Public record
Software health reportschema 0.27.0 · metrics 2.5.0 · 2026-08-02 15:02 UTC

shaadcode / payload-auditor

Payload CMS plugin for event tracking, auditing, and security. Monitor activities and analyze user behavior.

TypeScriptMIT★ 72 stars⑂ 6 forkssince Apr 2025View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryPluginhow this is determined

shaadcode/payload-auditor holds a health index of 12 out of 100, placing it in the Critical band. It scores highest on Vitality (74/100) and lowest on Security (25/100). It was last updated 9 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

12
overall / 100
Critical

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.

12
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 57 is calibrated to 60 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02). High-Risk Jurisdiction Policy applies a 20% multiplier to weighted overall health and gives it an At Risk ceiling of 34.

Ownership

Seyed Mojtaba ShadabPersonal account
5 followers3 public repossince Sep 2022

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
npmpayload-auditor2.0.25,208309 days agopayloadpluginauditorloggerpayload-pluginpayload-cmssecuritypayloadcms

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

74Good · 21% of overall
How it's scored
28.8/36Push recency — last push 9 days ago
6.2/36Commit cadence — 9/52 weeks with commits
15.3/18Commit volume — 49 commits in the last year
6/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 8 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
commits_last_year49
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push9
active_weeks_last_year9

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 24 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 9 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~29.7 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count24
latest_release_tagv2.0.2
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release9
mean_days_between_releases29.7
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?

54Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
30/60Stars — 72 stars
5.8/25Forks — 6 forks
0/15Watchers — 2 watchers
Inputs used
forks6
stars72
watchers2
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (MIT)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
49.6/80Monthly downloads — 5,208 downloads/month across npm
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagespayload-auditor
dependents
ecosystemsnpm
total_downloads
monthly_downloads5,208
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Registry dependents. Remaining weights renormalized.

Sustainability & Governance

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

52Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
3.2/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 86% of commits
5.4/13.5Contributor breadth — 4 contributors
3/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled4
top_contributor_share0.857
How it's scored
31.5/42Issue resolution — 75% of issues closed
28.7/30PR acceptance — 44/46 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 2/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs44
open_issues1
closed_issues3
prs_merged_7d
prs_decided_7d
prs_merged_30d
prs_decided_30d
issue_closed_ratio0.75
closed_unmerged_prs2
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
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
5.6/25Owner reach — 5 followers of shaadcode
12.1/25Track record — 3 public repos, account ~3 yr old
Inputs used
followers5
owner_typeUser
is_verified
owner_loginshaadcode
public_repos3
account_age_days1,407
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on npm
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 9 days ago
20/20Version history — 30 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagespayload-auditor
ecosystemsnpm
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish9

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

74Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 3 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — eslint.config.mjs
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
16/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 21 out of 25 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 8
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://www.npmjs.com/package/payload-auditor
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 7 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsauditor, payload, payload-cms, payload-plugin, payloadcms, security, cms
has_wikino
homepagehttps://www.npmjs.com/package/payload-auditor
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

25At Risk · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
2/2.5CI-Tests — 21 out of 25 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 8
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-Review — Found 2/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0.8/2.5Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
4.5/7.5Maintained — 8 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 6
0/5Packaging — no data
1/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 2
0/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — no data
0/7.5Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0/7.5Vulnerabilities — 33 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate3.1
high_risk_jurisdiction_cap34
high_risk_jurisdiction_multiplier20
security_posture_after_multiplier6
security_posture_before_jurisdiction31
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): packaging, signed_releases. Remaining weights renormalized. High-Risk Jurisdiction Policy applies a 20% multiplier and gives Security posture an At risk ceiling of 34.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories0
affected_packages0
assessed_packages2
unassessed_packages37
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 2 resolved dependencies against OSV. 37 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.

53Moderate · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history — 98 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
legible_history_share0.98
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — eslint.config.mjs
11/11Static type checking — dev/tsconfig.json, tsconfig.json
0/10Reproducible environment
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
0/8Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
2/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 2
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configsdev/tsconfig.json, tsconfig.json
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — TypeScript (statically typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/47 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageTypeScript
largest_source_bytes12,722
source_files_sampled47
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

72GitHub stars
4contributors
49commits, last 12 months
9days since last push
24releases
1bus factor
1open issues
npmpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 6 ⇿
0Stars
6Forks
15Releases

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.

123456612025-052025-102026-04
Major 0Minor 7Patch 8
OpenSSF Scorecard 3.1 / 10
3.1aggregate

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 · 2026-08-02 15:01 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
8CI-Tests21 out of 25 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 8
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 2/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
3Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
6Maintained8 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 6
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
2Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 2
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0Vulnerabilities33 existing vulnerabilities detected
All dependencies 39

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 39 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
npm@antfu/eslint-config^9.1.0indirect
npm@commitlint/cli^21.2.1indirect
npm@commitlint/config-conventional^21.2.0indirect
npm@eslint-react/eslint-plugin^5.17.1indirect
npm@next/eslint-plugin-next^16.2.10indirect
npm@payloadcms/db-mongodb^3.86.0indirect
npm@payloadcms/next^3.86.0indirect
npm@payloadcms/richtext-lexical^3.86.0indirect
npm@payloadcms/translations^3.86.0indirect
npm@payloadcms/ui^3.86.0indirect
npm@release-it/conventional-changelog^11.0.1indirect
npm@swc-node/register^1.12.1indirect
npm@swc/cli^0.8.1indirect
npm@swc/core^1.15.43indirect
npm@types/node^26.1.1indirect
npm@types/react^19.2.17indirect
npm@types/react-dom^19.2.3indirect
npm@typescript/native-preview^7.0.0-dev.20260707.2indirect
npmconventional-changelog-conventionalcommits^10.2.1indirect
npmcopyfiles2.4.1indirect
npmcross-env^10.1.0indirect
npmcz-git^1.13.1indirect
npmeslint^10.7.0indirect
npmeslint-plugin-perfectionist^5.10.0indirect
npmeslint-plugin-react-hooks^7.1.1indirect
npmeslint-plugin-react-refresh^0.5.3indirect
npmgraphql^17.0.2indirect
npmlefthook^2.1.10indirect
npmnext^16.2.10indirect
npmpayload^3.86.0indirect
npmpayload-auditor^2.0.0indirect
npmreact^19.2.7indirect
npmreact-dom^19.2.7indirect
npmrelease-it^20.2.1indirect
npmrimraf^6.1.3indirect
npmsharp^0.35.3indirect
npmtype-fest^5.8.0indirect
npmtypescript6indirect
npmvitest^4.1.10indirect
Dependency advisories 0

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 2 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct. 37 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

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 v2.5.0, schema v0.27.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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