Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-12 04:34 UTC

wp-cli / cache-command

Manages object and transient caches.

Gherkin · PHPMIT★ 16 stars⑂ 25 forkssince Apr 2017View on GitHub ↗

wp-cli/cache-command holds a health index of 71 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Vitality (77/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (35/100). It was last updated 10 days ago. 2 contributors account for most of its recent work.

71
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.

71
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 63 is calibrated to 71 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

WP-CLIOrganization
217 followers67 public repossince Mar 2012

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
Packagistwp-cli/cache-commandv3.0.0252,8842738 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

77Good · 21% of overall
How it's scored
28.8/36Push recency — last push 10 days ago
17.3/36Commit cadence — 25/52 weeks with commits
16.3/18Commit volume — 64 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 14 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year64
human_commit_share0.96
days_since_last_push10
active_weeks_last_year25
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 27 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 38 days ago
12.6/27Release cadence — a release every ~154.7 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count27
latest_release_tagv3.0.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release38
mean_days_between_releases154.7
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
19.1/60Stars — 16 stars
11.5/25Forks — 25 forks
1.7/15Watchers — 3 watchers
Inputs used
forks25
stars16
watchers3
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

85Excellent
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (MIT)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
7.2/7.2Issue template
6.3/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges2
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateyes
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicescodecov.io, github.com
has_pull_request_templateyes
How it's scored
72/80Monthly downloads — 252,884 downloads/month across packagist
5.6/20Registry dependents — 6 packages depend on it
Inputs used
packageswp-cli/cache-command
dependents6
ecosystemspackagist
total_downloads8,845,202
monthly_downloads252,884
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 factor — 2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
12.5/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 45% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 57 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 39 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor2
contributors_sampled57
top_contributor_share0.446
How it's scored
40.6/42Issue resolution — 97% of issues closed
26.8/30PR acceptance — 85/95 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/22 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs85
open_issues1
closed_issues29
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d2
prs_decided_30d2
issue_closed_ratio0.967
closed_unmerged_prs10
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 backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain
16.8/25Owner reach — 217 followers of wp-cli
25/25Track record — 67 public repos, account ~14 yr old
Inputs used
followers217
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_loginwp-cli
public_repos67
account_age_days5,284

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on packagist
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 38 days ago
20/20Version history — 27 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packageswp-cli/cache-command
ecosystemspackagist
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish38

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

46Weak · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 8 workflow(s)
0/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
14/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 5 out of 7 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 7
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsno
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

50Moderate
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 6 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicswp-cli, wp-cli-package, cache, wordpress, cli, hacktoberfest
has_wikino
homepage—
docs_site—
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

55Moderate · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — no data
1.8/2.5CI-Tests — 5 out of 7 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 7
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-Review — Found 0/22 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 39 contributing companies or organizations
0/10Dangerous-Workflow — no data
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained — 14 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packaging — no data
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — no data
0/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
5/5Security-Policy — security policy file detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — no data
0/7.5Token-Permissions — no data
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated12
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive6
scorecard_aggregate5.5
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.

35Weak · 4% of overall
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructions — AGENTS.md
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
12.2/40Legible commit history — 22 of 96 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.229
agent_instruction_filesAGENTS.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes9,646
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
0/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
0/11Static type checking
0/10Reproducible environment
4/10Demonstrated agent practice — 2 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
5/8Automated maintenance — dependency automation configured, none observed in the sampled commits
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — no data
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsno
lockfiles—
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0.02
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 code — Gherkin without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/3 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageGherkin
largest_source_bytes23,293
source_files_sampled3
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

16GitHub stars
57contributors
64commits, last 12 months
10days since last push
27releases
2bus factor
1open 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 ★ / 25 ⇿
0Stars
25Forks
24Releases

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.

05101520252522017-072021-122026-06
Major 1Minor 2Patch 21

Each point covers 9 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.5 / 10
5.5aggregate

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 · 2026-09-12 04:34 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
7CI-Tests5 out of 7 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 7
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 0/22 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
10Contributorsproject has 39 contributing companies or organizations
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained14 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 1
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Packagistwp-cli/wp-cli^3.0composer.json
All dependencies 3

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 1 direct and 2 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
Packagistwp-cli/wp-cli—direct
Packagistwp-cli/entity-command—indirect
Packagistwp-cli/wp-cli-tests—indirect
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 statistics — Packagist.