Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-25 06:16 UTC

roxblnfk / skills

Distribute AI Skills as Composer dependencies

PHPBSD-3-Clause★ 35 stars⑂ 4 forkssince May 2026View on GitHub ↗
KindPluginLibraryhow this is determined

roxblnfk/skills holds a health index of 71 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Vitality (80/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (44/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

71
overall / 100
Good

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.

71
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 63 is calibrated to 71 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Aleksei GagarinPersonal account
157 followers160 public repossince Apr 2013Buhta

This repository is owned by a personal account. A single-owner project carries more continuity risk than an organization-backed one.

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
Packagistllm/skills1.9.08,2891747 days agodevagentsaiskillsllmai-agentsclaude-codeai-skillsllm-agents

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

80Excellent · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 0 days ago
5.5/36Commit cadence8/52 weeks with commits
16.6/18Commit volume69 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained26 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year69
human_commit_share0.971
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year8

Release discipline

98Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases18 releases published
36/36Release recencylatest release 0 days ago
27/27Release cadencea release every ~10.1 days
8/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases5 out of the last 5 releases have a total of 5 signed artifacts.
Inputs used
releases_count18
latest_release_tag1.10.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release0
mean_days_between_releases10.1

Community & Adoption

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

44Weak · 17% of overall
How it's scored
24.8/60Stars35 stars
4/25Forks4 forks
0/15Watchers2 watchers
Inputs used
forks4
stars35
watchers2
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (BSD-3-Clause)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges6
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesshields.io
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
52.2/80Monthly downloads8,289 downloads/month across packagist
7.4/20Registry dependents12 packages depend on it
Inputs used
packagesllm/skills
dependents12
ecosystemspackagist
total_downloads25,448
monthly_downloads8,289
unverified_packages_excluded

Sustainability & Governance

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

61Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0.3/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 98% of commits
2.7/13.5Contributor breadth2 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 23 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled2
top_contributor_share0.985
How it's scored
33.6/42Issue resolution80% of issues closed
29/30PR acceptance28/29 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 1/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs28
open_issues1
closed_issues4
prs_merged_7d3
prs_decided_7d3
prs_merged_30d3
prs_decided_30d3
issue_closed_ratio0.8
closed_unmerged_prs1
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
10/30Ownership backingpersonal (user) account
0/20Verified domainnot applicable to user accounts
15.8/25Owner reach157 followers of roxblnfk
25/25Track record160 public repos, account ~13 yr old
Inputs used
followers157
owner_typeUser
is_verified
owner_loginroxblnfk
public_repos160
account_age_days4,880
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 47 days ago
20/20Version history17 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesllm/skills
ecosystemspackagist
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish47

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

78Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows6 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config.php-cs-fixer.dist.php
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests20 out of 20 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

Documentation

60Moderate
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics7 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsai, ai-skills, claude-code, composer, composer-plugin, llm, php
has_wikiyes
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?

46Weak · 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
2.5/2.5CI-Tests20 out of 20 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-ReviewFound 1/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
2.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 23 contributing companies or organizations
0/10Dangerous-Workflowno data
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5Licenselicense file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained26 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packagingno data
0/5Pinned-Dependenciesno data
0/5SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
6/7.5Signed-Releases5 out of the last 5 releases have a total of 5 signed artifacts.
0/7.5Token-Permissionsno data
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated14
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive4
scorecard_aggregate4.6
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Dangerous-Workflow, Packaging, Pinned-Dependencies, 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.

67Good · 4% of overall
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructionsCLAUDE.md
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history58 of 68 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.853
agent_instruction_filesCLAUDE.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes2,282
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config.php-cs-fixer.dist.php
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environmentlockfile
10/10Demonstrated agent practice5 of the last 70 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
lockfilescomposer.lock
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share0.071
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 sizes0/199 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePHP
largest_source_bytes56,475
source_files_sampled199
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

35GitHub stars
2contributors
69commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
18releases
1bus factor
1open issues
Packagistpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • GitHub dependency-graph SBOM unavailable (404); the dependency graph may be disabled for this repository

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 4 ⇿
0Stars
4Forks
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.

1223344412026-052026-072026-08
Major 1Minor 12Patch 4
OpenSSF Scorecard 4.6 / 10
4.6aggregate

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 · 2026-08-25 06:16 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
10CI-Tests20 out of 20 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 1/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
10Contributorsproject has 23 contributing companies or organizations
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained26 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
n/aPinned-Dependenciesno dependencies found
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
8Signed-Releases5 out of the last 5 releases have a total of 5 signed artifacts.
n/aToken-PermissionsNo tokens found
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 1
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Packagistinternal/path^1.2composer.json
All dependencies not collected

The resolved dependency set could not be collected for this report: GitHub dependency-graph SBOM unavailable (404); the dependency graph may be disabled for this repository

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.