Public record
Software health reportschema 0.31.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-13 20:58 UTC

laminas / laminas-text

Create FIGlets and text-based tables

PHPBSD-3-Clause★ 56 stars⑂ 14 forkssince Dec 2019archivedView on GitHub ↗

laminas/laminas-text holds a health index of 19 out of 100, placing it in the Critical band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (74/100) and lowest on Vitality (31/100). The repository is archived, so no further maintenance is expected.

19
overall / 100
Critical

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.

19
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 58 is calibrated to 62 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Laminas ProjectOrganization
451 followers137 public repossince Feb 2019

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
Packagistlaminas/laminas-text⚠ deprecated2.13.0408,38374198 days agotextlaminas

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

31At Risk · 21% of overall
How it's scored
3.6/36Push recencylast push 198 days ago
0.7/36Commit cadence1/52 weeks with commits
5.4/18Commit volume3 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintainedproject is archived
Inputs used
commits_last_year3
human_commit_share0.97
days_since_last_push198
active_weeks_last_year1
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases8 releases published
16.2/36Release recencylatest release 198 days ago
12.6/27Release cadencea release every ~273.4 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count8
latest_release_tag2.13.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release198
mean_days_between_releases273.4
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?

72Good · 17% of overall
How it's scored
28.2/60Stars56 stars
9.3/25Forks14 forks
6.2/15Watchers14 watchers
Inputs used
forks14
stars56
watchers14
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 (BSD-3-Clause)
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_badges0
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_services
has_pull_request_templateyes
How it's scored
74.8/80Monthly downloads408,383 downloads/month across packagist
13/20Registry dependents88 packages depend on it
Inputs used
packageslaminas/laminas-text
dependents88
ecosystemspackagist
total_downloads28,343,369
monthly_downloads408,383
unverified_packages_excluded

Sustainability & Governance

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

66Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
6.4/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 71% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth99 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 86 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled99
top_contributor_share0.714
How it's scored
42/42Issue resolution100% of issues closed
3.9/30PR acceptance14/107 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
12/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 5/6 approved changesets -- score normalized to 8
Inputs used
merged_prs14
open_issues0
closed_issues5
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio1
closed_unmerged_prs93
first_time_authors_30d0
first_time_prs_merged_30d0
first_time_prs_decided_30d0
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
19.1/25Owner reach451 followers of laminas
25/25Track record137 public repos, account ~7 yr old
Inputs used
followers451
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified
owner_loginlaminas
public_repos137
account_age_days2,730
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable1 package(s) on packagist
26/35Publish recencylatest publish 198 days ago
20/20Version history74 published versions
0/20Not deprecatedlaminas/laminas-text: deprecated/yanked on the registry
Inputs used
packageslaminas/laminas-text
ecosystemspackagist
any_deprecatedyes
min_days_since_publish198

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

74Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows3 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter configphpcs.xml
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_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

90Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage sitehttps://docs.laminas.dev/laminas-text/
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics2 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicshacktoberfest, security-updates-only
has_wikino
homepagehttps://docs.laminas.dev/laminas-text/
docs_sitehttps://docs.laminas.dev/laminas-text/
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

50Moderate · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protectionno data
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
6/7.5Code-ReviewFound 5/6 approved changesets -- score normalized to 8
2.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 86 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
0/7.5Maintainedproject is archived
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_evaluated12
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive6
scorecard_aggregate5
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, 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.

44Weak · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
22.5/40Legible commit history41 of 97 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.423
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format configphpcs.xml
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environmentlockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno agent-authored commits among the last 100
8/8Automated maintenance3 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesno data
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilescomposer.lock
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share0.03
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 sizes0/30 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePHP
largest_source_bytes36,528
source_files_sampled30
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

56GitHub stars
99contributors
3commits, last 12 months
198days since last push
8releases
1bus factor
0open issues
Packagistpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

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

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 14 ⇿
0Stars
14Forks
7Releases

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.

03581013151422020-012023-012026-01
Major 0Minor 5Patch 2

Each point covers 6 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.0 / 10
5.0aggregate

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 · 2026-08-13 20:57 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
n/aBranch-Protectioninternal error: error during branchesHandler.setup: internal error: some github tokens can't read classic branch protection rules: https://github.com/ossf/scorecard-action/blob/main/docs/authentication/fine-grained-auth-token.md
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
8Code-ReviewFound 5/6 approved changesets -- score normalized to 8
10Contributorsproject has 86 contributing companies or organizations
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
0Maintainedproject is archived
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
Direct dependencies 2
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Packagistlaminas/laminas-servicemanager^3.22.0composer.json
Packagistlaminas/laminas-stdlib^3.7.1composer.json
All dependencies 0

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

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
Dependency advisories not assessed

Advisory matching could not run for this report: No resolved dependencies to assess

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.