Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-10-20 02:16 UTC

mautic / api-library

Mautic API Library

PHPMIT★ 202 stars⑂ 130 forkssince Jan 2015View on GitHub ↗

mautic/api-library holds a health index of 73 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (76/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (34/100). It was last updated 12 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

MauticOrganization
430 followers134 public repossince Aug 2013

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
Packagistmautic/api-library4.0.053,15120188 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

58Moderate · 21% of overall
How it's scored
28.8/36Push recency — last push 12 days ago
7.6/36Commit cadence — 11/52 weeks with commits
13.1/18Commit volume — 28 commits in the last year
6/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 7 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
commits_last_year28
human_commit_share0.96
days_since_last_push12
active_weeks_last_year11
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 11 releases published
16.2/36Release recency — latest release 188 days ago
12.6/27Release cadence — a release every ~328.3 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count11
latest_release_tag4.0.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release188
mean_days_between_releases328.3
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?

61Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
37.4/60Stars — 202 stars
17.6/25Forks — 130 forks
8.6/15Watchers — 36 watchers
Inputs used
forks130
stars202
watchers36
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (MIT)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges6
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicescodecov.io, poser.pugx.org, shields.io
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
63/80Monthly downloads — 53,151 downloads/month across packagist
10/20Registry dependents — 31 packages depend on it
Inputs used
packagesmautic/api-library
dependents31
ecosystemspackagist
total_downloads2,031,348
monthly_downloads53,151
unverified_packages_excluded—

Sustainability & Governance

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

76Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
25.2/54Bus factor — 2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
13.4/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 40% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 41 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 14 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor2
contributors_sampled41
top_contributor_share0.403
How it's scored
30.3/42Issue resolution — 72% of issues closed
24.8/30PR acceptance — 158/191 decided PRs merged
13/13Newcomer PR acceptance — 1/1 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
15/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — all changesets reviewed
Inputs used
merged_prs158
open_issues43
closed_issues111
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d1
prs_decided_30d1
issue_closed_ratio0.721
closed_unmerged_prs33
first_time_authors_30d1
first_time_prs_merged_30d1
first_time_prs_decided_30d1
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain
18.9/25Owner reach — 430 followers of mautic
25/25Track record — 134 public repos, account ~13 yr old
Inputs used
followers430
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_loginmautic
public_repos134
account_age_days4,810
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on packagist
26/35Publish recency — latest publish 188 days ago
20/20Version history — 20 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesmautic/api-library
ecosystemspackagist
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish188

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

68Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 1 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — .php-cs-fixer.php, phpstan.neon
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
16/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 9 out of 11 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

50Moderate
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 5 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsphp-library, mautic-api, hacktoberfest, mautic, php
has_wikino
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?

58Moderate · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — no data
2/2.5CI-Tests — 9 out of 11 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 8
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
7.5/7.5Code-Review — all changesets reviewed
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 14 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
4.5/7.5Maintained — 7 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 6
0/5Packaging — no data
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
5/5Security-Policy — security policy file detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — no data
0/7.5Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated15
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive3
scorecard_aggregate5.8
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, 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.

34At Risk · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
23.9/40Legible commit history — 43 of 96 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.448
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.php, phpstan.neon
0/11Static type checking
0/10Reproducible environment
2/10Demonstrated agent practice — 1 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
0/8Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles—
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0.01
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — PHP without a type-check config
53.9/55Manageable file sizes — 2/102 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePHP
largest_source_bytes95,786
source_files_sampled102
oversized_source_files2

Key facts

202GitHub stars
41contributors
28commits, last 12 months
12days since last push
11releases
2bus factor
43open 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 ★ / 130 ⇿
0Stars
130Forks
11Releases

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.

025507510012515012622015-032020-122026-10
Major 2Minor 4Patch 1

Each point covers 11 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.8 / 10
5.8aggregate

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 · 2026-10-20 02:16 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
8CI-Tests9 out of 11 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 14 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
6Maintained7 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 6
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
0Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
10Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 4
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Packagistpsr/log~1.0 || ~2.0 || ~3.0composer.json
Packagistpsr/http-client^1.0composer.json
Packagistpsr/http-client-implementation^1.0composer.json
Packagistguzzlehttp/psr7^2.4composer.json
All dependencies 13

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 4 direct and 9 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
Packagistguzzlehttp/psr7—direct
Packagistpsr/http-client—direct
Packagistpsr/http-client-implementation—direct
Packagistpsr/log—direct
Packagistext-json—indirect
Packagistfriendsofphp/php-cs-fixer—indirect
Packagistguzzlehttp/guzzle—indirect
Packagistkint-php/kint—indirect
Packagistphp—indirect
Packagistphp-http/discovery—indirect
Packagistphpstan/phpstan—indirect
Packagistphpunit/phpunit—indirect
Packagistrector/rector—indirect
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 statistics — Packagist.