Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-15 03:26 UTC

transformstudios / statamic-review

Share Statamic draft and revision previews with collaborators using review links. No logins required. Let stakeholders preview unpublished content instantly.

PHP · Vue · JavaScriptNo license detected★ 5 stars⑂ 1 forksince Dec 2020View on GitHub ↗

transformstudios/statamic-review holds a health index of 39 out of 100, placing it in the Weak band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (59/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (24/100). It was last updated 14 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

39
overall / 100
Weak

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.

39
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 43 is calibrated to 39 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Transform StudiosOrganization
2 followers8 public repossince Apr 2017

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
Packagisttransformstudios/reviewv6.0.01,90740185 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

51Moderate · 21% of overall
How it's scored
28.8/36Push recencylast push 14 days ago
2.8/36Commit cadence4/52 weeks with commits
11.3/18Commit volume17 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_year17
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push14
active_weeks_last_year4
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases36 releases published
16.2/36Release recencylatest release 185 days ago
19.8/27Release cadencea release every ~111.3 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count36
latest_release_tagv6.0.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release185
mean_days_between_releases111.3

Community & Adoption

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

24At Risk · 17% of overall
How it's scored
9.8/60Stars5 stars
0/25Forks1 forks
0/15Watchers2 watchers
Inputs used
forks1
stars5
watchers2
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
0/22.5Licenseno license file detected
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseno
readme_badges0
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
43.7/80Monthly downloads1,907 downloads/month across packagist
0/20Registry dependents0 packages depend on it
Inputs used
packagestransformstudios/review
dependents0
ecosystemspackagist
total_downloads60,839
monthly_downloads1,907
unverified_packages_excluded

Sustainability & Governance

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

59Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
1.6/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 93% of commits
8.1/13.5Contributor breadth6 contributors
6/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled6
top_contributor_share0.927
How it's scored
40.3/42Issue resolution96% of issues closed
28.7/30PR acceptance43/45 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
1.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 5/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
Inputs used
merged_prs43
open_issues1
closed_issues24
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio0.96
closed_unmerged_prs2
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
30/30Ownership backingorganization-owned
0/20Verified domain
3.4/25Owner reach2 followers of transformstudios
18.9/25Track record8 public repos, account ~9 yr old
Inputs used
followers2
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_logintransformstudios
public_repos8
account_age_days3,426
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable1 package(s) on packagist
26/35Publish recencylatest publish 185 days ago
20/20Version history40 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagestransformstudios/review
ecosystemspackagist
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish185

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

48Weak · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows4 workflow(s)
0/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
12/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests11 out of 18 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsno
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage sitehttps://statamic.com/addons/transform/review
10/10Repository description
0/10Topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://statamic.com/addons/transform/review
docs_sitehttps://statamic.com/addons/transform/review
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

31At Risk · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
2.2/7.5Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
1.5/2.5CI-Tests11 out of 18 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 6
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0.8/7.5Code-ReviewFound 5/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
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
0/2.5Licenselicense file not 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-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0/7.5Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated17
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive1
scorecard_aggregate3.1
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging. 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.

24At Risk · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
15/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)llms.txt served by the project website (https://statamic.com/llms.txt)
24/40Legible commit history45 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtyes
llms_txt_urlhttps://statamic.com/llms.txt
legible_history_share0.45
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 100
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
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable codePHP without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes0/5 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePHP
largest_source_bytes1,511
source_files_sampled5
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

5GitHub stars
6contributors
17commits, last 12 months
14days since last push
36releases
1bus factor
1open issues
npm, 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

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 · 2026-09-15 03:25 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
3Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
6CI-Tests11 out of 18 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 6
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
1Code-ReviewFound 5/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
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
0Licenselicense file not 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
0Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 5
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Packagistpixelfear/composer-dist-plugin^0.1composer.json
Packagiststatamic/cms^6.0composer.json
npm@statamic/cmsfile:./vendor/statamic/cms/resources/dist-packagepackage.json
npm@tailwindcss/vite^4.1.18package.json
npmtailwindcss^4.1.18package.json
All dependencies 12

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 4 direct and 8 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
npm@tailwindcss/vite^4.1.18direct
npmtailwindcss^4.1.18direct
Packagistpixelfear/composer-dist-plugindirect
Packagiststatamic/cmsdirect
npmlaravel-vite-plugin^2.0indirect
npmvite^7.0indirect
Packagistmockery/mockeryindirect
Packagistnunomaduro/collisionindirect
Packagistorchestra/testbenchindirect
Packagistphpindirect
Packagistphpunit/phpunitindirect
Packagistspatie/laravel-rayindirect
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.