Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-13 22:55 UTC

assetic-php / assetic

Asset Management for PHP

PHPMIT★ 101 stars⑂ 24 forkssince Aug 2019View on GitHub ↗

assetic-php/assetic holds a health index of 65 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (77/100) and lowest on Security (40/100). It was last updated 30 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

65
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.

65
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 60 is calibrated to 65 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Assetic PHPOrganization
2 followers1 public reposince Aug 2019

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
Packagistassetic/frameworkv3.2.240,2683530 days agoassetscompressionminification

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

66Good · 21% of overall
How it's scored
28.8/36Push recencylast push 30 days ago
3.5/36Commit cadence5/52 weeks with commits
10.3/18Commit volume13 commits in the last year
5/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained6 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 5
Inputs used
commits_last_year13
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push30
active_weeks_last_year5
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases16 releases published
36/36Release recencylatest release 30 days ago
19.8/27Release cadencea release every ~95.9 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count16
latest_release_tagv3.2.2
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release30
mean_days_between_releases95.9
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?

54Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
32.4/60Stars101 stars
11.3/25Forks24 forks
3.9/15Watchers6 watchers
Inputs used
forks24
stars101
watchers6
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
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges2
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesisitmaintained.com
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
61.4/80Monthly downloads40,268 downloads/month across packagist
9.4/20Registry dependents25 packages depend on it
Inputs used
packagesassetic/framework
dependents25
ecosystemspackagist
total_downloads1,634,619
monthly_downloads40,268
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
10.8/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 52% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth100 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 69 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled100
top_contributor_share0.522
How it's scored
31.5/42Issue resolution75% of issues closed
25/30PR acceptance30/36 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
6/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 13/28 approved changesets -- score normalized to 4
Inputs used
merged_prs30
open_issues4
closed_issues12
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio0.75
closed_unmerged_prs6
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
3.4/25Owner reach2 followers of assetic-php
14.2/25Track record1 public repos, account ~7 yr old
Inputs used
followers2
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_loginassetic-php
public_repos1
account_age_days2,590

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable1 package(s) on packagist
35/35Publish recencylatest publish 30 days ago
20/20Version history35 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesassetic/framework
ecosystemspackagist
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish30

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

77Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows2 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter configphpcs.xml
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
8/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests7 out of 15 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 4
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics7 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsphp7, php, php-library, assets, assets-management, assetic, hacktoberfest
has_wikino
homepage
docs_site
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

40Weak · 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
1/2.5CI-Tests7 out of 15 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 4
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
3/7.5Code-ReviewFound 13/28 approved changesets -- score normalized to 4
2.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 69 contributing companies or organizations
0/10Dangerous-Workflowno data
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5Licenselicense file detected
3.8/7.5Maintained6 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 5
0/5Packagingno data
0/5Pinned-Dependenciesno data
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-Permissionsno data
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated13
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive5
scorecard_aggregate4
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Dangerous-Workflow, Packaging, Pinned-Dependencies, Signed-Releases, Token-Permissions. 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.

42Weak · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
19.7/40Legible commit history37 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.37
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format configphpcs.xml
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environmentdevcontainer, Dockerfile
6/10Demonstrated agent practice3 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
0/8Automated maintenanceno automated dependency updates observed
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesno data
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles
has_dockerfileyes
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files
has_devcontaineryes
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share0.03
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share0
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 sizes0/167 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePHP
largest_source_bytes12,233
source_files_sampled167
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

101GitHub stars
100contributors
13commits, last 12 months
30days since last push
16releases
1bus factor
4open issues
npm, Packagistpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • Could not fetch npm package 'assetic' from its registry
  • No resolved dependencies carried a version and a supported ecosystem

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 24 ⇿
0Stars
24Forks
12Releases

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.

048121620242212020-022023-042026-05
Major 2Minor 1Patch 9

Each point covers 6 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.0 / 10
4.0aggregate

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 · 2026-09-13 22:55 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
4CI-Tests7 out of 15 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 4
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
4Code-ReviewFound 13/28 approved changesets -- score normalized to 4
10Contributorsproject has 69 contributing companies or organizations
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
5Maintained6 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 5
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
n/aPinned-Dependenciesno dependencies found
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
n/aToken-PermissionsNo tokens found
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 18
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Packagistsymfony/process^3.4 || ^4.0 || ^5.0 || ^6.0 || ^7.0composer.json
Packagistsymfony/deprecation-contracts^2.2.0 || ^3.0composer.json
npmautoprefixer*package.json
npmautoprefixer-5^1.xpackage.json
npmautoprefixer-cli*package.json
npmclean-css^4.2.1package.json
npmcoffee-script*package.json
npmhandlebars*package.json
npmjpegtran^1.0.6package.json
npmless^3.9.0package.json
npmnib*package.json
npmpngout^1.0.0package.json
npmreact-tools*package.json
npmroole*package.json
npmstylus*package.json
npmtypescript*package.json
npmuglify-js*package.json
npmuglifycss*package.json
All dependencies 16

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 2 direct and 14 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
Packagistsymfony/deprecation-contractsdirect
Packagistsymfony/processdirect
Packagistext-curlindirect
Packagistext-jsonindirect
Packagistext-simplexmlindirect
Packagistmeenie/javascript-packerindirect
Packagistphpindirect
Packagistphpspec/prophecy-phpunitindirect
Packagistphpunit/phpunitindirect
Packagistpsr/logindirect
Packagistptachoire/cssembedindirect
Packagistscssphp/scssphpindirect
Packagistsymfony/phpunit-bridgeindirect
Packagisttwig/twigindirect
Packagistwikimedia/less.phpindirect
Packagistwikimedia/minifyindirect
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 statisticsPackagist.