Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-08 07:36 UTC

sulu / SuluAutomationBundle

PHPMIT★ 18 stars⑂ 23 forkssince Feb 2017View on GitHub ↗

sulu/SuluAutomationBundle holds a health index of 75 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (87/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (40/100). It was last updated today. 3 contributors account for most of its recent work.

75
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.

75
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 65 is calibrated to 75 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Sulu CMSOrganization · verified domain
132 followers56 public repossince Oct 2013

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
Packagistsulu/automation-bundle3.0.13,981230 days agoautomationsulu

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

69Good · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 0 days ago
4.2/36Commit cadence6/52 weeks with commits
11.7/18Commit volume19 commits in the last year
2/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained1 commit(s) and 2 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 2
Inputs used
commits_last_year19
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year6
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases23 releases published
36/36Release recencylatest release 0 days ago
19.8/27Release cadencea release every ~91.1 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count23
latest_release_tag3.0.1
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release0
mean_days_between_releases91.1
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?

51Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
20/60Stars18 stars
11.2/25Forks23 forks
5/15Watchers9 watchers
Inputs used
forks23
stars18
watchers9
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
7.2/7.2Issue template
6.3/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges3
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateyes
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesshields.io
has_pull_request_templateyes
How it's scored
48/80Monthly downloads3,981 downloads/month across packagist
6.4/20Registry dependents8 packages depend on it
Inputs used
packagessulu/automation-bundle
dependents8
ecosystemspackagist
total_downloads311,268
monthly_downloads3,981
unverified_packages_excluded

Sustainability & Governance

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

87Excellent · 23% of overall
How it's scored
36/54Bus factor3 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
18/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 20% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth14 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 22 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor3
contributors_sampled14
top_contributor_share0.2
How it's scored
32/42Issue resolution76% of issues closed
28.4/30PR acceptance71/75 decided PRs merged
13/13Newcomer PR acceptance1/1 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
10.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 23/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 7
Inputs used
merged_prs71
open_issues5
closed_issues16
prs_merged_7d1
prs_decided_7d1
prs_merged_30d1
prs_decided_30d1
issue_closed_ratio0.762
closed_unmerged_prs4
first_time_authors_30d1
first_time_prs_merged_30d1
first_time_prs_decided_30d1
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backingorganization-owned
20/20Verified domain
15.3/25Owner reach132 followers of sulu
24.8/25Track record56 public repos, account ~12 yr old
Inputs used
followers132
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedyes
owner_loginsulu
public_repos56
account_age_days4,707

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable1 package(s) on packagist
35/35Publish recencylatest publish 0 days ago
20/20Version history23 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagessulu/automation-bundle
ecosystemspackagist
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish0

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

68Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows2 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config.php-cs-fixer.dist.php, phpstan.neon
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
10/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests14 out of 25 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 5
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

50Moderate
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
0/10Repository description
10/10Topics4 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsphp, sulu, sulu-bundle, hacktoberfest
has_wikiyes
homepage
docs_site
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionno

Security

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

45Weak · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protectionno data
1.2/2.5CI-Tests14 out of 25 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 5
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
5.2/7.5Code-ReviewFound 23/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 7
2.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 22 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
1.5/7.5Maintained1 commit(s) and 2 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 2
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
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_aggregate4.5
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, 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.

40Weak · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
36.3/40Legible commit history68 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.68
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config.php-cs-fixer.dist.php, phpstan.neon
0/11Static type checking
0/10Reproducible environment
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno agent-authored commits among the last 100
0/8Automated maintenanceno automated dependency updates observed
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesno data
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share0
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 sizes0/55 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePHP
largest_source_bytes16,551
source_files_sampled55
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

18GitHub stars
14contributors
19commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
23releases
3bus factor
5open issues
Packagistpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

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

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 23 ⇿
0Stars
23Forks
20Releases

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.

048121620242322017-022021-112026-08
Major 3Minor 4Patch 8

Each point covers 9 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.5 / 10
4.5aggregate

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 · 2026-09-08 07:36 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
n/aBranch-Protectioninternal error: error during branchesHandler.setup: internal error: some github tokens can't read classic branch protection rules: https://github.com/ossf/scorecard-action/blob/main/docs/authentication/fine-grained-auth-token.md
5CI-Tests14 out of 25 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 5
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
7Code-ReviewFound 23/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 7
10Contributorsproject has 22 contributing companies or organizations
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
2Maintained1 commit(s) and 2 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 2
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
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
n/aToken-PermissionsNo tokens found
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 10
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Packagistdoctrine/orm^2.17.3 || ^3.3composer.json
Packagistfriendsofsymfony/rest-bundle^2.5 || ^3.0composer.json
Packagistjms/serializer-bundle^3.0 || ^4.0 || ^5.0composer.json
Packagistsulu/sulu^3.0composer.json
Packagistsymfony/config^6.4 || ^7.1 || ^8.0composer.json
Packagistsymfony/dependency-injection^6.4 || ^7.1 || ^8.0composer.json
Packagistsymfony/deprecation-contracts^2.5 || ^3.0composer.json
Packagistsymfony/http-foundation^6.4 || ^7.1 || ^8.0composer.json
Packagistsymfony/http-kernel^6.4 || ^7.1 || ^8.0composer.json
Packagistsymfony/uid^6.4 || ^7.1 || ^8.0composer.json
All dependencies 28

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 10 direct and 18 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
Packagistdoctrine/ormdirect
Packagistfriendsofsymfony/rest-bundledirect
Packagistjms/serializer-bundledirect
Packagistsulu/suludirect
Packagistsymfony/configdirect
Packagistsymfony/dependency-injectiondirect
Packagistsymfony/deprecation-contractsdirect
Packagistsymfony/http-foundationdirect
Packagistsymfony/http-kerneldirect
Packagistsymfony/uiddirect
Packagistjangregor/phpstan-prophecyindirect
Packagistphpindirect
Packagistphp-cs-fixer/shimindirect
Packagistphp-task/php-taskindirect
Packagistphp-task/task-bundleindirect
Packagistphpspec/prophecyindirect
Packagistphpspec/prophecy-phpunitindirect
Packagistphpstan/phpstanindirect
Packagistphpstan/phpstan-doctrineindirect
Packagistphpstan/phpstan-phpunitindirect
Packagistphpstan/phpstan-symfonyindirect
Packagistphpunit/phpunitindirect
Packagistsymfony/browser-kitindirect
Packagistsymfony/dotenvindirect
Packagistsymfony/monolog-bundleindirect
Packagistsymfony/security-bundleindirect
Packagistsymfony/stopwatchindirect
Packagistthecodingmachine/phpstan-strict-rulesindirect
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.