Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-05 17:48 UTC

wintercms / storm

The library powering Winter CMS

PHPMIT★ 50 stars⑂ 39 forkssince Mar 2021View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryNetwork serviceCommand-line toolhow this is determined

wintercms/storm holds a health index of 83 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (80/100) and lowest on Security (53/100). It was last updated 9 days ago. 2 contributors account for most of its recent work.

83
overall / 100
Excellent

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.

83
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 70 is calibrated to 83 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Winter CMSOrganization · verified domain
223 followers78 public repossince Mar 2021

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
Packagistwinter/stormv1.2.148,95418716 days agocmsstormwinter

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

71Good · 21% of overall
How it's scored
28.8/36Push recencylast push 9 days ago
13.2/36Commit cadence19/52 weeks with commits
13/18Commit volume27 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained12 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year27
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push9
active_weeks_last_year19
How it's scored
16.2/27Ships releases100 version tags (no GitHub releases)
36/36Release recencylatest release 16 days ago
19.8/27Release cadencea release every ~99 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count100
latest_release_tagv1.2.14
releases_from_tagsyes
days_since_latest_release16
mean_days_between_releases99
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?

65Good · 17% of overall
How it's scored
27.4/60Stars50 stars
13.2/25Forks39 forks
3.9/15Watchers6 watchers
Inputs used
forks39
stars50
watchers6
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

92Excellent
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (MIT)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
6.3/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges3
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_servicesshields.io
has_pull_request_templateyes
How it's scored
52.7/80Monthly downloads8,954 downloads/month across packagist
7.6/20Registry dependents13 packages depend on it
Inputs used
packageswinter/storm
dependents13
ecosystemspackagist
total_downloads271,197
monthly_downloads8,954
unverified_packages_excluded

Sustainability & Governance

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

76Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
25.2/54Bus factor2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
11.9/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 47% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth100 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 35 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor2
contributors_sampled100
top_contributor_share0.47
How it's scored
0/42Issue resolutionno issues or no data
22.1/30PR acceptance172/233 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
4.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 9/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
merged_prs172
open_issues0
closed_issues0
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d4
prs_decided_30d4
issue_closed_ratio
closed_unmerged_prs61
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
16.9/25Owner reach223 followers of wintercms
24/25Track record78 public repos, account ~5 yr old
Inputs used
followers223
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedyes
owner_loginwintercms
public_repos78
account_age_days2,011

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable1 package(s) on packagist
35/35Publish recencylatest publish 16 days ago
20/20Version history187 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packageswinter/storm
ecosystemspackagist
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish16

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

80Excellent · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows4 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter configphpstan.neon
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests13 out of 13 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage sitehttps://wintercms.com
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics1 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicshacktoberfest
has_wikino
homepagehttps://wintercms.com
docs_sitehttps://wintercms.com
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

53Moderate · 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
2.5/2.5CI-Tests13 out of 13 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
2.2/7.5Code-ReviewFound 9/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 3
2.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 35 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
7.5/7.5Maintained12 commit(s) and 0 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
5/5Security-Policysecurity policy file 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_aggregate5.3
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): 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.

61Moderate · 4% of overall
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructionsAGENTS.md
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
23.5/40Legible commit history44 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.44
agent_instruction_filesAGENTS.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes9,211
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format configphpstan.neon
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environmentdevcontainer, Dockerfile
10/10Demonstrated agent practice6 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_testsyes
lockfiles
has_dockerfileyes
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files
has_devcontaineryes
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share0.06
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 sizes0/445 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePHP
largest_source_bytes44,760
source_files_sampled445
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

50GitHub stars
100contributors
27commits, last 12 months
9days since last push
100releases
2bus factor
0open 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 ★ / 39 ⇿
0Stars
39Forks
30Releases

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.

0102030403822021-032023-122026-08
Major 0Minor 1Patch 29

Each point covers 5 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.3 / 10
5.3aggregate

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 · 2026-09-05 17:47 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
10CI-Tests13 out of 13 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
3Code-ReviewFound 9/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 3
10Contributorsproject has 35 contributing companies or organizations
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained12 commit(s) and 0 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
10Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
n/aToken-PermissionsNo tokens found
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 15
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Packagistassetic/framework^3.2.2composer.json
Packagistdoctrine/dbal^2.6composer.json
Packagistenshrined/svg-sanitize~0.16composer.json
Packagistlaravel/framework^9.49composer.json
Packagistlaravel/tinker^2.7composer.json
Packagistleague/csv~9.1composer.json
Packagistnesbot/carbon^2.0composer.json
Packagistnikic/php-parser^5.7composer.json
Packagistscssphp/scssphp~1.0composer.json
Packagistsymfony/console^6.4composer.json
Packagistsymfony/yaml^6.0composer.json
Packagisttwig/twig^3.14composer.json
Packagistwikimedia/less.php^5.0composer.json
Packagistwikimedia/minify~2.2composer.json
Packagistwinter/laravel-config-writer^1.0.1composer.json
All dependencies 35

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 15 direct and 20 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
Packagistassetic/frameworkdirect
Packagistdoctrine/dbaldirect
Packagistenshrined/svg-sanitizedirect
Packagistlaravel/frameworkdirect
Packagistlaravel/tinkerdirect
Packagistleague/csvdirect
Packagistnesbot/carbondirect
Packagistnikic/php-parserdirect
Packagistscssphp/scssphpdirect
Packagistsymfony/consoledirect
Packagistsymfony/yamldirect
Packagisttwig/twigdirect
Packagistwikimedia/less.phpdirect
Packagistwikimedia/minifydirect
Packagistwinter/laravel-config-writerdirect
Packagistdms/phpunit-arraysubset-assertsindirect
Packagistext-ctypeindirect
Packagistext-curlindirect
Packagistext-domindirect
Packagistext-fileinfoindirect
Packagistext-gdindirect
Packagistext-jsonindirect
Packagistext-libxmlindirect
Packagistext-mbstringindirect
Packagistext-opensslindirect
Packagistext-pdoindirect
Packagistext-zipindirect
Packagistlarastan/larastanindirect
Packagistmeyfa/phpunit-assert-gdindirect
Packagistmockery/mockeryindirect
Packagistorchestra/testbenchindirect
Packagistphpindirect
Packagistphp-parallel-lint/php-parallel-lintindirect
Packagistphpunit/phpunitindirect
Packagistsquizlabs/php_codesnifferindirect
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.