Package Health/yannkost/craft-asset-cleaner

yannkost/craft-asset-cleaner

This is a young but actively maintained Craft CMS package with 12 releases in about 212 days, a recent release, stable versioning, no registry deprecation, and a repository pushed very recently. The artifact is substantial, documented, licensed via both a proprietary manifest declaration and LICENSE.md, and has a focused dependency profile without install-time scripts. The main concerns are that all recent repository commits come from one contributor, there are no tests in either the package or repository, and the repository has no security policy or automated security scanning. Overall, it appears usable to depend on, but the single-maintainer bus factor and limited verification infrastructure warrant monitoring and additional project-level testing.

Latest v1.5.1

Packagist

74%

Total Score

Maintainer Stability

Dependencies

100

Maturity

Supply Chain

Health Score Breakdown

Maintainers

Only one registry account, Yann Kost, has publish access. This is a modest publishing continuity risk, and it is not offset by organization ownership because the repository owner is identified as a user.

Package scaffolding

The package has a substantial README of 12,463 characters and a changelog, which support transparency, but neither the artifact nor repository contains tests. For a package performing asset cleanup and database-related scanning, the absence of visible tests is a genuine verification gap.

Project backing

The repository is owned by the user account yannkost rather than an organization, so there is no organization-level maintenance handoff or backing indicated by this signal.

Repo bus factor

One contributor made all 12 commits in the last three months, producing a top-contributor share of 1.0. With user-owned rather than organization-owned backing, this is a real bus-factor concern despite the recent activity.

Repo issue activity

The repository has one open issue, received one new issue in the last month, and closed no issues or pull requests during that period. This is a small caution about support responsiveness, but the limited issue volume prevents treating it as severe.