Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-12 16:16 UTC

DeepL / deepl-php

Official PHP library for the DeepL language translation API.

PHPMIT★ 258 stars⑂ 31 forkssince Mar 2022View on GitHub ↗

DeepL/deepl-php holds a health index of 83 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Vitality (78/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (48/100). It was last updated 17 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

DeepLOrganization · verified domain
1,528 followers35 public repossince Apr 2021

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
Packagistdeeplcom/deepl-phpv1.20.0430,5603331 days agotranslationapitranslatordeepl

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 17 days ago
15.2/36Commit cadence — 22/52 weeks with commits
14.6/18Commit volume — 41 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 12 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year41
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push17
active_weeks_last_year22
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 31 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 31 days ago
19.8/27Release cadence — a release every ~63.5 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count31
latest_release_tagv1.20.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release31
mean_days_between_releases63.5
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?

75Good · 17% of overall
How it's scored
39.1/60Stars — 258 stars
12.3/25Forks — 31 forks
6.5/15Watchers — 16 watchers
Inputs used
forks31
stars258
watchers16
growth_stateorganic
growth_factor_pct100

Community health

85Excellent
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (MIT)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges3
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_servicesshields.io
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
75.1/80Monthly downloads — 430,560 downloads/month across packagist
12.3/20Registry dependents — 70 packages depend on it
Inputs used
packagesdeeplcom/deepl-php
dependents70
ecosystemspackagist
total_downloads8,338,934
monthly_downloads430,560
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 factor — 2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
11.8/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 48% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 13 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
bus_factor2
contributors_sampled13
top_contributor_share0.475
How it's scored
26.8/42Issue resolution — 64% of issues closed
22.5/30PR acceptance — 12/16 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — 0/1 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs12
open_issues22
closed_issues39
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d1
issue_closed_ratio0.639
closed_unmerged_prs4
first_time_authors_30d1
first_time_prs_merged_30d0
first_time_prs_decided_30d1
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
20/20Verified domain
22.9/25Owner reach — 1,528 followers of DeepL
22.1/25Track record — 35 public repos, account ~5 yr old
Inputs used
followers1,528
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedyes
owner_loginDeepL
public_repos35
account_age_days1,963

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on packagist
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 31 days ago
20/20Version history — 33 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesdeeplcom/deepl-php
ecosystemspackagist
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish31

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

68Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 1 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — phpcs.xml
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — no data
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests. Remaining weights renormalized.

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
topicsapi, deepl, language, php, translation, translator, official, i18n
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-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — no data
0/2.5CI-Tests — no data
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-Review — Found 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
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 — 12 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 — no SAST tool detected
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_evaluated11
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive7
scorecard_aggregate5.8
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, CI-Tests, 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.

48Weak · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history — 87 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.87
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — phpcs.xml
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environment — Dockerfile
4/10Demonstrated agent practice — 2 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
0/8Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — no data
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles—
has_dockerfileyes
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0.02
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
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/71 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePHP
largest_source_bytes49,942
source_files_sampled71
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

258GitHub stars
13contributors
41commits, last 12 months
17days since last push
31releases
2bus factor
22open issues
Packagistpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • Star history carried forward from 2026-05-17: GitHub restricted the stargazers API to repository admins, so it can no longer be collected. The repository has 258 stars today.
  • No resolved dependencies carried a version and a supported ecosystem

More detail

Star and fork history 257 ★ / 31 ⇿
257Stars
31Forks
29Releases

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.

Star history is shown as collected on 2026-05-17. GitHub restricted the stargazers API to repository administrators in July 2026, so this series can no longer be extended; the current star total above remains live.

05010015020025030025631132022-042024-052026-05
Major 1Minor 21Patch 7

Each point covers 4 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 · 2026-09-12 16:16 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
n/aCI-Testsno pull request found
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
10Contributorsproject has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained12 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
0SASTno SAST tool detected
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
n/aToken-PermissionsNo tokens found
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 4
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Packagistpsr/log^1.1 || ^2.0 || ^3.0composer.json
Packagistpsr/http-client^1.0composer.json
Packagistpsr/http-client-implementation*composer.json
Packagistpsr/http-factory-implementation*composer.json
All dependencies 16

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 4 direct and 12 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
Packagistpsr/http-client—direct
Packagistpsr/http-client-implementation—direct
Packagistpsr/http-factory-implementation—direct
Packagistpsr/log—direct
Packagistext-curl—indirect
Packagistext-json—indirect
Packagistext-mbstring—indirect
Packagistfriendsofphp/php-cs-fixer—indirect
Packagistguzzlehttp/guzzle—indirect
Packagistphp—indirect
Packagistphp-http/discovery—indirect
Packagistphp-http/multipart-stream-builder—indirect
Packagistphp-mock/php-mock-phpunit—indirect
Packagistphpunit/phpunit—indirect
Packagistramsey/uuid—indirect
Packagistsquizlabs/php_codesniffer—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.