Public record
Software health reportschema 0.32.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-20 00:46 UTC

sybrew / the-seo-framework

The SEO Framework plugin for WordPress

PHP · JavaScriptGPL-3.0★ 483 stars⑂ 64 forkssince Dec 2015View on GitHub ↗
KindPluginLibraryhow this is determined

sybrew/the-seo-framework holds a health index of 59 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Vitality (72/100) and lowest on Engineering Quality (39/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

59
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.

59
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 56 is calibrated to 59 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Sybre WaaijerPersonal account
117 followers19 public repossince May 2014CyberWire B.V., @theseoframework

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
Packagistsybrew/the-seo-framework5.1.42,31353252 days agopluginwordpressseo

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

72Good · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 0 days ago
11.1/36Commit cadence16/52 weeks with commits
15.6/18Commit volume53 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained9 commit(s) and 4 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year53
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year16
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases64 releases published
16.2/36Release recencylatest release 252 days ago
19.8/27Release cadencea release every ~81.7 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count64
latest_release_tag5.1.4
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release252
mean_days_between_releases81.7
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?

62Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
43.5/60Stars483 stars
15/25Forks64 forks
7.4/15Watchers22 watchers
Inputs used
forks64
stars483
watchers22
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (GPL-3.0)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges3
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesshields.io
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
44.9/80Monthly downloads2,313 downloads/month across packagist
0/20Registry dependents0 packages depend on it
Inputs used
packagessybrew/the-seo-framework
dependents0
ecosystemspackagist
total_downloads87,599
monthly_downloads2,313
unverified_packages_excluded

Sustainability & Governance

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

56Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0.6/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 97% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth12 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 8 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled12
top_contributor_share0.974
How it's scored
33.7/42Issue resolution80% of issues closed
18.8/30PR acceptance27/43 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance0/1 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 2/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs27
open_issues141
closed_issues573
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d1
issue_closed_ratio0.803
closed_unmerged_prs16
first_time_authors_30d1
first_time_prs_merged_30d0
first_time_prs_decided_30d1
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backingpersonal (user) account
0/20Verified domainnot applicable to user accounts
14.9/25Owner reach117 followers of sybrew
21.5/25Track record19 public repos, account ~12 yr old
Inputs used
followers117
owner_typeUser
is_verified
owner_loginsybrew
public_repos19
account_age_days4,473
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable1 package(s) on packagist
26/35Publish recencylatest publish 252 days ago
20/20Version history53 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagessybrew/the-seo-framework
ecosystemspackagist
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish252

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

39Weak · 19% of overall
How it's scored
0/24CI workflows
0/24Tests present
16/16Linter configphpcs.xml
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests0 out of 2 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_cino
has_testsno
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage sitehttps://theseoframework.com/
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics11 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicswordpress-plugin, php, seo, framework, metadata, api, opengraph, schema-org, xml-sitemap, wordpress, twitter
has_wikino
homepagehttps://theseoframework.com/
docs_sitehttps://theseoframework.com/
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

51Moderate · 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-Tests0 out of 2 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
0/7.5Code-ReviewFound 2/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
2.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 8 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
7.5/7.5Maintained9 commit(s) and 4 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
0/7.5Signed-Releasesno data
0/7.5Token-Permissionsno data
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated13
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive5
scorecard_aggregate3.9
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Dangerous-Workflow, Packaging, Pinned-Dependencies, Signed-Releases, Token-Permissions. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisoriesno direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisoriestransitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40No advisories left outstandingno advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories0
affected_packages0
assessed_packages4
unassessed_packages2
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 4 resolved dependencies against OSV. 2 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.

46Weak · 4% of overall
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructions.cursor/rules/core.mdc, .cursor/rules/css.mdc, .cursor/rules/docs.mdc, .cursor/rules/javascript.mdc, .cursor/rules/local.mdc, .cursor/rules/php.mdc, .github/copilot-instructions.md, .github/instructions/css.instructions.md, .github/instructions/docs.instructions.md, .github/instructions/javascript.instructions.md, .github/instructions/local.instructions.md, .github/instructions/php.instructions.md
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
25.6/40Legible commit history48 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.48
agent_instruction_files.cursor/rules/core.mdc, .cursor/rules/css.mdc, .cursor/rules/docs.mdc, .cursor/rules/javascript.mdc, .cursor/rules/local.mdc, .cursor/rules/php.mdc, .github/copilot-instructions.md, .github/instructions/css.instructions.md, .github/instructions/docs.instructions.md, .github/instructions/javascript.instructions.md, .github/instructions/local.instructions.md, .github/instructions/php.instructions.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes8,078
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
0/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format configphpcs.xml
0/11Static type checking
0/10Reproducible environment
10/10Demonstrated agent practice7 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
0/8Automated maintenanceno automated dependency updates observed
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_share0.07
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
54.8/55Manageable file sizes1/309 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePHP
largest_source_bytes69,207
source_files_sampled309
oversized_source_files1

Key facts

483GitHub stars
12contributors
53commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
64releases
1bus factor
141open issues
Packagistpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

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

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 64 ⇿
0Stars
64Forks
60Releases

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.

01325385063756332016-052021-062026-07
Major 3Minor 7Patch 47

Each point covers 10 days.

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 · 2026-08-20 00:46 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0CI-Tests0 out of 2 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 2/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
10Contributorsproject has 8 contributing companies or organizations
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained9 commit(s) and 4 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
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
n/aToken-PermissionsNo tokens found
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
All dependencies 6

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 6 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
Packagistcomposer/installersindirect
Packagistdealerdirect/phpcodesniffer-composer-installer1.0.0indirect
Packagistphpindirect
Packagistphpcompatibility/phpcompatibility-wp2.1.4indirect
Packagistsirbrillig/phpcs-variable-analysis2.11.16indirect
Packagisttheseoframework/wpcs-tsf1.2.0indirect
Dependency advisories 0

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 4 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct. 2 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

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 v0.32.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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