
total_downloads325,077
monthly_downloads3,047
unverified_packages_excluded

Sustainability & Governance

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

69Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
4.2/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 81% of commits
8.1/13.5Contributor breadth6 contributors
6/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled6
top_contributor_share0.813
How it's scored
42/42Issue resolution100% of issues closed
28.4/30PR acceptance18/19 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_prs18
open_issues0
closed_issues413
prs_merged_7d
prs_decided_7d
prs_merged_30d
prs_decided_30d
issue_closed_ratio1
closed_unmerged_prs1
first_time_authors_30d
first_time_prs_merged_30d
first_time_prs_decided_30d
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
10.7/25Owner reach30 followers of putyourlightson
25/25Track record89 public repos, account ~13 yr old
Inputs used
followers30
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified
owner_loginputyourlightson
public_repos89
account_age_days5,055
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 147 days ago
20/20Version history107 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesputyourlightson/craft-sprig
ecosystemspackagist
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish147

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

56Moderate · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows2 workflow(s)
0/24Tests present
16/16Linter configphpstan.neon
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Testsno data
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsno
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
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
15/15Documentation / homepage sitehttps://putyourlightson.com/plugins/sprig
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics6 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsajax, components, craft-plugin, craftcms, reactive, twig
has_wikino
homepagehttps://putyourlightson.com/plugins/sprig
docs_sitehttps://putyourlightson.com/plugins/sprig
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

29At Risk · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
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
1.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
0/10Dangerous-Workflowno data
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5Licenselicense file detected
0.8/7.5Maintained1 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 1
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_evaluated12
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive6
scorecard_aggregate2.9
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): CI-Tests, Dangerous-Workflow, Packaging, Pinned-Dependencies, Signed-Releases, Token-Permissions. Remaining weights renormalized.

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.

16Critical · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
0/40Legible commit historyno data
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Legible commit history. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
0/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format configphpstan.neon
0/11Static type checking
0/10Reproducible environment
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno data
0/8Automated maintenanceno data
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesno data
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsno
lockfiles
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Demonstrated agent practice, Automated maintenance, OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable codeJavaScript without a type-check config
51.1/55Manageable file sizes1/14 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageJavaScript
largest_source_bytes110,627
source_files_sampled14
oversized_source_files1

Key facts

130GitHub stars
6contributors
4commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
44releases
1bus factor
0open issues
Packagistpackage ecosystems

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 2.9 / 10
2.9aggregate

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 · 2026-07-15 12:50 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
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
6Contributorsproject has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
1Maintained1 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 1
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 4
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Packagistcraftcms/cms^5.0composer.json
Packagistnystudio107/craft-code-editor^1.0composer.json
Packagistnystudio107/craft-twig-sandbox^5.0.2composer.json
Packagistputyourlightson/craft-sprig-core^3.7.3composer.json
All dependencies 7

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 4 direct and 3 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
Packagistcraftcms/cmsdirect
Packagistnystudio107/craft-code-editordirect
Packagistnystudio107/craft-twig-sandboxdirect
Packagistputyourlightson/craft-sprig-coredirect
Packagistcraftcms/ecsindirect
Packagistcraftcms/phpstanindirect
Packagistphpindirect
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 v0.11.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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