Public record
Software health reportschema 0.11.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-16 10:02 UTC

xperseguers / t3ext-ig_ldap_sso_auth

TYPO3 Extension ig_ldap_sso_auth. This extension provides LDAP and SSO support for TYPO3.

PHPGPL-3.0★ 32 stars⑂ 82 forkssince Jan 2018View on GitHub ↗

xperseguers/t3ext-ig_ldap_sso_auth holds a health index of 57 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (61/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (25/100). It was last updated 17 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

57
overall / 100
Moderate

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.

57
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 55 is calibrated to 57 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Xavier PerseguersPersonal account
38 followers109 public repossince Mar 2011Causal Sàrl

This repository is owned by a personal account. A single-owner project carries more continuity risk than an organization-backed one.

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
Packagistcausal/ig_ldap_sso_auth4.2.05,64727281 days agoauthenticationldapactive-directorytypo3-cmsopenldap

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

57Moderate · 21% of overall
How it's scored
28.8/36Push recencylast push 17 days ago
7.6/36Commit cadence11/52 weeks with commits
14.7/18Commit volume42 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained9 commit(s) and 3 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year42
human_commit_share
days_since_last_push17
active_weeks_last_year11
How it's scored
16.2/27Ships releases41 version tags (no GitHub releases)
16.2/36Release recencylatest release 281 days ago
12.6/27Release cadencea release every ~206.2 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count41
latest_release_tag4.2.0
releases_from_tagsyes
days_since_latest_release281
mean_days_between_releases206.2
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?

60Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
24.2/60Stars32 stars
15.9/25Forks82 forks
3.9/15Watchers6 watchers
Inputs used
forks82
stars32
watchers6
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 (GPL-3.0)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_services
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
50/80Monthly downloads5,647 downloads/month across packagist
2/20Registry dependents1 packages depend on it
Inputs used
packagescausal/ig_ldap_sso_auth
dependents1
ecosystemspackagist
total_downloads396,822
monthly_downloads5,647
unverified_packages_excluded

Sustainability & Governance

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

61Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
2.9/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 87% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth53 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled53
top_contributor_share0.871
How it's scored
39.9/42Issue resolution95% of issues closed
19/30PR acceptance59/93 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
3/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 6/24 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
Inputs used
merged_prs59
open_issues10
closed_issues187
prs_merged_7d
prs_decided_7d
prs_merged_30d
prs_decided_30d
issue_closed_ratio0.949
closed_unmerged_prs34
first_time_authors_30d
first_time_prs_merged_30d
first_time_prs_decided_30d
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backingpersonal (user) account
0/20Verified domainnot applicable to user accounts
11.4/25Owner reach38 followers of xperseguers
25/25Track record109 public repos, account ~15 yr old
Inputs used
followers38
owner_typeUser
is_verified
owner_loginxperseguers
public_repos109
account_age_days5,614
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable1 package(s) on packagist
26/35Publish recencylatest publish 281 days ago
20/20Version history27 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagescausal/ig_ldap_sso_auth
ecosystemspackagist
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish281

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

54Moderate · 19% of overall
How it's scored
0/24CI workflows
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests0 out of 7 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_cino
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

90Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage sitehttps://extensions.typo3.org/extension/ig_ldap_sso_auth
10/10Repository description
0/10Topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://extensions.typo3.org/extension/ig_ldap_sso_auth
docs_sitehttps://extensions.typo3.org/extension/ig_ldap_sso_auth
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

46Weak · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protectionno data
0/2.5CI-Tests0 out of 7 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
1.5/7.5Code-ReviewFound 6/24 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
2.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
0/10Dangerous-Workflowno data
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5Licenselicense file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained9 commit(s) and 3 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
0/5Security-Policysecurity policy file not 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_aggregate4.6
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.

25At Risk · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
0/40Legible commit historyno data
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Legible commit history. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
0/11Static type checking
0/10Reproducible environment
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno data
0/8Automated maintenanceno data
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_share
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Demonstrated agent practice, Automated maintenance, OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable codePHP without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes0/75 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePHP
largest_source_bytes39,060
source_files_sampled75
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

32GitHub stars
53contributors
42commits, last 12 months
17days since last push
41releases
1bus factor
10open issues
Packagistpackage ecosystems

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.6 / 10
4.6aggregate

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 · 2026-07-16 10:02 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
0CI-Tests0 out of 7 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
2Code-ReviewFound 6/24 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
10Contributorsproject has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained9 commit(s) and 3 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
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
n/aToken-PermissionsNo tokens found
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 1
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Packagisttypo3/cms-core^12 || ^13 || ^14composer.json
All dependencies 4

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 1 direct and 3 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
Packagisttypo3/cms-coredirect
Packagistext-jsonindirect
Packagistext-ldapindirect
Packagistphpindirect
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 v0.11.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

How one result sits in the wider record: aggregate statisticsPackagist.