Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-29 16:33 UTC

cycle / annotated

Schema generation using annotated entities and mappers

PHPMIT★ 29 stars⑂ 14 forkssince Mar 2019View on GitHub ↗

cycle/annotated holds a health index of 75 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (77/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (38/100). It was last updated today. 2 contributors account for most of its recent work.

75
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.

75
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 65 is calibrated to 75 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Cycle ORMOrganization · verified domain
107 followers21 public repossince Feb 2019

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
Packagistcycle/annotatedv4.6.031,10242105 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

66Good · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
4.2/36Commit cadence — 6/52 weeks with commits
10.6/18Commit volume — 14 commits in the last year
5/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 4 commit(s) and 3 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 5
Inputs used
commits_last_year14
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year6
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 42 releases published
27/36Release recency — latest release 105 days ago
19.8/27Release cadence — a release every ~59.5 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count42
latest_release_tagv4.6.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release105
mean_days_between_releases59.5
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?

64Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
23.5/60Stars — 29 stars
9.3/25Forks — 14 forks
1.7/15Watchers — 3 watchers
Inputs used
forks14
stars29
watchers3
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 (MIT)
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_badges7
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_servicescodecov.io, github.com, poser.pugx.org, shields.io
has_pull_request_templateyes
How it's scored
59.9/80Monthly downloads — 31,102 downloads/month across packagist
11.9/20Registry dependents — 59 packages depend on it
Inputs used
packagescycle/annotated
dependents59
ecosystemspackagist
total_downloads875,036
monthly_downloads31,102
unverified_packages_excluded—

Sustainability & Governance

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

77Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
25.2/54Bus factor — 2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
14.4/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 36% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 16 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 37 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor2
contributors_sampled16
top_contributor_share0.362
How it's scored
28.4/42Issue resolution — 68% of issues closed
26.1/30PR acceptance — 80/92 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
3/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 4/14 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
Inputs used
merged_prs80
open_issues11
closed_issues23
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio0.676
closed_unmerged_prs12
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
14.6/25Owner reach — 107 followers of cycle
21.8/25Track record — 21 public repos, account ~7 yr old
Inputs used
followers107
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedyes
owner_logincycle
public_repos21
account_age_days2,779

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on packagist
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 105 days ago
20/20Version history — 42 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagescycle/annotated
ecosystemspackagist
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish105

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

75Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 4 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — .php-cs-fixer.dist.php
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
12/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 5 out of 8 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://cycle-orm.dev
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 6 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsphp, orm, datamapper, cycle, hacktoberfest, attributes
has_wikino
homepage—
docs_sitehttps://cycle-orm.dev
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

44Weak · 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
1.5/2.5CI-Tests — 5 out of 8 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 6
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
1.5/7.5Code-Review — Found 4/14 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 37 contributing companies or organizations
0/10Dangerous-Workflow — no data
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
3.8/7.5Maintained — 4 commit(s) and 3 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 5
0/5Packaging — no data
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — no data
0/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — no data
0/7.5Token-Permissions — no data
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated13
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive5
scorecard_aggregate4.4
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.

38Weak · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
16/40Legible commit history — 30 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.3
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — .php-cs-fixer.dist.php
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
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — no data
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles—
has_dockerfileyes
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0
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 code — PHP without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/324 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePHP
largest_source_bytes17,690
source_files_sampled324
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

29GitHub stars
16contributors
14commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
42releases
2bus factor
11open 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 ★ / 14 ⇿
0Stars
14Forks
36Releases

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.

03581013151412019-042022-072025-11
Major 3Minor 12Patch 21

Each point covers 6 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.4 / 10
4.4aggregate

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 · 2026-09-29 16:33 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
5Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
6CI-Tests5 out of 8 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 6
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
2Code-ReviewFound 4/14 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
10Contributorsproject has 37 contributing companies or organizations
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
5Maintained4 commit(s) and 3 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 6
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Packagistcycle/database^2.20composer.json
Packagistcycle/orm^2.18composer.json
Packagistcycle/schema-builder^2.12composer.json
Packagistspiral/attributes^2.8 || ^3.1composer.json
Packagistspiral/tokenizer^2.8 || ^3.17composer.json
Packagistdoctrine/inflector^2.1composer.json
All dependencies 13

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 6 direct and 7 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
Packagistcycle/database—direct
Packagistcycle/orm—direct
Packagistcycle/schema-builder—direct
Packagistdoctrine/inflector—direct
Packagistspiral/attributes—direct
Packagistspiral/tokenizer—direct
Packagistbuggregator/trap—indirect
Packagistdoctrine/annotations—indirect
Packagistphp—indirect
Packagistphpunit/phpunit—indirect
Packagistspiral/code-style—indirect
Packagistspiral/dumper—indirect
Packagistvimeo/psalm—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.