Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-14 15:48 UTC

Kdyby / FormsReplicator

PHPCustom license★ 31 stars⑂ 63 forkssince Sep 2012View on GitHub ↗

Kdyby/FormsReplicator holds a health index of 57 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (68/100) and lowest on Security (42/100). It was last updated 46 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

57
overall / 100
Moderate

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.

57
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 55 is calibrated to 57 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

KdybyOrganization
2 followers61 public repossince Feb 2011

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
Packagistkdyby/forms-replicatorv3.0.114,9851546 days agoformsnettekdybyreplicatoradddynamic

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

52Moderate · 21% of overall
How it's scored
18/36Push recency — last push 46 days ago
1.4/36Commit cadence — 2/52 weeks with commits
10.3/18Commit volume — 13 commits in the last year
6/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 8 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
commits_last_year13
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push46
active_weeks_last_year2
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 8 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 46 days ago
5.4/27Release cadence — a release every ~517.6 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count8
latest_release_tagv3.0.1
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release46
mean_days_between_releases517.6
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?

49Weak · 17% of overall
How it's scored
24/60Stars — 31 stars
14.9/25Forks — 63 forks
4.3/15Watchers — 7 watchers
Inputs used
forks63
stars31
watchers7
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
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_badges5
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesshields.io
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
55.7/80Monthly downloads — 14,985 downloads/month across packagist
7.8/20Registry dependents — 14 packages depend on it
Inputs used
packageskdyby/forms-replicator
dependents14
ecosystemspackagist
total_downloads1,073,995
monthly_downloads14,985
unverified_packages_excluded—

Sustainability & Governance

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

62Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
9.9/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 56% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 22 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 19 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled22
top_contributor_share0.559
How it's scored
19.4/42Issue resolution — 46% of issues closed
20.9/30PR acceptance — 32/46 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
12/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 8/9 approved changesets -- score normalized to 8
Inputs used
merged_prs32
open_issues14
closed_issues12
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio0.462
closed_unmerged_prs14
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
3.4/25Owner reach — 2 followers of Kdyby
25/25Track record — 61 public repos, account ~15 yr old
Inputs used
followers2
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_loginKdyby
public_repos61
account_age_days5,691

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on packagist
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 46 days ago
20/20Version history — 15 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packageskdyby/forms-replicator
ecosystemspackagist
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish46

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
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
12/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 5 out of 8 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — http://kdyby.org
0/10Repository description
0/10Topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics—
has_wikino
homepage—
docs_sitehttp://kdyby.org
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionno

Security

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

42Weak · 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
1.5/2.5CI-Tests — 5 out of 8 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 6
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
6/7.5Code-Review — Found 8/9 approved changesets -- score normalized to 8
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 19 contributing companies or organizations
0/10Dangerous-Workflow — no data
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.2/2.5License — license file detected
4.5/7.5Maintained — 8 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 6
0/5Packaging — no data
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
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_evaluated14
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive4
scorecard_aggregate4.2
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Dangerous-Workflow, Packaging, 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.

43Weak · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
28.3/40Legible commit history — 53 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.53
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrap — justfile
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environment — Dockerfile, Nix
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 — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixyes
has_testsyes
lockfiles—
has_dockerfileyes
typed_languageno
bootstrap_filesjustfile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — PHP without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/8 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePHP
largest_source_bytes12,869
source_files_sampled8
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

31GitHub stars
22contributors
13commits, last 12 months
46days since last push
8releases
1bus factor
14open 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 ★ / 63 ⇿
0Stars
63Forks
7Releases

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.

01020304050605822012-112019-092026-07
Major 2Minor 3Patch 0

Each point covers 13 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.2 / 10
4.2aggregate

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 · 2026-09-14 15:48 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
6CI-Tests5 out of 8 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 6
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
8Code-ReviewFound 8/9 approved changesets -- score normalized to 8
10Contributorsproject has 19 contributing companies or organizations
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
9Licenselicense file detected
6Maintained8 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 6
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
0Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
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 2
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Packagistnette/forms^3.2.3composer.json
Packagistnette/utils^3.0 || ^4.0composer.json
All dependencies 16

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 2 direct and 14 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
Packagistnette/forms—direct
Packagistnette/utils—direct
Packagistnette/application—indirect
Packagistnette/bootstrap—indirect
Packagistnette/di—indirect
Packagistnette/neon—indirect
Packagistnette/tester—indirect
Packagistphp—indirect
Packagistphp-parallel-lint/php-console-highlighter—indirect
Packagistphp-parallel-lint/php-parallel-lint—indirect
Packagistphpstan/phpstan—indirect
Packagistphpstan/phpstan-deprecation-rules—indirect
Packagistphpstan/phpstan-nette—indirect
Packagistrector/rector—indirect
Packagistsymplify/easy-coding-standard—indirect
Packagisttracy/tracy—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.