Public record
Software health reportschema 0.26.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-22 18:39 UTC

LacunaSoftware / cloudHubPhpClient

Lacuna's Cloud Hub Client API for PHP

PHP · PowerShellNo license detected★ 0 stars⑂ 1 forksince Jan 2023View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryhow this is determined

LacunaSoftware/cloudHubPhpClient holds a health index of 35 out of 100, placing it in the Weak band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (62/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (21/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

35
overall / 100
Weak

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.

35
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 40 is calibrated to 35 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Lacuna SoftwareOrganization
39 followers78 public repossince Sep 2015

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
Packagistlacuna/cloudhub-client2.0.02,865291 day agolacunaclient-libcloudhub

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

51Moderate · 21% of overall

Development activity

37Weak
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
0/36Commit cadence — 0/52 weeks with commits
0/18Commit volume — 0 commits in the last year
1/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 2 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 1
Inputs used
commits_last_year0
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year0

Release discipline

72Good
How it's scored
16.2/27Ships releases — 31 version tags (no GitHub releases)
36/36Release recency — latest release 1 days ago
12.6/27Release cadence — a release every ~127.6 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count31
latest_release_tag2.0.0
releases_from_tagsyes
days_since_latest_release1
mean_days_between_releases127.6
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?

21At Risk · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

2Critical
How it's scored
0/60Stars — 0 stars
0/25Forks — 1 forks
1.7/15Watchers — 3 watchers
Inputs used
forks1
stars0
watchers3
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

25At Risk
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
0/22.5License — no license file detected
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseno
readme_badges—
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services—
has_pull_request_templateno

Ecosystem adoption (downloads)

46Weak
How it's scored
46.1/80Monthly downloads — 2,865 downloads/month across packagist
0/20Registry dependents — 0 packages depend on it
Inputs used
packageslacuna/cloudhub-client
dependents0
ecosystemspackagist
total_downloads39,316
monthly_downloads2,865
unverified_packages_excluded—

Sustainability & Governance

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

62Moderate · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

14Critical
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
1.3/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 94% of commits
4.1/13.5Contributor breadth — 3 contributors
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled3
top_contributor_share0.943

Issue & PR responsiveness

67Good
How it's scored
0/42Issue resolution — no issues or no data
30/30PR acceptance — 1/1 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 1/29 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs1
open_issues0
closed_issues0
prs_merged_7d—
prs_decided_7d—
prs_merged_30d—
prs_decided_30d—
issue_closed_ratio—
closed_unmerged_prs0
first_time_authors_30d—
first_time_prs_merged_30d—
first_time_prs_decided_30d—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Issue resolution, Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.

Ownership & stewardship

83Excellent
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain — verified-domain status not read for this organization
11.5/25Owner reach — 39 followers of LacunaSoftware
25/25Track record — 78 public repos, account ~10 yr old
Inputs used
followers39
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified—
owner_loginLacunaSoftware
public_repos78
account_age_days3,956
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on packagist
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 1 days ago
20/20Version history — 29 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packageslacuna/cloudhub-client
ecosystemspackagist
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish1

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

34At Risk · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

24At Risk
How it's scored
0/24CI workflows
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 0 out of 1 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_cino
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

50Moderate
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
0/10Topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics—
has_wikiyes
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?

25At Risk · 16% of overall

Security posture

12Critical
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
0/2.5CI-Tests — 0 out of 1 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-Review — Found 1/29 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
0/10Dangerous-Workflow — no data
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
0/2.5License — license file not detected
0.8/7.5Maintained — 2 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 1
0/5Packaging — no data
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — no data
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
0/7.5Vulnerabilities — 11 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated13
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive5
scorecard_aggregate1.2
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Dangerous-Workflow, Packaging, Pinned-Dependencies, Signed-Releases, Token-Permissions. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

78Good
How it's scored
18.5/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories — 1 affected: guzzlehttp/guzzle 6.5.8 (moderate 5.9)
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
40/40No advisories left outstanding — no advisory has been public longer than 90 days
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories11
affected_packages2
assessed_packages35
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severitymoderate 2
direct_affected_packages1
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 35 resolved dependencies against OSV. 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.

27At Risk · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

2Critical
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
1.5/40Legible commit history — 1 of 35 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.029
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

36Weak
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environment — lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 35
0/8Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — no data
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilescomposer.lock
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.

Code legibility for models

55Moderate
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — PHP without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/15 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePHP
largest_source_bytes6,699
source_files_sampled15
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

0GitHub stars
3contributors
0commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
31releases
1bus factor
0open issues
Packagistpackage ecosystems

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 1.2 / 10
1.2aggregate

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 · 2026-07-22 18:38 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0CI-Tests0 out of 1 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 1/29 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0Contributorsproject has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
0Licenselicense file not detected
1Maintained2 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 1
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
0Vulnerabilities11 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 1
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Packagistguzzlehttp/guzzle^6.5.8composer.json
All dependencies 35

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 1 direct and 34 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
Packagistguzzlehttp/guzzle6.5.8direct
Packagistdoctrine/instantiator2.0.0indirect
Packagistguzzlehttp/promises1.5.3indirect
Packagistguzzlehttp/psr71.9.1indirect
Packagistmyclabs/deep-copy1.13.4indirect
Packagistnikic/php-parser5.8.0indirect
Packagistphar-io/manifest2.0.4indirect
Packagistphar-io/version3.2.1indirect
Packagistphpunit/php-code-coverage9.2.32indirect
Packagistphpunit/php-file-iterator3.0.6indirect
Packagistphpunit/php-invoker3.1.1indirect
Packagistphpunit/php-text-template2.0.4indirect
Packagistphpunit/php-timer5.0.3indirect
Packagistphpunit/phpunit9.6.35indirect
Packagistpsr/http-message1.1indirect
Packagistralouphie/getallheaders3.0.3indirect
Packagistsebastian/cli-parser1.0.2indirect
Packagistsebastian/code-unit1.0.8indirect
Packagistsebastian/code-unit-reverse-lookup2.0.3indirect
Packagistsebastian/comparator4.0.10indirect
Packagistsebastian/complexity2.0.3indirect
Packagistsebastian/diff4.0.6indirect
Packagistsebastian/environment5.1.5indirect
Packagistsebastian/exporter4.0.8indirect
Packagistsebastian/global-state5.0.8indirect
Packagistsebastian/lines-of-code1.0.4indirect
Packagistsebastian/object-enumerator4.0.4indirect
Packagistsebastian/object-reflector2.0.4indirect
Packagistsebastian/recursion-context4.0.6indirect
Packagistsebastian/resource-operations3.0.4indirect
Packagistsebastian/type3.2.1indirect
Packagistsebastian/version3.0.2indirect
Packagistsymfony/polyfill-intl-idn1.38.1indirect
Packagistsymfony/polyfill-intl-normalizer1.38.0indirect
Packagisttheseer/tokenizer1.3.1indirect
Dependency advisories 2

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 35 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 2 carry known advisories, of which 1 are direct.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
guzzlehttp/guzzle6.5.8directmoderate77.15.1
guzzlehttp/psr71.9.1indirectmoderate42.12.3

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.

Related records

Inspected repositories sharing catalogue tags or ecosystems with LacunaSoftware/cloudHubPhpClient. Read them side by side →

73zitadel/client-phpOfficial Zitadel SDK for PHP. Authenticate and access Zitadel's authentication and management APIs in PHP.Good33LacunaSoftware/PkiExpressPhpSource code for the composer package lacuna/pki-expressAt Risk99stripe/stripe-phpPHP library for the Stripe API. Exceptional99grpc/grpcC++ based gRPC (C++, Python, Ruby, Objective-C, PHP, C#)Exceptional99WordPress/gutenbergThe Block Editor project for WordPress and beyond. Plugin is available from the official repository.Exceptional99taskforcesh/bullmqBullMQ - Message Queue and Batch processing for NodeJS, Python, .NET, Elixir, Rust and PHP based on Redis or PostgreSQLExceptional

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 v0.26.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

How one result sits in the wider record: aggregate statistics — Packagist.