Public record
Software health reportschema 0.26.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-22 10:08 UTC

ilovepdf / ilovepdf-php

iLovePDF Rest Api - PHP Library (https://developer.ilovepdf.com)

PHPNo license detected★ 188 stars⑂ 50 forkssince Mar 2017View on GitHub ↗

ilovepdf/ilovepdf-php holds a health index of 48 out of 100, placing it in the Weak band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (67/100) and lowest on Security (25/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

48
overall / 100
Weak

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.

48
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 49 is calibrated to 48 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

iLovePDFOrganization
181 followers13 public repossince Mar 2017

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
Packagistilovepdf/ilovepdf-phpv1.4.024,7804154 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

62Moderate · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 0 days ago
2.1/36Commit cadence3/52 weeks with commits
8.1/18Commit volume7 commits in the last year
2/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained3 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 2
Inputs used
commits_last_year7
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year3
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases42 releases published
36/36Release recencylatest release 54 days ago
12.6/27Release cadencea release every ~270.8 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count42
latest_release_tagv1.4.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release54
mean_days_between_releases270.8
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?

46Weak · 17% of overall
How it's scored
36.9/60Stars188 stars
14.1/25Forks50 forks
5.8/15Watchers12 watchers
Inputs used
forks50
stars188
watchers12
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
0/22.5Licenseno license file detected
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseno
readme_badges
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
58.6/80Monthly downloads24,780 downloads/month across packagist
0/20Registry dependents0 packages depend on it
Inputs used
packagesilovepdf/ilovepdf-php
dependents0
ecosystemspackagist
total_downloads546,299
monthly_downloads24,780
unverified_packages_excluded

Sustainability & Governance

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

67Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
5/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 78% of commits
10.8/13.5Contributor breadth8 contributors
3/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled8
top_contributor_share0.779
How it's scored
38.1/42Issue resolution91% of issues closed
25.3/30PR acceptance16/19 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 2/22 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs16
open_issues5
closed_issues48
prs_merged_7d
prs_decided_7d
prs_merged_30d
prs_decided_30d
issue_closed_ratio0.906
closed_unmerged_prs3
first_time_authors_30d
first_time_prs_merged_30d
first_time_prs_decided_30d
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backingorganization-owned
0/20Verified domainverified-domain status not read for this organization
16.2/25Owner reach181 followers of ilovepdf
20.3/25Track record13 public repos, account ~9 yr old
Inputs used
followers181
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified
owner_loginilovepdf
public_repos13
account_age_days3,410
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable1 package(s) on packagist
35/35Publish recencylatest publish 54 days ago
20/20Version history41 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesilovepdf/ilovepdf-php
ecosystemspackagist
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish54

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

38Weak · 19% of overall
How it's scored
0/24CI workflows
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests0 out of 9 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_cino
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

60Moderate
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics9 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicspdf, pdf-converter, pdf-document, pdf-merge, php-library, ilovepdf-api, pdf-rest-api, pdf-compression, pdf-editor
has_wikiyes
homepage
docs_site
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

25At Risk · 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
0/2.5CI-Tests0 out of 9 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-ReviewFound 2/22 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0.8/2.5Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
0/10Dangerous-Workflowno data
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
0/2.5Licenselicense file not detected
1.5/7.5Maintained3 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 2
0/5Packagingno data
0/5Pinned-Dependenciesno data
0/5SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5Security-Policysecurity policy file not 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_aggregate2.5
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.

36Weak · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
9.6/40Legible commit history18 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.18
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
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_configno
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 sizes0/121 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePHP
largest_source_bytes24,145
source_files_sampled121
oversized_source_files0
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto)not applicable to this kind of software
0/20MCP servernot applicable to this kind of software
40/40Runnable examplessamples
Inputs used
example_dirssamples
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

188GitHub stars
8contributors
7commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
42releases
1bus factor
5open 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 ★ / 50 ⇿
0Stars
50Forks
15Releases

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.

010203040505022018-012022-042026-07
Major 0Minor 2Patch 11

Each point covers 8 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 2.5 / 10
2.5aggregate

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 · 2026-07-22 10:07 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0CI-Tests0 out of 9 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 2/22 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
3Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
0Licenselicense file not detected
2Maintained3 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 2
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
n/aPinned-Dependenciesno dependencies found
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
n/aToken-PermissionsNo tokens found
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 3
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Packagistfirebase/php-jwt^7.0composer.json
Packagistguzzlehttp/guzzle^7.4composer.json
Packagistpsr/http-message^2.0composer.json
All dependencies 7

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 3 direct and 4 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
Packagistfirebase/php-jwtdirect
Packagistguzzlehttp/guzzledirect
Packagistpsr/http-messagedirect
Packagistext-jsonindirect
Packagistphpindirect
Packagistphpunit/phpunitindirect
Packagistvimeo/psalmindirect
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 v0.26.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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