Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-12 04:38 UTC

wp-cli / scaffold-package-command

Scaffolds WP-CLI commands with functional tests, full README.md, and more.

Gherkin · PHP · MustacheMIT★ 70 stars⑂ 23 forkssince Mar 2016View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryCommand-line toolhow this is determined

wp-cli/scaffold-package-command holds a health index of 75 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Vitality (78/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (46/100). It was last updated 10 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

75
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.

75
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 65 is calibrated to 75 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/scaffold-package-commandv3.0.04,3881938 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

78Good · 21% of overall
How it's scored
28.8/36Push recency — last push 10 days ago
18/36Commit cadence — 26/52 weeks with commits
17.6/18Commit volume — 90 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 19 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year90
human_commit_share0.74
days_since_last_push10
active_weeks_last_year26
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 19 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 38 days ago
12.6/27Release cadence — a release every ~140.4 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count19
latest_release_tagv3.0.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release38
mean_days_between_releases140.4
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?

61Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
29.8/60Stars — 70 stars
11.2/25Forks — 23 forks
3.3/15Watchers — 5 watchers
Inputs used
forks23
stars70
watchers5
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_badges3
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateyes
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicescircleci.com, github.com, travis-ci.org
has_pull_request_templateyes
How it's scored
48.6/80Monthly downloads — 4,388 downloads/month across packagist
4.7/20Registry dependents — 4 packages depend on it
Inputs used
packageswp-cli/scaffold-package-command
dependents4
ecosystemspackagist
total_downloads163,340
monthly_downloads4,388
unverified_packages_excluded—

Sustainability & Governance

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

71Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
11.2/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 50% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 17 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 29 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled17
top_contributor_share0.501
How it's scored
42/42Issue resolution — 100% of issues closed
27.1/30PR acceptance — 200/221 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
1.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 3/19 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
Inputs used
merged_prs200
open_issues0
closed_issues80
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio1
closed_unmerged_prs21
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 — 19 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packageswp-cli/scaffold-package-command
ecosystemspackagist
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish38

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

49Weak · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 9 workflow(s)
0/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
18/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 12 out of 13 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9
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 — 8 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicswp-cli, wp-cli-package, wordpress, cli, scaffold, package, template, 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?

66Good · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — no data
2.2/2.5CI-Tests — 12 out of 13 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0.8/7.5Code-Review — Found 3/19 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 29 contributing companies or organizations
0/10Dangerous-Workflow — no data
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained — 19 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
0/7.5Vulnerabilities — 14 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated12
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive6
scorecard_aggregate5.7
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, 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 advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories15
affected_packages3
assessed_packages40
unassessed_packages5
affected_by_severitycritical 1, high 2
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 40 resolved dependencies against OSV. 5 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 — AGENTS.md
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
18/40Legible commit history — 25 of 74 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.338
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
10/10Reproducible environment — lockfile
8/10Demonstrated agent practice — 4 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
8/8Automated maintenance — 9 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — no data
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsno
lockfilespackage-lock.json
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0.04
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0.09
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 — 0/2 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageGherkin
largest_source_bytes35,592
source_files_sampled2
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

70GitHub stars
17contributors
90commits, last 12 months
10days since last push
19releases
1bus factor
0open issues
npm, Packagistpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • Could not fetch npm package 'scaffold-package-command' from its registry

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 23 ⇿
0Stars
23Forks
17Releases

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.

048121620242322016-032021-042026-05
Major 1Minor 7Patch 9

Each point covers 10 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.7 / 10
5.7aggregate

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 04:38 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
9CI-Tests12 out of 13 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
1Code-ReviewFound 3/19 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
10Contributorsproject has 29 contributing companies or organizations
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained19 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
0Vulnerabilities14 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 3
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Packagistwp-cli/package-command^2 || ^3composer.json
Packagistwp-cli/scaffold-command^2 || ^3composer.json
Packagistwp-cli/wp-cli^3.0composer.json
All dependencies 45

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 3 direct and 42 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
Packagistwp-cli/package-command—direct
Packagistwp-cli/scaffold-command—direct
Packagistwp-cli/wp-cli—direct
npm@protobufjs/aspromise1.1.2indirect
npm@protobufjs/base641.1.2indirect
npm@protobufjs/codegen2.0.4indirect
npm@protobufjs/eventemitter1.1.0indirect
npm@protobufjs/fetch1.1.0indirect
npm@protobufjs/float1.0.2indirect
npm@protobufjs/inquire1.1.0indirect
npm@protobufjs/path1.1.2indirect
npm@protobufjs/pool1.1.0indirect
npm@protobufjs/utf81.1.1indirect
npm@types/long4.0.2indirect
npm@types/node18.8.3indirect
npm@types/uuid3.4.10indirect
npmbalanced-match1.0.2indirect
npmbrace-expansion1.1.18indirect
npmbuffer-from1.1.2indirect
npmcommander11.0.0indirect
npmcommander4.1.1indirect
npmconcat-map0.0.1indirect
npmcore-js3.33.1indirect
npmcucumber-messages8.0.0indirect
npmfs.realpath1.0.0indirect
npmgherkin9.0.0indirect
npmgherkin-lint4.2.4indirect
npmglob7.1.6indirect
npminflight1.0.6indirect
npminherits2.0.4indirect
npmlodash4.17.21indirect
npmlong4.0.0indirect
npmminimatch3.1.5indirect
npmonce1.4.0indirect
npmpath-is-absolute1.0.1indirect
npmprotobufjs6.11.4indirect
npmsax1.2.4indirect
npmsource-map0.6.1indirect
npmsource-map-support0.5.21indirect
npmstrip-json-comments3.0.1indirect
npmuuid3.4.0indirect
npmwrappy1.0.2indirect
npmxml-js1.6.11indirect
Packagistphp—indirect
Packagistwp-cli/wp-cli-tests—indirect
Dependency advisories 3

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 40 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 3 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct. 5 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
protobufjs6.11.4indirectcritical118.6.0
lodash4.17.21indirecthigh34.18.0
uuid3.4.0indirecthigh113.0.1

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 v0.34.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

How one result sits in the wider record: aggregate statistics — Packagist.