Public record
Software health reportschema 0.17.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-21 07:03 UTC

alma-oss / php-coding-standard

PHP coding standard used in Alma Career projects, but usable anywhere else

PHPMIT★ 16 stars⑂ 11 forkssince Mar 2018View on GitHub ↗

alma-oss/php-coding-standard holds a health index of 48 out of 100, placing it in the Weak band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (66/100) and lowest on Vitality (28/100). It was last updated 242 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

48
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.

48
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 49 is calibrated to 48 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

6 followers36 public repossince Sep 2024

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
Packagistalmacareer/coding-standard5.0.02,15629287 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

28At Risk · 21% of overall
How it's scored
3.6/36Push recencylast push 242 days ago
1.4/36Commit cadence2/52 weeks with commits
8.1/18Commit volume7 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_year7
human_commit_share
days_since_last_push242
active_weeks_last_year2
How it's scored
16.2/27Ships releases29 version tags (no GitHub releases)
16.2/36Release recencylatest release 287 days ago
12.6/27Release cadencea release every ~177.8 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count29
latest_release_tag5.0.0
releases_from_tagsyes
days_since_latest_release287
mean_days_between_releases177.8
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?

42Weak · 17% of overall
How it's scored
19.1/60Stars16 stars
8.3/25Forks11 forks
4.7/15Watchers8 watchers
Inputs used
forks11
stars16
watchers8
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonbelow_threshold
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized 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_badges
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
44.5/80Monthly downloads2,156 downloads/month across packagist
2/20Registry dependents1 packages depend on it
Inputs used
packagesalmacareer/coding-standard
dependents1
ecosystemspackagist
total_downloads40,220
monthly_downloads2,156
unverified_packages_excluded

Sustainability & Governance

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

63Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
2.8/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 87% of commits
10.8/13.5Contributor breadth8 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 6 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled8
top_contributor_share0.874
How it's scored
33.6/42Issue resolution80% of issues closed
27.5/30PR acceptance101/110 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
4.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 7/18 approved changesets -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
merged_prs101
open_issues3
closed_issues12
prs_merged_7d
prs_decided_7d
prs_merged_30d
prs_decided_30d
issue_closed_ratio0.8
closed_unmerged_prs9
first_time_authors_30d
first_time_prs_merged_30d
first_time_prs_decided_30d
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backingorganization-owned
0/20Verified domainverified-domain status not read for this organization
6.1/25Owner reach6 followers of alma-oss
15.1/25Track record36 public repos, account ~1 yr old
Inputs used
followers6
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified
owner_loginalma-oss
public_repos36
account_age_days669
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable1 package(s) on packagist
26/35Publish recencylatest publish 287 days ago
20/20Version history29 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesalmacareer/coding-standard
ecosystemspackagist
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish287

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

66Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows2 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter configphpstan.neon
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
6/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests4 out of 13 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

50Moderate
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics5 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsphp, coding-standard, php-cs-fixer, php-code-sniffer, alma-career
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?

48Weak · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protectionno data
0.8/2.5CI-Tests4 out of 13 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 3
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
2.2/7.5Code-ReviewFound 7/18 approved changesets -- score normalized to 3
2.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 6 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolupdate 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-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0/5SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releasesno data
0/7.5Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated15
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive3
scorecard_aggregate4.8
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, 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.

30At Risk · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
0/40Legible commit historyno data
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Legible commit history. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format configphpstan.neon
0/11Static type checking
0/10Reproducible environment
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno data
5/8Automated maintenancedependency automation configured, none observed in the sampled commits
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesdependency 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_configyes
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Demonstrated agent practice. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable codePHP without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes0/20 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePHP
largest_source_bytes38,486
source_files_sampled20
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

16GitHub stars
8contributors
7commits, last 12 months
242days since last push
29releases
1bus factor
3open issues
Packagistpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • No resolved dependencies carried a version and a supported ecosystem

More detail

Star and fork history 16 ★ / 0 ⇿
16Stars

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.

04812161622018-032021-092025-03

Each point covers 7 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.8 / 10
4.8aggregate

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 · 2026-07-21 07:03 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-Tests4 out of 13 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 7/18 approved changesets -- score normalized to 3
10Contributorsproject has 6 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate 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
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 4
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Packagistfriendsofphp/php-cs-fixer^3.66composer.json
Packagistslevomat/coding-standard^8.6composer.json
Packagistsquizlabs/php_codesniffer^3.9composer.json
Packagistsymplify/easy-coding-standard^12.2.0 <12.4 || ^12.5.5composer.json
All dependencies 12

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 4 direct and 8 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
Packagistfriendsofphp/php-cs-fixerdirect
Packagistslevomat/coding-standarddirect
Packagistsquizlabs/php_codesnifferdirect
Packagistsymplify/easy-coding-standarddirect
Packagistergebnis/composer-normalizeindirect
Packagistnikic/php-parserindirect
Packagistphpindirect
Packagistphp-parallel-lint/php-parallel-lintindirect
Packagistphpstan/extension-installerindirect
Packagistphpstan/phpstanindirect
Packagistphpstan/phpstan-phpunitindirect
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 v0.17.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

How one result sits in the wider record: aggregate statisticsPackagist.