# felixfbecker/php-advanced-json-rpc — health index 22/100 (Critical)

> Inspection of the public repository felixfbecker/php-advanced-json-rpc by inspect.software. It holds a health index of 22 out of 100, placing it in the Critical band. The index is a signal derived from publicly visible practice, not a warranty, a security audit, or an endorsement, and it is independent of payment.

- Repository: https://github.com/felixfbecker/php-advanced-json-rpc
- Report page: https://inspect.software/software/felixfbecker/php-advanced-json-rpc
- Full JSON report: https://inspect.software/api/repositories/felixfbecker/php-advanced-json-rpc/report
- Badge: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/inspect-software/badges/main/v1/f/felixfbecker/php-advanced-json-rpc.svg
- Inspected: 2026-07-22
- Methodology: metrics 1.13.0, report schema 0.26.0 (https://inspect.software/methodology.md)

## Category summary

| Category | Weight | Index | Band |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vitality | 22% | 18/100 | Critical |
| Community & Adoption | 18% | 59/100 | Moderate |
| Sustainability & Governance | 24% | 54/100 | Moderate |
| Engineering Quality | 20% | 52/100 | Moderate |
| Security | 16% | 34/100 | At risk |
| AI Readiness | not counted | 36/100 | At risk |

High-Risk Jurisdiction Policy applies a 50% multiplier to weighted overall health and gives it an At risk ceiling of 49.

## Repository facts

| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Description | A more advanced PHP implementation of the JSONRPC Protocol 📞❗ |
| Primary language | PHP |
| License | ISC |
| Stars | 255 |
| Forks | 17 |
| Created | 2016-08-23 |
| Last push | 2023-08-25 |
| Latest release | v3.2.1 |
| Commits (last year) | 0 |
| Bus factor | 1 |

## Published packages

| Registry | Package | Latest | Monthly downloads |
|---|---|---|---|
| packagist | felixfbecker/advanced-json-rpc | v3.2.1 | 795,237 |

## Vitality — 18/100 (Critical)

Is the project alive — is code being written and are releases shipping? Weight: 22% of the overall index.

### Development activity — 1/100 (Critical)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Push recency | not met | 0 / 36 | last push 1062 days ago |
| Commit cadence | not met | 0 / 36 | 0/52 weeks with commits |
| Commit volume | not met | 0 / 18 | 0 commits in the last year |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained | not met | 0 / 10 | 0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0 |

### Release discipline — 44/100 (At risk)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ships releases | met | 27 / 27 | 10 releases published |
| Release recency | not met | 0 / 36 | latest release 1866 days ago |
| Release cadence | partial | 12.6 / 27 | a release every ~147.5 days |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases | excluded | 0 / 10 | no releases found |

### Abandonment — 60/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Project is still maintained | partial | 60 / 100 | no human commit for 1866 days; 4 unmet obligation(s): pull requests unanswered, issues unanswered, releases stalled, Scorecard reports it unmaintained |

## Community & Adoption — 59/100 (Moderate)

Does the project have users, downloads, attention, and a welcoming setup for contributors? Weight: 18% of the overall index.

### Popularity & adoption — 52/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stars | partial | 39 / 60 | 255 stars |
| Forks | partial | 10 / 25 | 17 forks |
| Watchers | partial | 2.7 / 15 | 4 watchers |

### Community health — 50/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| README | met | 22.5 / 22.5 | — |
| License | met | 22.5 / 22.5 | recognized license (ISC) |
| CONTRIBUTING guide | not met | 0 / 18 | — |
| Code of conduct | not met | 0 / 13.5 | — |
| Issue template | not met | 0 / 7.2 | — |
| PR template | not met | 0 / 6.3 | — |

### Ecosystem adoption (downloads) — 84/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Monthly downloads | partial | 78.7 / 80 | 795,237 downloads/month across packagist |
| Registry dependents | partial | 5.2 / 20 | 5 packages depend on it |

## Sustainability & Governance — 54/100 (Moderate)

Will the project survive its people — bus factor, responsiveness, who backs it, and package upkeep? Weight: 24% of the overall index.

### Maintainer resilience (bus factor) — 31/100 (At risk)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bus factor | partial | 9 / 54 | 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits |
| Commit distribution | partial | 5.7 / 22.5 | top contributor authored 74% of commits |
| Contributor breadth | met | 13.5 / 13.5 | 13 contributors |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors | partial | 3 / 10 | project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3 |

### Issue & PR responsiveness — 55/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue resolution | partial | 24.5 / 46.8 | 52% of issues closed |
| PR acceptance | partial | 23.2 / 38.2 | 20/33 decided PRs merged |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review | partial | 7.5 / 15 | Found 16/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 5 |

### Ownership & stewardship — 68/100 (Moderate)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership backing | partial | 10 / 30 | personal (user) account |
| Verified domain | excluded | 0 / 20 | not applicable to user accounts |
| Owner reach | partial | 19.8 / 25 | 574 followers of felixfbecker |
| Track record | met | 25 / 25 | 192 public repos, account ~11 yr old |

### Package maintenance — 69/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Published & resolvable | met | 25 / 25 | 1 package(s) on packagist |
| Publish recency | partial | 4 / 35 | latest publish 1866 days ago |
| Version history | met | 20 / 20 | 27 published versions |
| Not deprecated | met | 20 / 20 | active, not deprecated or yanked |

## Engineering Quality — 52/100 (Moderate)

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place? Weight: 20% of the overall index.

### Engineering practices — 54/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| CI workflows | met | 24 / 24 | 1 workflow(s) |
| Tests present | met | 24 / 24 | — |
| Linter config | not met | 0 / 16 | — |
| Pre-commit hooks | not met | 0 / 9.6 | — |
| .editorconfig | met | 6.4 / 6.4 | — |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests | not met | 0 / 20 | 0 out of 17 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0 |

### Documentation — 50/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| README | met | 30 / 30 | — |
| Documentation directory | not met | 0 / 25 | — |
| Documentation / homepage site | not met | 0 / 15 | — |
| Repository description | met | 10 / 10 | — |
| Topics | not met | 0 / 10 | — |
| Wiki | met | 10 / 10 | — |

## Security — 34/100 (At risk)

Are visible security and supply-chain practices strong, with no malicious dependency and no unresolved high-risk jurisdiction exposure? Weight: 16% of the overall index.

### Security posture — 18/100 (Critical)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging, Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized. High-Risk Jurisdiction Policy applies a 50% multiplier to Security posture and gives it an At risk ceiling of 49.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Binary-Artifacts | met | 7.5 / 7.5 | no binaries found in the repo |
| Branch-Protection | not met | 0 / 7.5 | branch protection not enabled on development/release branches |
| CI-Tests | not met | 0 / 2.5 | 0 out of 17 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0 |
| CII-Best-Practices | not met | 0 / 2.5 | no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected |
| Code-Review | partial | 3.8 / 7.5 | Found 16/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 5 |
| Contributors | partial | 0.8 / 2.5 | project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3 |
| Dangerous-Workflow | met | 10 / 10 | no dangerous workflow patterns detected |
| Dependency-Update-Tool | not met | 0 / 7.5 | no update tool detected |
| Fuzzing | not met | 0 / 5 | project is not fuzzed |
| License | met | 2.5 / 2.5 | license file detected |
| Maintained | not met | 0 / 7.5 | 0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0 |
| Packaging | excluded | 0 / 5 | packaging workflow not detected |
| Pinned-Dependencies | partial | 1 / 5 | dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 2 |
| SAST | not met | 0 / 5 | SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0 |
| Security-Policy | not met | 0 / 5 | security policy file not detected |
| Signed-Releases | excluded | 0 / 7.5 | no releases found |
| Token-Permissions | not met | 0 / 7.5 | detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions |
| Vulnerabilities | met | 7.5 / 7.5 | 0 existing vulnerabilities detected |

### Dependency advisories — 100/100 (Excellent)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories, No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 564 resolved dependencies against OSV; 4 could not be assessed (no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list). This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so the repository dependency graph was assessed instead. That graph mixes development and test pins with shipped dependencies, so only the declared runtime dependencies are scored; transitive findings are reported as context and excluded from the score. Reachability is not analyzed.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Direct dependencies free of known advisories | met | 35 / 35 | no direct dependency carries a known advisory |
| Indirect dependencies free of known advisories | excluded | 0 / 25 | transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope |
| No advisories left outstanding | excluded | 0 / 40 | no advisory carries a publication date |

### Malicious dependencies — 100/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| No dependency reported as a malicious package | met | 100 / 100 | no dependency is reported as a malicious package |

### High-Risk Jurisdiction Exposure — 50/100 (Moderate)

Only high-confidence self-published location evidence affects this multiplier. Ambiguous matches are review-only; country evidence is not proof of nationality, citizenship, legal registration, malicious intent, or sanctions status.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Policy exposure multiplier | partial | 50 / 100 | Russia: contributor_organization (1); Russia: top_contributor (1) |

## AI Readiness — 36/100 (At risk)

How well is the repo equipped to be developed and maintained with AI coding agents? An independent, experimental badge — weight 0.0, so it is surfaced on its own and does not affect the overall health score.

### Agent context & guidance — 30/100 (At risk)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agent instructions | not met | 0 / 45 | no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules |
| Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) | not met | 0 / 15 | — |
| Legible commit history | partial | 30.1 / 40 | 31 of 55 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body) |

### Verify loop (build / test / typecheck) — 34/100 (At risk)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| One-command bootstrap | not met | 0 / 18 | — |
| Automated tests | met | 22 / 22 | — |
| Lint / format config | not met | 0 / 11 | — |
| Static type checking | not met | 0 / 11 | — |
| Reproducible environment | met | 10 / 10 | lockfile |
| Demonstrated agent practice | not met | 0 / 10 | no agent-authored commits among the last 57 |
| Automated maintenance | not met | 0 / 8 | no automated dependency updates observed |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies | partial | 2 / 10 | dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 2 |

### Code legibility for models — 55/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Type-checkable code | not met | 0 / 45 | PHP without a type-check config |
| Manageable file sizes | met | 55 / 55 | 0/14 source files over 60KB |

## Collection warnings

- Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token

## What this report is

inspect.software measures public repositories against a single published, versioned methodology and reports the result as a 1–100 health index. Findings are signals derived from what is visible in public repository data — they are not a security audit, a warranty, or an endorsement, and no result depends on payment.

- Methodology, formulas and weights: https://inspect.software/methodology.md
- What a result does and does not claim: https://inspect.software/wiki/signals-not-warranties.md
- Rating bands: https://inspect.software/wiki/scoring-bands.md
- Corrections: https://inspect.software/contact.md
- Index of all documents: https://inspect.software/llms.txt