Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-28 00:42 UTC

googleapis / php-jwt

PHP package for JWT

PHPBSD-3-Clause★ 9,812 stars⑂ 1,282 forkssince Dec 2012forkView on GitHub ↗

googleapis/php-jwt holds a health index of 73 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (78/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (41/100). It was last updated 35 days ago. 2 contributors account for most of its recent work.

73
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.

73
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 64 is calibrated to 73 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Google APIsOrganization
6,762 followers901 public repossince Jan 2016

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
Packagistfirebase/php-jwtv7.1.013,072,3724177 days agophpjwt

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

62Moderate · 21% of overall
How it's scored
18/36Push recencylast push 35 days ago
6.9/36Commit cadence10/52 weeks with commits
12.6/18Commit volume24 commits in the last year
5/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained5 commit(s) and 2 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 5
Inputs used
commits_last_year24
human_commit_share0.85
days_since_last_push35
active_weeks_last_year10
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases36 releases published
36/36Release recencylatest release 77 days ago
19.8/27Release cadencea release every ~62.7 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count36
latest_release_tagv7.1.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release77
mean_days_between_releases62.7
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?

73Good · 17% of overall
How it's scored
60/60Stars9,812 stars
25/25Forks1,282 forks
13/15Watchers223 watchers
Inputs used
forks1,282
stars9,812
watchers223
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
0/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (BSD-3-Clause)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeno
has_licenseno
readme_badges4
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesgithub.com, poser.pugx.org
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
80/80Monthly downloads13,072,372 downloads/month across packagist
20/20Registry dependents2,486 packages depend on it
Inputs used
packagesfirebase/php-jwt
dependents2,486
ecosystemspackagist
total_downloads502,765,846
monthly_downloads13,072,372
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
14.2/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 37% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth82 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 12 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor2
contributors_sampled82
top_contributor_share0.371
How it's scored
41.3/42Issue resolution98% of issues closed
19.8/30PR acceptance207/313 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance0/1 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
15/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Reviewall changesets reviewed
Inputs used
merged_prs207
open_issues5
closed_issues314
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d1
issue_closed_ratio0.984
closed_unmerged_prs106
first_time_authors_30d1
first_time_prs_merged_30d0
first_time_prs_decided_30d1
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backingorganization-owned
0/20Verified domain
25/25Owner reach6,762 followers of googleapis
25/25Track record901 public repos, account ~10 yr old
Inputs used
followers6,762
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_logingoogleapis
public_repos901
account_age_days3,873

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable1 package(s) on packagist
35/35Publish recencylatest publish 77 days ago
20/20Version history41 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesfirebase/php-jwt
ecosystemspackagist
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish77

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

48Weak · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows1 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config.php-cs-fixer.dist.php
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
16/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests26 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 8
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

1Critical
How it's scored
0/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
0/10Repository description
0/10Topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics
has_wikino
homepage
docs_site
has_readmeno
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionno

Security

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

60Moderate · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
3.8/7.5Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
2/2.5CI-Tests26 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 8
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
7.5/7.5Code-Reviewall changesets reviewed
2.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 12 contributing companies or organizations
0/10Dangerous-Workflowno data
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5Licenselicense file detected
3.8/7.5Maintained5 commit(s) and 2 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 5
0/5Packagingno data
0/5Pinned-Dependenciesno data
0/5SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
5/5Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
0/7.5Signed-Releasesno data
0/7.5Token-Permissionsno data
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated13
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive5
scorecard_aggregate6
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.

41Weak · 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 history85 of 85 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share1
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 practiceno agent-authored commits among the last 100
0/8Automated maintenanceno automated dependency updates observed
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesno data
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
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable codePHP without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes0/13 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePHP
largest_source_bytes30,841
source_files_sampled13
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

9,812GitHub stars
82contributors
24commits, last 12 months
35days since last push
36releases
2bus factor
5open issues
Packagistpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • Community profile unavailable
  • No resolved dependencies carried a version and a supported ecosystem

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 1,282 ⇿
0Stars
1,282Forks
34Releases

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.

Only the most recent history is shown — this repository exceeds the collection window, so the earliest history is not captured.

2004006008001,0001,2001,4001,282102017-072022-012026-07
Major 2Minor 17Patch 15

Each point covers 9 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 6.0 / 10
6.0aggregate

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 · 2026-08-28 00:41 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
5Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
8CI-Tests26 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 8
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
10Code-Reviewall changesets reviewed
10Contributorsproject has 12 contributing companies or organizations
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
5Maintained5 commit(s) and 2 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
10Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
n/aToken-PermissionsNo tokens found
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
All dependencies 9

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 9 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
Packagistguzzlehttp/guzzleindirect
Packagistphpindirect
Packagistphpfastcache/phpfastcacheindirect
Packagistphpseclib/phpseclibindirect
Packagistphpspec/prophecy-phpunitindirect
Packagistphpunit/phpunitindirect
Packagistpsr/cacheindirect
Packagistpsr/http-clientindirect
Packagistpsr/http-factoryindirect
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 statisticsPackagist.