Public record
Software health reportschema 0.16.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-20 20:57 UTC

alma / alma-php-client

PHP API Client for Alma

PHPMIT★ 17 stars⑂ 10 forkssince Nov 2018View on GitHub ↗

alma/alma-php-client holds a health index of 77 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (85/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (47/100). It was last updated today. 3 contributors account for most of its recent work.

77
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.

77
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 66 is calibrated to 77 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

AlmaOrganization
46 followers29 public repossince Sep 2018

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
Packagistalma/alma-php-client3.0.114,7506170 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

57Moderate · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 0 days ago
4.2/36Commit cadence6/52 weeks with commits
12.9/18Commit volume26 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_year26
human_commit_share
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year6
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases58 releases published
16.2/36Release recencylatest release 305 days ago
19.8/27Release cadencea release every ~61.8 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count58
latest_release_tagv2.6.1
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release305
mean_days_between_releases61.8

Community & Adoption

Does the project have users, downloads, attention, and a welcoming setup for contributors?

47Weak · 17% of overall
How it's scored
19.5/60Stars17 stars
8/25Forks10 forks
0/15Watchers2 watchers
Inputs used
forks10
stars17
watchers2
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
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
6.3/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services
has_pull_request_templateyes
How it's scored
55.6/80Monthly downloads14,750 downloads/month across packagist
6/20Registry dependents7 packages depend on it
Inputs used
packagesalma/alma-php-client
dependents7
ecosystemspackagist
total_downloads703,495
monthly_downloads14,750
unverified_packages_excluded

Sustainability & Governance

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

85Excellent · 23% of overall
How it's scored
36/54Bus factor3 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
18.1/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 20% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth25 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
bus_factor3
contributors_sampled25
top_contributor_share0.195
How it's scored
31.5/42Issue resolution75% of issues closed
26.4/30PR acceptance207/235 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
15/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Reviewall changesets reviewed
Inputs used
merged_prs207
open_issues2
closed_issues6
prs_merged_7d
prs_decided_7d
prs_merged_30d
prs_decided_30d
issue_closed_ratio0.75
closed_unmerged_prs28
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
12/25Owner reach46 followers of alma
22.8/25Track record29 public repos, account ~7 yr old
Inputs used
followers46
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified
owner_loginalma
public_repos29
account_age_days2,863
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable1 package(s) on packagist
35/35Publish recencylatest publish 70 days ago
20/20Version history61 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesalma/alma-php-client
ecosystemspackagist
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish70

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

80Excellent · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows7 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config
9.6/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
16/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests15 out of 18 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 8
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configyes
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage sitehttps://www.getalma.eu
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics4 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsphp, php-library, alma, api-client
has_wikino
homepagehttps://www.getalma.eu
docs_sitehttps://www.getalma.eu
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

58Moderate · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
3.8/7.5Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
2/2.5CI-Tests15 out of 18 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 8
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
7.5/7.5Code-Reviewall changesets reviewed
2.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
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
3/5Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 6
4/5SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 8
0/5Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0/7.5Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated17
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive1
scorecard_aggregate5.8
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging. 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.

49Weak · 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
18/18One-command bootstrapTaskfile.yml
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environmentDockerfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno data
0/8Automated maintenanceno data
6/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles
has_dockerfileyes
typed_languageno
bootstrap_filesTaskfile.yml
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Demonstrated agent practice, Automated maintenance. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable codePHP without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes0/86 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePHP
largest_source_bytes34,190
source_files_sampled86
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

17GitHub stars
25contributors
26commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
58releases
3bus factor
2open issues
Packagistpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • No resolved dependencies carried a version and a supported ecosystem

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.8 / 10
5.8aggregate

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 · 2026-07-20 20:57 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
5Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
8CI-Tests15 out of 18 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 8
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
10Code-Reviewall changesets reviewed
10Contributorsproject has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
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
6Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 6
8SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 8
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
0Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 1
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Packagistpsr/log^1 || ^2 || ^3composer.json
All dependencies 12

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 1 direct and 11 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
Packagistpsr/logdirect
Packagistdealerdirect/phpcodesniffer-composer-installerindirect
Packagistext-curlindirect
Packagistext-iconvindirect
Packagistext-jsonindirect
Packagistext-simplexmlindirect
Packagistmockery/mockeryindirect
Packagistphpindirect
Packagistphpcompatibility/php-compatibilityindirect
Packagistphpunit/phpunitindirect
Packagistroave/security-advisoriesindirect
Packagistsquizlabs/php_codesnifferindirect
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 v0.16.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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