Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-18 01:37 UTC

silverstripe / recipe-testing

Standard testing dev components for Silverstripe framework and CMS

BSD-3-Clause★ 1 star⑂ 2 forkssince Mar 2018forkView on GitHub ↗

silverstripe/recipe-testing holds a health index of 30 out of 100, placing it in the At Risk band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (73/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (10/100). It was last updated 406 days ago. 2 contributors account for most of its recent work.

30
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.

30
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 36 is calibrated to 30 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Silverstripe CMSOrganization · verified domain
109 followers239 public repossince Aug 2010

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
Packagistsilverstripe/recipe-testing4.0.06,94710455 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

21At Risk · 21% of overall
How it's scored
0/36Push recencylast push 406 days ago
0/36Commit cadence0/52 weeks with commits
0/18Commit volume0 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
commits_last_year0
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push406
active_weeks_last_year0
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases9 releases published
7.2/36Release recencylatest release 452 days ago
12.6/27Release cadencea release every ~328.7 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count9
latest_release_tag4.0.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release452
mean_days_between_releases328.7
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?

25At Risk · 17% of overall
How it's scored
0/60Stars1 stars
0/25Forks2 forks
0/15Watchers2 watchers
Inputs used
forks2
stars1
watchers2
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
0/22.5README
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_readmeno
has_licenseno
readme_badges1
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesgithub.com
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
51.2/80Monthly downloads6,947 downloads/month across packagist
14.2/20Registry dependents133 packages depend on it
Inputs used
packagessilverstripe/recipe-testing
dependents133
ecosystemspackagist
total_downloads518,126
monthly_downloads6,947
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
25.2/54Bus factor2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
12.1/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 46% of commits
9.5/13.5Contributor breadth7 contributors
6/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
bus_factor2
contributors_sampled7
top_contributor_share0.463
How it's scored
0/42Issue resolutionno issues or no data
24.2/30PR acceptance29/36 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
10.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 15/21 approved changesets -- score normalized to 7
Inputs used
merged_prs29
open_issues0
closed_issues0
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio
closed_unmerged_prs7
first_time_authors_30d0
first_time_prs_merged_30d0
first_time_prs_decided_30d0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Issue resolution, Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backingorganization-owned
20/20Verified domain
14.7/25Owner reach109 followers of silverstripe
25/25Track record239 public repos, account ~16 yr old
Inputs used
followers109
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedyes
owner_loginsilverstripe
public_repos239
account_age_days5,864
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable1 package(s) on packagist
14/35Publish recencylatest publish 455 days ago
20/20Version history10 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagessilverstripe/recipe-testing
ecosystemspackagist
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish455

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

22At Risk · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows3 workflow(s)
0/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests1 out of 15 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsno
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

10Critical
How it's scored
0/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
0/10Repository description
0/10Topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics
has_wikiyes
homepage
docs_site
has_readmeno
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionno

Security

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

39Weak · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
1.5/7.5Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
0/2.5CI-Tests1 out of 15 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
5.2/7.5Code-ReviewFound 15/21 approved changesets -- score normalized to 7
1.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
10/10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5Licenselicense file detected
0/7.5Maintained0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
0/5Packagingno data
0/5Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0/5SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releasesno data
0/7.5Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate3.9
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging, Signed-Releases. 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.

10Critical · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
21.5/40Legible commit history29 of 72 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.403
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
0/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
0/11Static type checking
0/10Reproducible environment
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno agent-authored commits among the last 72
0/8Automated maintenanceno automated dependency updates observed
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsno
lockfiles
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share0

Key facts

1GitHub stars
7contributors
0commits, last 12 months
406days since last push
9releases
2bus factor
0open issues
Packagistpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

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

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 2 ⇿
0Stars
2Forks

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.

111222212018-062018-072018-08
OpenSSF Scorecard 3.9 / 10
3.9aggregate

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 · 2026-09-18 01:37 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
2Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
0CI-Tests1 out of 15 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
7Code-ReviewFound 15/21 approved changesets -- score normalized to 7
6Contributorsproject has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
0Maintained0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
0Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
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
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 4
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Packagistsilverstripe/framework^6composer.json
Packagistsilverstripe/recipe-plugin^2composer.json
Packagistsilverstripe/behat-extension^6composer.json
Packagistsquizlabs/php_codesniffer^3.7composer.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
Packagistsilverstripe/behat-extensiondirect
Packagistsilverstripe/frameworkdirect
Packagistsilverstripe/recipe-plugindirect
Packagistsquizlabs/php_codesnifferdirect
Packagistphpindirect
Packagistphp-parallel-lint/php-parallel-lintindirect
Packagistphpunit/phpunitindirect
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.