Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-22 13:31 UTC

wp-cli / db-command

Performs basic database operations using credentials stored in wp-config.php.

PHP · GherkinMIT★ 76 stars⑂ 73 forkssince Mar 2017View on GitHub ↗

wp-cli/db-command holds a health index of 83 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Vitality (82/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (49/100). It was last updated 8 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

WP-CLIOrganization
216 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/db-commandv3.0.1266,864518 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

82Excellent · 21% of overall
How it's scored
28.8/36Push recencylast push 8 days ago
18.7/36Commit cadence27/52 weeks with commits
17.6/18Commit volume89 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained30 commit(s) and 8 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year89
human_commit_share0.91
days_since_last_push8
active_weeks_last_year27
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases51 releases published
36/36Release recencylatest release 8 days ago
19.8/27Release cadencea release every ~108.9 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count51
latest_release_tagv3.0.1
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release8
mean_days_between_releases108.9
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?

70Good · 17% of overall
How it's scored
30.4/60Stars76 stars
15.5/25Forks73 forks
3.3/15Watchers5 watchers
Inputs used
forks73
stars76
watchers5
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

85Excellent
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized 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
72.4/80Monthly downloads266,864 downloads/month across packagist
9.8/20Registry dependents29 packages depend on it
Inputs used
packageswp-cli/db-command
dependents29
ecosystemspackagist
total_downloads9,186,464
monthly_downloads266,864
unverified_packages_excluded

Sustainability & Governance

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

74Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
25.2/54Bus factor2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
14.2/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 37% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth85 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 48 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor2
contributors_sampled85
top_contributor_share0.371
How it's scored
40/42Issue resolution95% of issues closed
25.6/30PR acceptance181/212 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance0/1 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
3/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 4/18 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
Inputs used
merged_prs181
open_issues6
closed_issues118
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d4
prs_decided_30d5
issue_closed_ratio0.952
closed_unmerged_prs31
first_time_authors_30d1
first_time_prs_merged_30d0
first_time_prs_decided_30d1
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backingorganization-owned
0/20Verified domain
16.8/25Owner reach216 followers of wp-cli
25/25Track record67 public repos, account ~14 yr old
Inputs used
followers216
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_loginwp-cli
public_repos67
account_age_days5,264

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable1 package(s) on packagist
35/35Publish recencylatest publish 8 days ago
20/20Version history51 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packageswp-cli/db-command
ecosystemspackagist
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish8

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

64Moderate · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows8 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests16 out of 16 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
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
10/10Topics8 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicswp-cli, wp-cli-package, wordpress, cli, db, mysql, mariadb, 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?

58Moderate · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protectionno data
2.5/2.5CI-Tests16 out of 16 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
1.5/7.5Code-ReviewFound 4/18 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
2.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 48 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
7.5/7.5Maintained30 commit(s) and 8 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_evaluated12
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive6
scorecard_aggregate5.8
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.

49Weak · 4% of overall
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructionsAGENTS.md
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
19.9/40Legible commit history34 of 91 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.374
agent_instruction_filesAGENTS.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes8,684
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
0/11Static type checking
0/10Reproducible environment
10/10Demonstrated agent practice8 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
5/8Automated maintenancedependency automation configured, none observed in the sampled commits
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesno data
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share0.08
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
41.2/55Manageable file sizes1/4 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePHP
largest_source_bytes81,412
source_files_sampled4
oversized_source_files1

Key facts

76GitHub stars
85contributors
89commits, last 12 months
8days since last push
51releases
2bus factor
6open 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 ★ / 73 ⇿
0Stars
73Forks
48Releases

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.

01325385063757122017-042021-122026-07
Major 1Minor 4Patch 43

Each point covers 9 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.8 / 10
5.8aggregate

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 · 2026-08-22 13:31 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
10CI-Tests16 out of 16 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
2Code-ReviewFound 4/18 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
10Contributorsproject has 48 contributing companies or organizations
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 8 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-clidirect
Packagistwp-cli/entity-commandindirect
Packagistwp-cli/wp-cli-testsindirect
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.