Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-17 01:41 UTC

ActiveCampaign / postmark-php

The official PHP library for Postmark.

PHPMIT★ 176 stars⑂ 65 forkssince Dec 2014View on GitHub ↗

ActiveCampaign/postmark-php holds a health index of 45 out of 100, placing it in the Weak band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (70/100) and lowest on Security (31/100). It was last updated 15 days ago. 2 contributors account for most of its recent work.

45
overall / 100
Weak

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.

45
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 52 is calibrated to 53 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

ActiveCampaignOrganization
77 followers88 public repossince Jan 2011

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
Packagistwildbit/postmark-phpv7.0.0299,18644432 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

43Weak · 21% of overall
How it's scored
28.8/36Push recency — last push 15 days ago
0.7/36Commit cadence — 1/52 weeks with commits
2.7/18Commit volume — 1 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
commits_last_year1
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push15
active_weeks_last_year1
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 44 releases published
7.2/36Release recency — latest release 432 days ago
19.8/27Release cadence — a release every ~64 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count44
latest_release_tagv7.0.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release432
mean_days_between_releases64
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
36.4/60Stars — 176 stars
15.1/25Forks — 65 forks
6/15Watchers — 13 watchers
Inputs used
forks65
stars176
watchers13
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (MIT)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges1
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicescircleci.com
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
73/80Monthly downloads — 299,186 downloads/month across packagist
11.4/20Registry dependents — 50 packages depend on it
Inputs used
packageswildbit/postmark-php
dependents50
ecosystemspackagist
total_downloads10,971,275
monthly_downloads299,186
unverified_packages_excluded—

Sustainability & Governance

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

70Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
25.2/54Bus factor — 2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
13.7/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 39% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 28 contributors
6/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
bus_factor2
contributors_sampled28
top_contributor_share0.393
How it's scored
41/42Issue resolution — 98% of issues closed
21.5/30PR acceptance — 58/81 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
6/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 10/24 approved changesets -- score normalized to 4
Inputs used
merged_prs58
open_issues2
closed_issues82
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio0.976
closed_unmerged_prs23
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
13.6/25Owner reach — 77 followers of ActiveCampaign
25/25Track record — 88 public repos, account ~15 yr old
Inputs used
followers77
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_loginActiveCampaign
public_repos88
account_age_days5,725
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on packagist
14/35Publish recency — latest publish 432 days ago
20/20Version history — 44 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packageswildbit/postmark-php
ecosystemspackagist
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish432

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

54Moderate · 19% of overall
How it's scored
0/24CI workflows
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — .php-cs-fixer.dist.php, phpstan.neon
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 0 out of 16 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_cino
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://postmarkapp.com
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 5 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicspostmark, postmark-integrations, email, mail, sdk
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://postmarkapp.com
docs_sitehttps://postmarkapp.com
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

31At Risk · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0/2.5CI-Tests — 0 out of 16 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
3/7.5Code-Review — Found 10/24 approved changesets -- score normalized to 4
1.5/2.5Contributors — project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
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
0/7.5Maintained — 0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
0/5Packaging — no data
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — no data
0/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5Security-Policy — security policy file not 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_evaluated13
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive5
scorecard_aggregate3.1
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): 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.

40Weak · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
15/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) — llms.txt served by the project website (https://postmarkapp.com/llms.txt)
22.9/40Legible commit history — 43 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtyes
llms_txt_urlhttps://postmarkapp.com/llms.txt
legible_history_share0.43
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — .php-cs-fixer.dist.php, phpstan.neon
0/11Static type checking
0/10Reproducible environment
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
0/8Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — no data
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles—
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0
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 — PHP without a type-check config
54.4/55Manageable file sizes — 1/95 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePHP
largest_source_bytes69,611
source_files_sampled95
oversized_source_files1

Key facts

176GitHub stars
28contributors
1commits, last 12 months
15days since last push
44releases
2bus factor
2open 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 ★ / 65 ⇿
0Stars
65Forks
40Releases

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.

013253850636222015-062021-012026-07
Major 6Minor 14Patch 20

Each point covers 11 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 3.1 / 10
3.1aggregate

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 · 2026-09-17 01:41 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0CI-Tests0 out of 16 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
4Code-ReviewFound 10/24 approved changesets -- score normalized to 4
6Contributorsproject has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
0Maintained0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
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
Packagistguzzlehttp/guzzle^7.8composer.json
All dependencies 5

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 1 direct and 4 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
Packagistguzzlehttp/guzzle—direct
Packagistfriendsofphp/php-cs-fixer—indirect
Packagistphp—indirect
Packagistphpstan/phpstan—indirect
Packagistphpunit/phpunit—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.