Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-12 15:30 UTC

JamesHeinrich / getID3

PHPCustom license★ 1,237 stars⑂ 256 forkssince Mar 2013View on GitHub ↗

JamesHeinrich/getID3 holds a health index of 73 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Vitality (80/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (44/100). It was last updated 2 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

James HeinrichPersonal account
64 followers7 public repossince Feb 2013

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
Packagistjames-heinrich/getid3v2.0.0-beta6603,101251044 days agometadataaudiotagsvideoid3codecs

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

80Excellent · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 2 days ago
15.2/36Commit cadence — 22/52 weeks with commits
16.7/18Commit volume — 72 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 20 commit(s) and 4 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year72
human_commit_share0.96
days_since_last_push2
active_weeks_last_year22
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 25 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 6 days ago
12.6/27Release cadence — a release every ~248.7 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count25
latest_release_tagv1.9.26
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release6
mean_days_between_releases248.7
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?

70Good · 17% of overall
How it's scored
50.2/60Stars — 1,237 stars
20.1/25Forks — 256 forks
9.1/15Watchers — 44 watchers
Inputs used
forks256
stars1,237
watchers44
growth_stateorganic
growth_factor_pct100
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
16.9/22.5License — license file present, not a recognized license
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges0
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services—
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
77.1/80Monthly downloads — 603,101 downloads/month across packagist
13.4/20Registry dependents — 102 packages depend on it
Inputs used
packagesjames-heinrich/getid3
dependents102
ecosystemspackagist
total_downloads13,905,693
monthly_downloads603,101
unverified_packages_excluded—

Sustainability & Governance

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

59Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
5.8/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 74% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 63 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 11 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled63
top_contributor_share0.741
How it's scored
36.9/42Issue resolution — 88% of issues closed
26.3/30PR acceptance — 173/197 decided PRs merged
13/13Newcomer PR acceptance — 3/3 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
7.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 9/17 approved changesets -- score normalized to 5
Inputs used
merged_prs173
open_issues37
closed_issues270
prs_merged_7d2
prs_decided_7d2
prs_merged_30d3
prs_decided_30d3
issue_closed_ratio0.879
closed_unmerged_prs24
first_time_authors_30d2
first_time_prs_merged_30d3
first_time_prs_decided_30d3
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
13/25Owner reach — 64 followers of JamesHeinrich
18.6/25Track record — 7 public repos, account ~13 yr old
Inputs used
followers64
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginJamesHeinrich
public_repos7
account_age_days4,966
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on packagist
4/35Publish recency — latest publish 1,044 days ago
20/20Version history — 25 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesjames-heinrich/getid3
ecosystemspackagist
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish1,044

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

58Moderate · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 1 workflow(s)
0/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — phpstan.neon
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
14/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 8 out of 11 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 7
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsno
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

55Moderate
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — http://www.getid3.org/
0/10Repository description
0/10Topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics—
has_wikiyes
homepagehttp://www.getid3.org/
docs_sitehttp://www.getid3.org/
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionno

Security

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

59Moderate · 16% of overall
How it's scored
3.8/7.5Binary-Artifacts — binaries present in source code
0/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
1.8/2.5CI-Tests — 8 out of 11 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 7
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
3.8/7.5Code-Review — Found 9/17 approved changesets -- score normalized to 5
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 11 contributing companies or organizations
0/10Dangerous-Workflow — no data
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.2/2.5License — license file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained — 20 commit(s) and 4 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packaging — no data
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — no data
0/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
5/5Security-Policy — security policy file 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_aggregate5.9
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.

44Weak · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
36.1/40Legible commit history — 65 of 96 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.677
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
0/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — phpstan.neon
0/11Static type checking
0/10Reproducible environment
6/10Demonstrated agent practice — 3 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
8/8Automated maintenance — 4 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — no data
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsno
lockfiles—
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0.03
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0.04
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
49.6/55Manageable file sizes — 10/102 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePHP
largest_source_bytes172,774
source_files_sampled102
oversized_source_files10
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — not applicable to this kind of software
0/20MCP server — not applicable to this kind of software
40/40Runnable examples — demos
Inputs used
example_dirsdemos
has_mcp_signalno
api_schema_files—
interfaces_expected_of—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto), MCP server. Remaining weights renormalized.

Key facts

1,237GitHub stars
63contributors
72commits, last 12 months
2days since last push
25releases
1bus factor
37open issues
Packagistpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • Star history carried forward from 2026-07-15: GitHub restricted the stargazers API to repository admins, so it can no longer be collected. The repository has 1237 stars today.
  • No resolved dependencies carried a version and a supported ecosystem

More detail

Star and fork history 1,236 ★ / 256 ⇿
1,236Stars
256Forks
24Releases

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.

Only the most recent history is shown — this repository exceeds the collection window, so the earliest history is not captured.

Star history is shown as collected on 2026-07-15. 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.

02505007501,0001,2501,236251112013-072020-022026-08
Major 0Minor 0Patch 18

Each point covers 13 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.9 / 10
5.9aggregate

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 15:30 UTC

5Binary-Artifactsbinaries present in source code
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
7CI-Tests8 out of 11 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 7
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
5Code-ReviewFound 9/17 approved changesets -- score normalized to 5
10Contributorsproject has 11 contributing companies or organizations
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
9Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained20 commit(s) and 4 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
10Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
n/aToken-PermissionsNo tokens found
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
All dependencies 2

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 2 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
Packagistphp—indirect
Packagistphp-parallel-lint/php-parallel-lint—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.