Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-18 16:07 UTC

SAP / gigya-php-sdk

SAP CDC (Gigya) php sdk for server

PHPApache-2.0★ 10 stars⑂ 15 forkssince Oct 2019View on GitHub ↗

SAP/gigya-php-sdk holds a health index of 67 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (91/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (28/100). It was last updated 2 days ago. 4 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

SAPOrganization · verified domain
4,542 followers276 public repossince Oct 2012

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
Packagistgigya/php-sdk3.1.08,365896 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

67Good · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 2 days ago
6.2/36Commit cadence9/52 weeks with commits
13.3/18Commit volume29 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
commits_last_year29
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push2
active_weeks_last_year9
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases12 releases published
36/36Release recencylatest release 2 days ago
12.6/27Release cadencea release every ~237.5 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count12
latest_release_tag3.1.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release2
mean_days_between_releases237.5
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?

55Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
15.5/60Stars10 stars
9.6/25Forks15 forks
4.3/15Watchers7 watchers
Inputs used
forks15
stars10
watchers7
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

85Excellent
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (Apache-2.0)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges0
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_services
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
52.3/80Monthly downloads8,365 downloads/month across packagist
4/20Registry dependents3 packages depend on it
Inputs used
packagesgigya/php-sdk
dependents3
ecosystemspackagist
total_downloads494,907
monthly_downloads8,365
unverified_packages_excluded

Sustainability & Governance

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

91Excellent · 23% of overall
How it's scored
43.2/54Bus factor4 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
17.6/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 22% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth12 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
bus_factor4
contributors_sampled12
top_contributor_share0.218
How it's scored
33.6/42Issue resolution80% of issues closed
25.2/30PR acceptance26/31 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
13.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 10/11 approved changesets -- score normalized to 9
Inputs used
merged_prs26
open_issues2
closed_issues8
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio0.8
closed_unmerged_prs5
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 backingorganization-owned
20/20Verified domain
25/25Owner reach4,542 followers of SAP
25/25Track record276 public repos, account ~13 yr old
Inputs used
followers4,542
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedyes
owner_loginSAP
public_repos276
account_age_days5,090

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable1 package(s) on packagist
35/35Publish recencylatest publish 96 days ago
20/20Version history8 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesgigya/php-sdk
ecosystemspackagist
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish96

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

38Weak · 19% of overall
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-Tests0 out of 10 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

60Moderate
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics1 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsopen-source
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?

54Moderate · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
6/7.5Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
0/2.5CI-Tests0 out of 10 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
6.8/7.5Code-ReviewFound 10/11 approved changesets -- score normalized to 9
2.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
0/10Dangerous-Workflowno data
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5Licenselicense file detected
0/7.5Maintained0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
0/5Packagingno data
0/5Pinned-Dependenciesno data
0/5SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
5/5Security-Policysecurity policy file 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.

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.

28At Risk · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
20.3/40Legible commit history38 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.38
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 practiceno agent-authored commits among the last 100
0/8Automated maintenanceno automated dependency updates observed
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesno data
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
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 sizes0/13 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePHP
largest_source_bytes17,116
source_files_sampled13
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

10GitHub stars
12contributors
29commits, last 12 months
2days since last push
12releases
4bus factor
2open 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 ★ / 15 ⇿
0Stars
15Forks
11Releases

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.

03581013151512020-052023-062026-07
Major 0Minor 0Patch 9

Each point covers 6 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 · 2026-09-18 16:06 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
8Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
0CI-Tests0 out of 10 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
9Code-ReviewFound 10/11 approved changesets -- score normalized to 9
10Contributorsproject has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
0Maintained0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
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
Direct dependencies 1
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Packagistfirebase/php-jwt^7.0composer.json
All dependencies 7

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 1 direct and 6 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
Packagistfirebase/php-jwtdirect
Packagistext-curlindirect
Packagistext-jsonindirect
Packagistext-mbstringindirect
Packagistext-opensslindirect
Packagistphpindirect
Packagistphpunit/phpunitindirect
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 statisticsPackagist.