Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-17 10:09 UTC

allure-framework / allure-php-api

PHP API for Allure Framework

PHPApache-2.0★ 34 stars⑂ 28 forkssince Jun 2014View on GitHub ↗

allure-framework/allure-php-api holds a health index of 34 out of 100, placing it in the At Risk band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (81/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (35/100). It was last updated 37 days ago. 2 contributors account for most of its recent work.

34
overall / 100
At Risk

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.

34
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). High-Risk Jurisdiction Policy applies a 75% multiplier to weighted overall health and gives it an At Risk ceiling of 34.

Ownership

Allure FrameworkOrganization · verified domain
705 followers55 public repossince Nov 2013

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
Packagistallure-framework/allure-php-api1.7.045,8382237 days agophpapireportallure

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

53Moderate · 21% of overall
How it's scored
18/36Push recency — last push 37 days ago
3.5/36Commit cadence — 5/52 weeks with commits
8.1/18Commit volume — 7 commits in the last year
2/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 3 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 2
Inputs used
commits_last_year7
human_commit_share0.899
days_since_last_push37
active_weeks_last_year5
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 22 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 37 days ago
12.6/27Release cadence — a release every ~264.2 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count22
latest_release_tag1.7.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release37
mean_days_between_releases264.2
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?

66Good · 17% of overall
How it's scored
24.6/60Stars — 34 stars
11.9/25Forks — 28 forks
5/15Watchers — 9 watchers
Inputs used
forks28
stars34
watchers9
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

92Excellent
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (Apache-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_badges1
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_servicesgithub.com
has_pull_request_templateyes
How it's scored
62.1/80Monthly downloads — 45,838 downloads/month across packagist
5.6/20Registry dependents — 6 packages depend on it
Inputs used
packagesallure-framework/allure-php-api
dependents6
ecosystemspackagist
total_downloads11,438,888
monthly_downloads45,838
unverified_packages_excluded—

Sustainability & Governance

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

81Excellent · 23% of overall
How it's scored
25.2/54Bus factor — 2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
14.6/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 35% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 19 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 11 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor2
contributors_sampled19
top_contributor_share0.353
How it's scored
42/42Issue resolution — 100% of issues closed
14/30PR acceptance — 54/116 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
7.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 12/22 approved changesets -- score normalized to 5
Inputs used
merged_prs54
open_issues0
closed_issues24
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio1
closed_unmerged_prs62
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
20/20Verified domain
20.5/25Owner reach — 705 followers of allure-framework
24.7/25Track record — 55 public repos, account ~12 yr old
Inputs used
followers705
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedyes
owner_loginallure-framework
public_repos55
account_age_days4,696

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on packagist
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 37 days ago
20/20Version history — 22 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesallure-framework/allure-php-api
ecosystemspackagist
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish37

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

58Moderate · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 3 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
6/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 6 out of 20 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://allurereport.org/
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 3 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsallure, php, reporting
has_wikino
homepage—
docs_sitehttps://allurereport.org/
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

47Weak · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — no data
0.8/2.5CI-Tests — 6 out of 20 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
3.8/7.5Code-Review — Found 12/22 approved changesets -- score normalized to 5
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 11 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
1.5/7.5Maintained — 3 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 2
0/5Packaging — no data
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
1.5/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 3
2/5Security-Policy — security policy file detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — no data
7.5/7.5Token-Permissions — GitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated15
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive3
scorecard_aggregate6.4
high_risk_jurisdiction_cap34
high_risk_jurisdiction_multiplier75
security_posture_after_multiplier48
security_posture_before_jurisdiction64
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, Packaging, Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized. High-Risk Jurisdiction Policy applies a 75% multiplier and gives Security posture an At risk ceiling of 34.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories6
affected_packages3
assessed_packages36
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severityhigh 2, moderate 1
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 36 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.

35Weak · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
30.7/40Legible commit history — 46 of 80 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.575
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 89
8/8Automated maintenance — 9 of the last 89 commits are automated dependency updates
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_share0.101
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — PHP without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/102 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePHP
largest_source_bytes7,616
source_files_sampled102
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

34GitHub stars
19contributors
7commits, last 12 months
37days since last push
22releases
2bus factor
0open 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 ★ / 28 ⇿
0Stars
28Forks
20Releases

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.

0510152025302722014-062019-112025-05
Major 1Minor 5Patch 14

Each point covers 11 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 6.4 / 10
6.4aggregate

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 · 2026-09-17 10:08 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
n/aBranch-Protectioninternal error: error during branchesHandler.setup: internal error: some github tokens can't read classic branch protection rules: https://github.com/ossf/scorecard-action/blob/main/docs/authentication/fine-grained-auth-token.md
3CI-Tests6 out of 20 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 3
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
5Code-ReviewFound 12/22 approved changesets -- score normalized to 5
10Contributorsproject has 11 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
2Maintained3 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 2
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
0Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
3SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 3
4Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
10Token-PermissionsGitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 4
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Packagistjms/serializer^1 | ^2 | ^3composer.json
Packagistramsey/uuid^3 | ^4composer.json
Packagistsymfony/mime^5.4.52 || ^6.4.40 || ^7.4.12composer.json
Packagistdoctrine/annotations^1.2.7composer.json
All dependencies 36

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 3 direct and 33 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
Packagistdoctrine/annotations1.2.7direct
Packagistjms/serializer1.14.0direct
Packagistramsey/uuid3.7.3direct
Packagistdoctrine/instantiator1.0.5indirect
Packagistdoctrine/lexer1.0.1indirect
Packagistircmaxell/password-compat1.0.4indirect
Packagistjms/metadata1.6.0indirect
Packagistjms/parser-lib1.0.0indirect
Packagistparagonie/random_compat2.0.18indirect
Packagistphpcollection/phpcollection0.5.0indirect
Packagistphpdocumentor/reflection-common1.0.1indirect
Packagistphpdocumentor/reflection-docblock3.2.2indirect
Packagistphpdocumentor/type-resolver0.3.0indirect
Packagistphpoption/phpoption1.5.0indirect
Packagistphpspec/prophecy1.7.5indirect
Packagistphpunit/php-code-coverage2.2.4indirect
Packagistphpunit/php-file-iterator1.4.5indirect
Packagistphpunit/php-text-template1.2.1indirect
Packagistphpunit/php-timer1.0.9indirect
Packagistphpunit/php-token-stream1.4.12indirect
Packagistphpunit/phpunit4.8.36indirect
Packagistphpunit/phpunit-mock-objects2.3.8indirect
Packagistsebastian/comparator1.2.4indirect
Packagistsebastian/diff1.4.3indirect
Packagistsebastian/environment1.3.8indirect
Packagistsebastian/exporter1.2.2indirect
Packagistsebastian/global-state1.1.1indirect
Packagistsebastian/recursion-context1.0.5indirect
Packagistsebastian/version1.0.6indirect
Packagistsymfony/http-foundation3.4.35indirect
Packagistsymfony/polyfill-mbstring1.13.1indirect
Packagistsymfony/polyfill-php541.7.0indirect
Packagistsymfony/polyfill-php551.7.0indirect
Packagistsymfony/polyfill-php701.13.1indirect
Packagistsymfony/yaml2.8.34indirect
Packagistwebmozart/assert1.3.0indirect
Dependency advisories 3

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 36 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 3 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
phpunit/phpunit4.8.36indirecthigh112.5.8
symfony/http-foundation3.4.35indirecthigh27.3.7
symfony/yaml2.8.34indirectmoderate38.0.12

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 statistics — Packagist.