Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-15 16:23 UTC

infocyph / Epicrypt

Modern cryptography, token, password and data-protection toolkit for PHP.

PHPMIT★ 4 stars⑂ 0 forkssince May 2021View on GitHub ↗

infocyph/Epicrypt holds a health index of 75 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (80/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (43/100). It was last updated 5 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

75
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.

75
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 65 is calibrated to 75 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

InfocyphOrganization · verified domain
2 followers31 public repossince Apr 2024

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
Packagistinfocyph/epicrypt3.012,03575 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

78Good · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 5 days ago
4.8/36Commit cadence7/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume404 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year404
human_commit_share0.99
days_since_last_push5
active_weeks_last_year7
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases3 releases published
36/36Release recencylatest release 5 days ago
19.8/27Release cadencea release every ~59.4 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count3
latest_release_tag3.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release5
mean_days_between_releases59.4
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?

49Weak · 17% of overall
How it's scored
7.7/60Stars4 stars
0/25Forks0 forks
0/15Watchers1 watchers
Inputs used
forks0
stars4
watchers1
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

92Excellent
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (MIT)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
6.3/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges7
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_servicesgithub.com, shields.io
has_pull_request_templateyes
How it's scored
54.4/80Monthly downloads12,035 downloads/month across packagist
2/20Registry dependents1 packages depend on it
Inputs used
packagesinfocyph/epicrypt
dependents1
ecosystemspackagist
total_downloads12,805
monthly_downloads12,035
unverified_packages_excluded

Sustainability & Governance

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

55Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 100% of commits
1.4/13.5Contributor breadth1 contributors
6/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled1
top_contributor_share1
How it's scored
0/42Issue resolutionno issues or no data
23/30PR acceptance23/30 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 0/1 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs23
open_issues0
closed_issues0
prs_merged_7d1
prs_decided_7d1
prs_merged_30d1
prs_decided_30d1
issue_closed_ratio
closed_unmerged_prs7
first_time_authors_30d0
first_time_prs_merged_30d0
first_time_prs_decided_30d0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Issue resolution, Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backingorganization-owned
20/20Verified domain
3.4/25Owner reach2 followers of infocyph
15.8/25Track record31 public repos, account ~2 yr old
Inputs used
followers2
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedyes
owner_logininfocyph
public_repos31
account_age_days891

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable1 package(s) on packagist
35/35Publish recencylatest publish 5 days ago
20/20Version history7 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesinfocyph/epicrypt
ecosystemspackagist
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish5

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

80Excellent · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows2 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests1 out of 1 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

90Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage sitehttps://docs.infocyph.com/projects/Epicrypt
10/10Repository description
0/10Topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://docs.infocyph.com/projects/Epicrypt
docs_sitehttps://docs.infocyph.com/projects/Epicrypt
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

68Good · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
3/7.5Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
2.5/2.5CI-Tests1 out of 1 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-ReviewFound 0/1 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
1.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
0/10Dangerous-Workflowno data
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5Licenselicense file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packagingno data
0/5Pinned-Dependenciesno data
5/5SASTSAST tool is run on all commits
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.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisoriesno direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisoriestransitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40No advisories left outstandingno advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories0
affected_packages0
assessed_packages1
unassessed_packages19
affected_by_severitynone
direct_affected_packages0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories, No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 1 resolved dependencies against OSV. 19 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.

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.

43Weak · 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 history98 of 99 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.99
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
10/10Reproducible environmentlockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno agent-authored commits among the last 100
5/8Automated maintenancedependency automation configured, none observed in the sampled commits
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesno data
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilespackage-lock.json
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 sizes0/383 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePHP
largest_source_bytes21,846
source_files_sampled383
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

4GitHub stars
1contributors
404commits, last 12 months
5days since last push
3releases
1bus factor
0open issues
npm, Packagist, PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

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

More detail

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 · 2026-09-15 16:22 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
4Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
10CI-Tests1 out of 1 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 0/1 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
6Contributorsproject has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
n/aPinned-Dependenciesno dependencies found
10SASTSAST tool is run on all commits
10Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
n/aToken-PermissionsNo tokens found
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 4
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Packagistpsr/clock^1.0composer.json
Packagistpsr/http-client^1.0composer.json
Packagistpsr/http-factory^1.0composer.json
Packagistpsr/simple-cache^3.0composer.json
All dependencies 20

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 4 direct and 16 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
Packagistpsr/clockdirect
Packagistpsr/http-clientdirect
Packagistpsr/http-factorydirect
Packagistpsr/simple-cachedirect
npmjose6.2.8indirect
Packagistext-hashindirect
Packagistext-jsonindirect
Packagistext-opensslindirect
Packagistext-sodiumindirect
Packagistinfocyph/pathwiseindirect
Packagistinfocyph/phpforgeindirect
Packagistnyholm/psr7indirect
Packagistphpindirect
Packagistphp-http/mock-clientindirect
Packagistphpseclib/phpseclibindirect
PyPIsphinxindirect
PyPIsphinx-book-themeindirect
PyPIsphinx-copybuttonindirect
PyPIsphinx-designindirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-phpdomainindirect
Dependency advisories 0

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 1 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct. 19 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list.

No known advisories affect the assessed dependencies.

An advisory means the version recorded in the dependency graph falls inside an advisory’s affected range. Reachability is not analysed, and the graph includes development and test pins — a finding may concern tooling rather than shipped software.

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.