Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-18 05:47 UTC

KnpLabs / packagist-api

PHP API for Packagist

PHPMIT★ 181 stars⑂ 44 forkssince Mar 2013View on GitHub ↗

KnpLabs/packagist-api holds a health index of 67 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (76/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (38/100). It was last updated 16 days ago. 2 contributors account for most of its recent work.

67
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.

67
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 61 is calibrated to 67 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

KNP LabsOrganization
133 followers141 public repossince Feb 2010

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
Packagistknplabs/packagist-apiv3.0.052,0002816 days agoapicomposerpackagist

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

64Moderate · 21% of overall
How it's scored
28.8/36Push recency — last push 16 days ago
1.4/36Commit cadence — 2/52 weeks with commits
10.3/18Commit volume — 13 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 14 commit(s) and 4 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year13
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push16
active_weeks_last_year2
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 24 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 16 days ago
12.6/27Release cadence — a release every ~151.5 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count24
latest_release_tagv3.0.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release16
mean_days_between_releases151.5
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?

59Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
36.6/60Stars — 181 stars
13.6/25Forks — 44 forks
7.4/15Watchers — 22 watchers
Inputs used
forks44
stars181
watchers22
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_badges3
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesgithub.com, poser.pugx.org
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
62.9/80Monthly downloads — 52,000 downloads/month across packagist
11/20Registry dependents — 44 packages depend on it
Inputs used
packagesknplabs/packagist-api
dependents44
ecosystemspackagist
total_downloads1,555,243
monthly_downloads52,000
unverified_packages_excluded—

Sustainability & Governance

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

76Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
25.2/54Bus factor — 2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
13.8/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 38% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 34 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 39 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor2
contributors_sampled34
top_contributor_share0.385
How it's scored
40.7/42Issue resolution — 97% of issues closed
24.6/30PR acceptance — 69/84 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
4.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 4/13 approved changesets -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
merged_prs69
open_issues1
closed_issues30
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d2
prs_decided_30d2
issue_closed_ratio0.968
closed_unmerged_prs15
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
15.3/25Owner reach — 133 followers of KnpLabs
25/25Track record — 141 public repos, account ~16 yr old
Inputs used
followers133
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_loginKnpLabs
public_repos141
account_age_days6,061

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on packagist
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 16 days ago
20/20Version history — 28 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesknplabs/packagist-api
ecosystemspackagist
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish16

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

62Moderate · 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
6/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 3 out of 9 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — http://knplabs.com
10/10Repository description
0/10Topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics—
has_wikiyes
homepage—
docs_sitehttp://knplabs.com
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

44Weak · 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
0.8/2.5CI-Tests — 3 out of 9 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 3
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
2.2/7.5Code-Review — Found 4/13 approved changesets -- score normalized to 3
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 39 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained — 14 commit(s) and 4 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
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 — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate4.4
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging, Signed-Releases. 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.

38Weak · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
21.3/40Legible commit history — 40 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.4
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
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 — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles—
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files—
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 — 0/34 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePHP
largest_source_bytes14,089
source_files_sampled34
oversized_source_files0
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 — examples
Inputs used
example_dirsexamples
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

181GitHub stars
34contributors
13commits, last 12 months
16days since last push
24releases
2bus factor
1open 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 ★ / 44 ⇿
0Stars
44Forks
22Releases

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.

010203040504422013-072019-082025-09
Major 1Minor 6Patch 10

Each point covers 12 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.4 / 10
4.4aggregate

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 · 2026-09-18 05:47 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
3CI-Tests3 out of 9 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 3
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
3Code-ReviewFound 4/13 approved changesets -- score normalized to 3
10Contributorsproject has 39 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained14 commit(s) and 4 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
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
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 3
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Packagistdoctrine/inflector^1.0 || ^2.0composer.json
Packagistpsr/http-client-implementation^1.0composer.json
Packagistpsr/http-factory-implementation^1.0composer.json
All dependencies 11

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 3 direct and 8 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
Packagistdoctrine/inflector—direct
Packagistpsr/http-client-implementation—direct
Packagistpsr/http-factory-implementation—direct
Packagistcomposer/metadata-minifier—indirect
Packagistcomposer/semver—indirect
Packagistguzzlehttp/guzzle—indirect
Packagistphp—indirect
Packagistphp-http/client-common—indirect
Packagistphp-http/discovery—indirect
Packagistphpspec/phpspec—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.