Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-01 21:37 UTC

acquia / coding-standards-php

PHP_CodeSniffer rules (sniffs) for Acquia coding standards

PHPGPL-2.0★ 20 stars⑂ 15 forkssince May 2019View on GitHub ↗

acquia/coding-standards-php holds a health index of 67 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (68/100) and lowest on Engineering Quality (47/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts 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

AcquiaOrganization
227 followers269 public repossince Dec 2010

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
Packagistacquia/coding-standardsv3.0.466,35822116 days agodrupalstatic-analysisstandardsphpcs

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

63Moderate · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 0 days ago
5.5/36Commit cadence8/52 weeks with commits
10.8/18Commit volume15 commits in the last year
3/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained4 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
commits_last_year15
human_commit_share0.91
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year8
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases20 releases published
27/36Release recencylatest release 116 days ago
12.6/27Release cadencea release every ~162 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count20
latest_release_tagv3.0.4
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release116
mean_days_between_releases162
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?

65Good · 17% of overall
How it's scored
20.7/60Stars20 stars
9.6/25Forks15 forks
5.3/15Watchers10 watchers
Inputs used
forks15
stars20
watchers10
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

92Excellent
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (GPL-2.0)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
6.3/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges5
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_servicesgithub.com, poser.pugx.org
has_pull_request_templateyes
How it's scored
64.3/80Monthly downloads66,358 downloads/month across packagist
9.4/20Registry dependents25 packages depend on it
Inputs used
packagesacquia/coding-standards
dependents25
ecosystemspackagist
total_downloads5,130,882
monthly_downloads66,358
unverified_packages_excluded

Sustainability & Governance

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

68Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
10/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 56% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth10 contributors
3/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled10
top_contributor_share0.557
How it's scored
34.7/42Issue resolution83% of issues closed
26.9/30PR acceptance70/78 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
6/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 10/21 approved changesets -- score normalized to 4
Inputs used
merged_prs70
open_issues4
closed_issues19
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio0.826
closed_unmerged_prs8
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
0/20Verified domain
17/25Owner reach227 followers of acquia
25/25Track record269 public repos, account ~15 yr old
Inputs used
followers227
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_loginacquia
public_repos269
account_age_days5,746

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable1 package(s) on packagist
35/35Publish recencylatest publish 116 days ago
20/20Version history22 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesacquia/coding-standards
ecosystemspackagist
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish116

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

47Weak · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows2 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
4/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests7 out of 24 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 2
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
0/10Topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics
has_wikino
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?

62Moderate · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0.5/2.5CI-Tests7 out of 24 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 2
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
3/7.5Code-ReviewFound 10/21 approved changesets -- score normalized to 4
0.8/2.5Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
0/10Dangerous-Workflowno data
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5Licenselicense file detected
2.2/7.5Maintained4 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 3
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_aggregate5.2
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Dangerous-Workflow, Packaging, Pinned-Dependencies, Signed-Releases, Token-Permissions. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisoriesno direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisoriestransitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40No advisories left outstandingno advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories0
affected_packages0
assessed_packages35
unassessed_packages3
affected_by_severitynone
direct_affected_packages0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories, No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 35 resolved dependencies against OSV. 3 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list. 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.

65Good · 4% of overall
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructionsCLAUDE.md
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
33.4/40Legible commit history57 of 91 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.626
agent_instruction_filesCLAUDE.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes3,357
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environmentlockfile
2/10Demonstrated agent practice1 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
8/8Automated maintenance9 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesno data
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilescomposer.lock
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share0.01
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share0.09
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 sizes0/23 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePHP
largest_source_bytes3,761
source_files_sampled23
oversized_source_files0
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto)not applicable to this kind of software
0/20MCP servernot applicable to this kind of software
40/40Runnable examplesexample
Inputs used
example_dirsexample
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

20GitHub stars
10contributors
15commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
20releases
1bus factor
4open issues
Packagistpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 15 ⇿
0Stars
15Forks
19Releases

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.

03581013151522019-082022-112026-03
Major 3Minor 8Patch 8

Each point covers 7 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.2 / 10
5.2aggregate

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 · 2026-09-01 21:37 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
2CI-Tests7 out of 24 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 2
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
4Code-ReviewFound 10/21 approved changesets -- score normalized to 4
3Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
3Maintained4 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 3
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 3
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Packagistdrupal/coder^8.3composer.json
Packagistslevomat/coding-standard^8.4composer.json
Packagistsquizlabs/php_codesniffer^3.7composer.json
All dependencies 38

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 3 direct and 35 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
Packagistdrupal/coder8.3.31direct
Packagistslevomat/coding-standard8.22.1direct
Packagistsquizlabs/php_codesniffer3.13.6direct
Packagistacquia/coding-standardsindirect
Packagistbrainmaestro/composer-git-hooksindirect
Packagistdealerdirect/phpcodesniffer-composer-installerindirect
Packagistdealerdirect/phpcodesniffer-composer-installer1.2.1indirect
Packagistmyclabs/deep-copy1.14.0indirect
Packagistnikic/php-parser5.8.0indirect
Packagistphar-io/manifest2.0.4indirect
Packagistphar-io/version3.2.1indirect
Packagistphpstan/phpdoc-parser2.3.5indirect
Packagistphpunit/php-code-coverage11.0.12indirect
Packagistphpunit/php-file-iterator5.1.1indirect
Packagistphpunit/php-invoker5.0.1indirect
Packagistphpunit/php-text-template4.0.1indirect
Packagistphpunit/php-timer7.0.1indirect
Packagistphpunit/phpunit11.5.56indirect
Packagistsebastian/cli-parser3.0.2indirect
Packagistsebastian/code-unit3.0.3indirect
Packagistsebastian/code-unit-reverse-lookup4.0.1indirect
Packagistsebastian/comparator6.3.3indirect
Packagistsebastian/complexity4.0.1indirect
Packagistsebastian/diff6.0.2indirect
Packagistsebastian/environment7.2.1indirect
Packagistsebastian/exporter6.3.2indirect
Packagistsebastian/global-state7.0.2indirect
Packagistsebastian/lines-of-code3.0.1indirect
Packagistsebastian/object-enumerator6.0.1indirect
Packagistsebastian/object-reflector4.0.1indirect
Packagistsebastian/recursion-context6.0.3indirect
Packagistsebastian/type5.1.3indirect
Packagistsebastian/version5.0.2indirect
Packagistsirbrillig/phpcs-variable-analysis2.13.0indirect
Packagiststaabm/side-effects-detector1.0.5indirect
Packagistsymfony/polyfill-ctype1.37.0indirect
Packagistsymfony/yaml8.1.6indirect
Packagisttheseer/tokenizer1.3.1indirect
Dependency advisories 0

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: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct. 3 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list.

No known advisories affect the assessed dependencies.

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.

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.