Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-13 11:53 UTC

GuavaCZ / calendar

PHP · JavaScriptMIT★ 314 stars⑂ 61 forkssince May 2024View on GitHub ↗

GuavaCZ/calendar holds a health index of 73 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Vitality (71/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (43/100). It was last updated 45 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

73
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.

73
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 64 is calibrated to 73 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

GuavaOrganization
43 followers29 public repossince Mar 2021

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
Packagistguava/calendar3.2.275,3474049 days agocalendarlaravelguava

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

71Good · 21% of overall
How it's scored
18/36Push recencylast push 45 days ago
7.6/36Commit cadence11/52 weeks with commits
16.2/18Commit volume62 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year62
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push45
active_weeks_last_year11

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases40 releases published
36/36Release recencylatest release 49 days ago
27/27Release cadencea release every ~37.9 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count40
latest_release_tag3.2.2
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release49
mean_days_between_releases37.9
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?

65Good · 17% of overall
How it's scored
40.5/60Stars314 stars
14.8/25Forks61 forks
2.7/15Watchers4 watchers
Inputs used
forks61
stars314
watchers4
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (MIT)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges2
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesshields.io
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
65/80Monthly downloads75,347 downloads/month across packagist
5.2/20Registry dependents5 packages depend on it
Inputs used
packagesguava/calendar
dependents5
ecosystemspackagist
total_downloads526,179
monthly_downloads75,347
unverified_packages_excluded

Sustainability & Governance

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

60Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
3/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 86% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth17 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled17
top_contributor_share0.865
How it's scored
31.2/42Issue resolution74% of issues closed
20/30PR acceptance28/42 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance0/1 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 0/27 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs28
open_issues17
closed_issues49
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d2
issue_closed_ratio0.742
closed_unmerged_prs14
first_time_authors_30d1
first_time_prs_merged_30d0
first_time_prs_decided_30d1
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backingorganization-owned
0/20Verified domain
11.8/25Owner reach43 followers of GuavaCZ
21.7/25Track record29 public repos, account ~5 yr old
Inputs used
followers43
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_loginGuavaCZ
public_repos29
account_age_days2,003

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable1 package(s) on packagist
35/35Publish recencylatest publish 49 days ago
20/20Version history40 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesguava/calendar
ecosystemspackagist
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish49

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

66Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows4 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests3 out of 3 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

55Moderate
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
0/10Repository description
0/10Topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics
has_wikino
homepage
docs_site
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionno

Security

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

63Moderate · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
2.5/2.5CI-Tests3 out of 3 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-ReviewFound 0/27 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
2.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
0/10Dangerous-Workflowno data
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5Licenselicense file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained30 commit(s) and 0 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_evaluated13
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive5
scorecard_aggregate5.4
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): 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 advisoriesno direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisoriestransitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40No advisories left outstandingno advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories1
affected_packages1
assessed_packages47
unassessed_packages15
affected_by_severitymoderate 1
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 47 resolved dependencies against OSV. 15 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.

43Weak · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history77 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.77
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environmentlockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno agent-authored commits among the last 100
5/8Automated maintenancedependency automation configured, none observed in the sampled commits
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesno data
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilespackage-lock.json
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
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 codePHP without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes0/101 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePHP
largest_source_bytes13,217
source_files_sampled101
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

314GitHub stars
17contributors
62commits, last 12 months
45days since last push
40releases
1bus factor
17open issues
npm, Packagistpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 61 ⇿
0Stars
61Forks
37Releases

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.

013253850636132024-072025-082026-09
Major 2Minor 17Patch 16

Each point covers 2 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.4 / 10
5.4aggregate

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 · 2026-09-13 11:52 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
10CI-Tests3 out of 3 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 0/27 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
10Maintained30 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
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
Packagistfilament/filament^5.0composer.json
Packagistilluminate/contracts^12.0|^13.0composer.json
Packagistspatie/laravel-package-tools^1.14.0composer.json
npm@awcodes/alpine-floating-ui^3.6.3package.json
All dependencies 62

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 4 direct and 58 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
npm@awcodes/alpine-floating-ui3.6.3direct
Packagistfilament/filamentdirect
Packagistilluminate/contractsdirect
Packagistspatie/laravel-package-toolsdirect
npm@esbuild/aix-ppc640.21.4indirect
npm@esbuild/android-arm0.21.4indirect
npm@esbuild/android-arm640.21.4indirect
npm@esbuild/android-x640.21.4indirect
npm@esbuild/darwin-arm640.21.4indirect
npm@esbuild/darwin-x640.21.4indirect
npm@esbuild/freebsd-arm640.21.4indirect
npm@esbuild/freebsd-x640.21.4indirect
npm@esbuild/linux-arm0.21.4indirect
npm@esbuild/linux-arm640.21.4indirect
npm@esbuild/linux-ia320.21.4indirect
npm@esbuild/linux-loong640.21.4indirect
npm@esbuild/linux-mips64el0.21.4indirect
npm@esbuild/linux-ppc640.21.4indirect
npm@esbuild/linux-riscv640.21.4indirect
npm@esbuild/linux-s390x0.21.4indirect
npm@esbuild/linux-x640.21.4indirect
npm@esbuild/netbsd-x640.21.4indirect
npm@esbuild/openbsd-x640.21.4indirect
npm@esbuild/sunos-x640.21.4indirect
npm@esbuild/win32-arm640.21.4indirect
npm@esbuild/win32-ia320.21.4indirect
npm@esbuild/win32-x640.21.4indirect
npm@event-calendar/core5.11.0indirect
npm@jridgewell/gen-mapping0.3.5indirect
npm@jridgewell/remapping2.3.5indirect
npm@jridgewell/resolve-uri3.1.2indirect
npm@jridgewell/set-array1.2.1indirect
npm@jridgewell/sourcemap-codec1.5.4indirect
npm@jridgewell/trace-mapping0.3.25indirect
npm@sveltejs/acorn-typescript1.0.11indirect
npm@types/estree1.0.8indirect
npm@types/trusted-types2.0.7indirect
npmacorn8.15.0indirect
npmaria-query5.3.1indirect
npmaxobject-query4.1.0indirect
npmclsx2.1.1indirect
npmdevalue5.8.2indirect
npmesbuild0.21.4indirect
npmesm-env1.2.2indirect
npmesrap2.3.0indirect
npmis-reference3.0.3indirect
npmlocate-character3.0.0indirect
npmmagic-string0.30.17indirect
npmsvelte5.56.7indirect
npmzimmerframe1.1.4indirect
Packagistlarastan/larastanindirect
Packagistlaravel/pintindirect
Packagistnunomaduro/collisionindirect
Packagistorchestra/testbenchindirect
Packagistpestphp/pestindirect
Packagistpestphp/pest-pluginindirect
Packagistpestphp/pest-plugin-archindirect
Packagistpestphp/pest-plugin-laravelindirect
Packagistphpindirect
Packagistphpstan/extension-installerindirect
Packagistphpstan/phpstan-deprecation-rulesindirect
Packagistphpstan/phpstan-phpunitindirect
Dependency advisories 1

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 47 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 1 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct. 15 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
esbuild0.21.4indirectmoderate10.25.0

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 statisticsPackagist.