Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-12 04:40 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 5 days ago. 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 · verified domain
49 followers30 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-client3.0.218,6026236 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

55Moderate · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 5 days ago
2.8/36Commit cadence — 4/52 weeks with commits
11.1/18Commit volume — 16 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
commits_last_year16
human_commit_share0.87
days_since_last_push5
active_weeks_last_year4
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 58 releases published
16.2/36Release recency — latest release 358 days ago
19.8/27Release cadence — a release every ~61.8 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count58
latest_release_tagv2.6.1
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release358
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
19.5/60Stars — 17 stars
8/25Forks — 10 forks
0/15Watchers — 2 watchers
Inputs used
forks10
stars17
watchers2
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized 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_badges0
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services—
has_pull_request_templateyes
How it's scored
56.9/80Monthly downloads — 18,602 downloads/month across packagist
6.4/20Registry dependents — 8 packages depend on it
Inputs used
packagesalma/alma-php-client
dependents8
ecosystemspackagist
total_downloads734,768
monthly_downloads18,602
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 factor — 3 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
17.9/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 20% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 23 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
bus_factor3
contributors_sampled23
top_contributor_share0.205
How it's scored
31.5/42Issue resolution — 75% of issues closed
26.2/30PR acceptance — 208/238 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
15/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — all changesets reviewed
Inputs used
merged_prs208
open_issues2
closed_issues6
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio0.75
closed_unmerged_prs30
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
12.2/25Owner reach — 49 followers of alma
22.9/25Track record — 30 public repos, account ~7 yr old
Inputs used
followers49
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedyes
owner_loginalma
public_repos30
account_age_days2,916

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on packagist
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 36 days ago
20/20Version history — 62 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesalma/alma-php-client
ecosystemspackagist
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish36

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

79Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 7 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config
9.6/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
14/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 14 out of 18 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 7
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 site — https://www.getalma.eu
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 4 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-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
3.8/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
1.8/2.5CI-Tests — 14 out of 18 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 7
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
7.5/7.5Code-Review — all changesets reviewed
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
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
0/7.5Maintained — 0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
0/5Packaging — no data
3/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 6
4/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 8
0/5Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0/7.5Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 0 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.

55Moderate · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history — 73 of 87 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.839
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrap — Taskfile.yml
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environment — Dockerfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
0/8Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
6/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency 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_share0
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — PHP without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/86 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePHP
largest_source_bytes34,190
source_files_sampled86
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

17GitHub stars
23contributors
16commits, last 12 months
5days since last push
58releases
3bus 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 ★ / 10 ⇿
0Stars
10Forks
30Releases

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.

02468812022-012024-012026-01
Major 1Minor 13Patch 16

Each point covers 4 days.

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 · 2026-09-12 04:39 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
5Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
7CI-Tests14 out of 18 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 7
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/log—direct
Packagistdealerdirect/phpcodesniffer-composer-installer—indirect
Packagistext-curl—indirect
Packagistext-iconv—indirect
Packagistext-json—indirect
Packagistext-simplexml—indirect
Packagistmockery/mockery—indirect
Packagistphp—indirect
Packagistphpcompatibility/php-compatibility—indirect
Packagistphpunit/phpunit—indirect
Packagistroave/security-advisories—indirect
Packagistsquizlabs/php_codesniffer—indirect
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 statistics — Packagist.