Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-18 01:51 UTC

doctrine / phpcr-odm

Doctrine PHPCR ODM

PHPMIT★ 181 stars⑂ 102 forkssince Feb 2011View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryCommand-line toolhow this is determined

doctrine/phpcr-odm holds a health index of 71 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (86/100) and lowest on Security (39/100). It was last updated 177 days ago. 2 contributors account for most of its recent work.

71
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.

71
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 63 is calibrated to 71 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

DoctrineOrganization · verified domain
349 followers77 public repossince Feb 2010

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
Packagistdoctrine/phpcr-odm3.0.08,85968177 days agophpdataobjectodmmappingmappercontent

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

45Weak · 21% of overall
How it's scored
9.9/36Push recency — last push 177 days ago
2.8/36Commit cadence — 4/52 weeks with commits
11.5/18Commit volume — 18 commits in the last year
1/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 0 commit(s) and 2 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 1
Inputs used
commits_last_year18
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push177
active_weeks_last_year4
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 61 releases published
27/36Release recency — latest release 177 days ago
12.6/27Release cadence — a release every ~130.5 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count61
latest_release_tag3.0.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release177
mean_days_between_releases130.5
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?

65Good · 17% of overall
How it's scored
36.6/60Stars — 181 stars
16.7/25Forks — 102 forks
5.6/15Watchers — 11 watchers
Inputs used
forks102
stars181
watchers11
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (MIT)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges3
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesgithub.com, poser.pugx.org
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
52.6/80Monthly downloads — 8,859 downloads/month across packagist
13.8/20Registry dependents — 117 packages depend on it
Inputs used
packagesdoctrine/phpcr-odm
dependents117
ecosystemspackagist
total_downloads1,568,069
monthly_downloads8,859
unverified_packages_excluded—

Sustainability & Governance

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

79Good · 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 — 71 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 73 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor2
contributors_sampled71
top_contributor_share0.361
How it's scored
31.8/42Issue resolution — 76% of issues closed
25.4/30PR acceptance — 545/643 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
1.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 3/18 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
Inputs used
merged_prs545
open_issues56
closed_issues175
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio0.758
closed_unmerged_prs98
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
18.3/25Owner reach — 349 followers of doctrine
25/25Track record — 77 public repos, account ~16 yr old
Inputs used
followers349
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedyes
owner_logindoctrine
public_repos77
account_age_days6,050

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on packagist
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 177 days ago
20/20Version history — 68 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesdoctrine/phpcr-odm
ecosystemspackagist
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish177

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

86Excellent · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 3 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — .php-cs-fixer.dist.php
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
14/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 7 out of 10 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 7
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

90Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — http://www.doctrine-project.org/projects/phpcr-odm.html
10/10Repository description
0/10Topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics—
has_wikiyes
homepagehttp://www.doctrine-project.org/projects/phpcr-odm.html
docs_sitehttp://www.doctrine-project.org/projects/phpcr-odm.html
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

39Weak · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — no data
1.8/2.5CI-Tests — 7 out of 10 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
0.8/7.5Code-Review — Found 3/18 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 73 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
0.8/7.5Maintained — 0 commit(s) and 2 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 1
0/5Packaging — no data
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
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 — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated15
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive3
scorecard_aggregate3.9
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.

42Weak · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
18.1/40Legible commit history — 34 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.34
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
0/10Reproducible environment
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 — dependency 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_share0
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — PHP without a type-check config
54.8/55Manageable file sizes — 1/347 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePHP
largest_source_bytes150,992
source_files_sampled347
oversized_source_files1
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — not applicable to this kind of software
0/20MCP server — not applicable to this kind of software
40/40Runnable examples — cookbook
Inputs used
example_dirscookbook
has_mcp_signalno
api_schema_files—
interfaces_expected_of—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto), MCP server. Remaining weights renormalized.

Key facts

181GitHub stars
71contributors
18commits, last 12 months
177days since last push
61releases
2bus factor
56open 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 ★ / 102 ⇿
0Stars
102Forks
61Releases

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.

02040608010012010142011-032018-112026-07
Major 3Minor 9Patch 27

Each point covers 15 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 3.9 / 10
3.9aggregate

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 · 2026-09-18 01:50 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
7CI-Tests7 out of 10 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 7
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
1Code-ReviewFound 3/18 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
10Contributorsproject has 73 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
1Maintained0 commit(s) and 2 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 1
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 7
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Packagistdoctrine/collections^2.0composer.json
Packagistdoctrine/common^2.4 || ^3.0composer.json
Packagistdoctrine/event-manager^1.0 || ^2.0composer.json
Packagistdoctrine/persistence^4.0composer.json
Packagistdoctrine/instantiator^1.0.1 || ^2.0composer.json
Packagistsymfony/console^3.4 || ^4.3 || ^5.0 || ^6.0 || ^7.0 || ^8.0composer.json
Packagistpsr/cache^1.0 || ^2.0 || ^3.0composer.json
All dependencies 16

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 7 direct and 9 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
Packagistdoctrine/collections—direct
Packagistdoctrine/common—direct
Packagistdoctrine/event-manager—direct
Packagistdoctrine/instantiator—direct
Packagistdoctrine/persistence—direct
Packagistpsr/cache—direct
Packagistsymfony/console—direct
Packagistliip/rmt—indirect
Packagistphp—indirect
Packagistphpcr/phpcr—indirect
Packagistphpcr/phpcr-implementation—indirect
Packagistphpcr/phpcr-utils—indirect
Packagistphpunit/phpunit—indirect
Packagistsymfony/cache—indirect
Packagistsymfony/phpunit-bridge—indirect
Packagistsymfony/yaml—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.