Core package for defining and running durable workflows and activities. Supports long-running persistent workflows, retries, queues, parallel execution, workflow monitoring, dedicated storage connections, and orchestration for microservices, data pipelines, sagas, agentic workflows, and other complex business processes.
durable-workflow/workflow holds a health index of 87 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Vitality (95/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (55/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.
87
overall / 100
Excellent
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.
87
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)
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 73 is calibrated to 87 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).
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.
Type-checkable code — PHP without a type-check config
53.6/55
Manageable file sizes — 26/1,044 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_language
PHP
largest_source_bytes
398,506
source_files_sampled
1,044
oversized_source_files
26
Key facts
1,234GitHub stars
17contributors
1,248commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
100releases
1bus factor
3open 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 ★ / 75 ⇿
0Stars
75Forks
95Releases
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.
Major 0Minor 0Patch 3
Each point covers 4 days.
OpenSSF Scorecard 5.5 / 10
5.5aggregate
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 · 2026-08-22 14:57 UTC
Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 4 direct and 5 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.
Registry
Package
Version
Relation
Packagist
apache/avro
—
direct
Packagist
laravel/framework
—
direct
Packagist
react/promise
—
direct
Packagist
symfony/yaml
—
direct
Packagist
doctrine/dbal
—
indirect
Packagist
orchestra/testbench
—
indirect
Packagist
php
—
indirect
Packagist
phpstan/phpstan
—
indirect
Packagist
symplify/easy-coding-standard
—
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.
Related records
Inspected repositories sharing catalogue tags or ecosystems with durable-workflow/workflow. Read them side by side →
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.
