Public record
Software health reportschema 0.31.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-13 21:25 UTC

getsentry / sentry-php-sdk

This is a meta package to ship sentry-php with a recommend http client.

MIT★ 327 stars⑂ 8 forkssince Feb 2019View on GitHub ↗

getsentry/sentry-php-sdk holds a health index of 60 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (78/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (25/100). It was last updated 8 days ago. 2 contributors account for most of its recent work.

60
overall / 100
Moderate

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.

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

Ownership

SentryOrganization
3,146 followers795 public repossince Feb 2012

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
Packagistsentry/sdk4.0.01,314,389181011 days agologloggingsentryerror-handlererror-monitoringcrash-reportingcrash-reports

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

41Weak · 21% of overall
How it's scored
28.8/36Push recencylast push 8 days ago
2.8/36Commit cadence4/52 weeks with commits
7/18Commit volume5 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained1 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
commits_last_year5
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push8
active_weeks_last_year4
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases18 releases published
0/36Release recencylatest release 983 days ago
12.6/27Release cadencea release every ~130.7 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count18
latest_release_tag3.6.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release983
mean_days_between_releases130.7
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?

69Good · 17% of overall
How it's scored
40.8/60Stars327 stars
7/25Forks8 forks
9.3/15Watchers48 watchers
Inputs used
forks8
stars327
watchers48
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
13.5/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges3
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_servicesposer.pugx.org
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
80/80Monthly downloads1,314,389 downloads/month across packagist
14.8/20Registry dependents164 packages depend on it
Inputs used
packagessentry/sdk
dependents164
ecosystemspackagist
total_downloads140,893,843
monthly_downloads1,314,389
unverified_packages_excluded

Sustainability & Governance

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

78Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
25.2/54Bus factor2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
12.7/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 44% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth11 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 6 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor2
contributors_sampled11
top_contributor_share0.435
How it's scored
0/42Issue resolutionno issues or no data
27.2/30PR acceptance29/32 decided PRs merged
13/13Newcomer PR acceptance1/1 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
9/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 18/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
merged_prs29
open_issues0
closed_issues0
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d1
prs_decided_30d1
issue_closed_ratio
closed_unmerged_prs3
first_time_authors_30d1
first_time_prs_merged_30d1
first_time_prs_decided_30d1
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Issue resolution. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backingorganization-owned
0/20Verified domainverified-domain status not read for this organization
25/25Owner reach3,146 followers of getsentry
25/25Track record795 public repos, account ~14 yr old
Inputs used
followers3,146
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified
owner_logingetsentry
public_repos795
account_age_days5,307
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable1 package(s) on packagist
4/35Publish recencylatest publish 1,011 days ago
20/20Version history18 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagessentry/sdk
ecosystemspackagist
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish1,011

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

43Weak · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows2 workflow(s)
0/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
4/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests5 out of 24 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 2
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsno
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage sitehttps://github.com/getsentry/sentry-php
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics1 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicstag-production
has_wikino
homepagehttps://github.com/getsentry/sentry-php
docs_sitehttps://github.com/getsentry/sentry-php
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

57Moderate · 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
0.5/2.5CI-Tests5 out of 24 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 2
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
4.5/7.5Code-ReviewFound 18/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 6
2.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 6 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5Licenselicense file detected
0/7.5Maintained1 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
0/5Packagingno data
5/5Pinned-Dependenciesall dependencies are pinned
0/5SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
5/5Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
0/7.5Signed-Releasesno data
7.5/7.5Token-PermissionsGitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate5.7
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): 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.

25At Risk · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history38 of 46 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.826
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
0/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
0/11Static type checking
0/10Reproducible environment
4.3/10Demonstrated agent practice1 of the last 46 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
0/8Automated maintenanceno automated dependency updates observed
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesall dependencies are pinned
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsno
lockfiles
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share0.022
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share0

Key facts

327GitHub stars
11contributors
5commits, last 12 months
8days since last push
18releases
2bus factor
0open issues
Packagistpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Language breakdown unavailable
  • 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 ★ / 8 ⇿
0Stars
8Forks
6Releases

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.

02468822020-102022-032023-09
Major 0Minor 5Patch 1

Each point covers 3 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.7 / 10
5.7aggregate

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 · 2026-08-13 21:25 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
2CI-Tests5 out of 24 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 2
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
6Code-ReviewFound 18/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 6
10Contributorsproject has 6 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
0Maintained1 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
10Pinned-Dependenciesall dependencies are pinned
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
10Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
10Token-PermissionsGitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 1
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Packagistsentry/sentry^4.0composer.json
All dependencies 1

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 1 direct and 0 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
Packagistsentry/sentrydirect
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 v0.31.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

How one result sits in the wider record: aggregate statisticsPackagist.