Public record
Software health reportschema 0.31.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-07 05:50 UTC

mimmi20 / ua-generic-request

PHPMIT★ 3 stars⑂ 1 forksince Jun 2015View on GitHub ↗

mimmi20/ua-generic-request holds a health index of 73 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Vitality (90/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (41/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts 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

Thomas MüllerPersonal account
62 followers120 public repossince Oct 2011JDC AG

This repository is owned by a personal account. A single-owner project carries more continuity risk than an organization-backed one.

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
Packagistmimmi20/ua-generic-request18.0.42,4067674 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

90Excellent · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 0 days ago
19.4/36Commit cadence28/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume131 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained16 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year131
human_commit_share0.75
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year28

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases72 releases published
36/36Release recencylatest release 74 days ago
27/27Release cadencea release every ~17.2 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count72
latest_release_tag18.0.4
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release74
mean_days_between_releases17.2
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?

41Weak · 17% of overall
How it's scored
4.9/60Stars3 stars
0/25Forks1 forks
0/15Watchers1 watchers
Inputs used
forks1
stars3
watchers1
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (MIT)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
7.2/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges9
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateyes
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesapi.codeclimate.com, codecov.io, isitmaintained.com, poser.pugx.org, shields.io
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
45.1/80Monthly downloads2,406 downloads/month across packagist
3.2/20Registry dependents2 packages depend on it
Inputs used
packagesmimmi20/ua-generic-request
dependents2
ecosystemspackagist
total_downloads237,972
monthly_downloads2,406
unverified_packages_excluded

Sustainability & Governance

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

56Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0.6/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 98% of commits
4.1/13.5Contributor breadth3 contributors
6/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled3
top_contributor_share0.975
How it's scored
25.2/42Issue resolution60% of issues closed
26.3/30PR acceptance465/530 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 0/5 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs465
open_issues4
closed_issues6
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio0.6
closed_unmerged_prs65
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
10/30Ownership backingpersonal (user) account
0/20Verified domainnot applicable to user accounts
12.9/25Owner reach62 followers of mimmi20
25/25Track record120 public repos, account ~14 yr old
Inputs used
followers62
owner_typeUser
is_verified
owner_loginmimmi20
public_repos120
account_age_days5,413
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 74 days ago
20/20Version history76 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesmimmi20/ua-generic-request
ecosystemspackagist
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish74

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

74Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows8 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config.php-cs-fixer.php, phpcs.xml, phpstan.neon
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests14 out of 14 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

50Moderate
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
0/10Repository description
10/10Topics1 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsphp85
has_wikiyes
homepage
docs_site
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionno

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-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protectionno data
2.5/2.5CI-Tests14 out of 14 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 0/5 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
1.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
0/10Dangerous-Workflowno data
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5Licenselicense file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained16 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
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_evaluated12
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive6
scorecard_aggregate5.8
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.

42Weak · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
31.3/40Legible commit history44 of 75 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.587
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, phpcs.xml, phpstan.neon
0/11Static type checking
0/10Reproducible environment
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno agent-authored commits among the last 100
8/8Automated maintenance25 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
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_share0.25
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 sizes0/51 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePHP
largest_source_bytes34,753
source_files_sampled51
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

3GitHub stars
3contributors
131commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
72releases
1bus factor
4open 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

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 · 2026-08-07 05:50 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
10CI-Tests14 out of 14 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 0/5 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
6Contributorsproject has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained16 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
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 9
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Packagistlaminas/laminas-diactoros^3.8.0composer.json
Packagistmimmi20/browser-detector-version^14.0.1composer.json
Packagistmimmi20/browser-detector-versioninterface^2.0.1composer.json
Packagistmimmi20/ua-data-interface^2.0.0composer.json
Packagistmimmi20/ua-loader-interface^7.0.1composer.json
Packagistmimmi20/ua-normalizer^9.0.14composer.json
Packagistmimmi20/ua-parser-interface^7.0.1composer.json
Packagistmimmi20/ua-result^16.0.2composer.json
Packagistpsr/http-message^1.1 || ^2.0composer.json
All dependencies 35

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 9 direct and 26 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
Packagistlaminas/laminas-diactorosdirect
Packagistmimmi20/browser-detector-versiondirect
Packagistmimmi20/browser-detector-versioninterfacedirect
Packagistmimmi20/ua-data-interfacedirect
Packagistmimmi20/ua-loader-interfacedirect
Packagistmimmi20/ua-normalizerdirect
Packagistmimmi20/ua-parser-interfacedirect
Packagistmimmi20/ua-resultdirect
Packagistpsr/http-messagedirect
Packagistergebnis/composer-normalizeindirect
Packagistext-ctypeindirect
Packagistext-domindirect
Packagistext-mbstringindirect
Packagistext-simplexmlindirect
Packagistext-tokenizerindirect
Packagistext-xmlindirect
Packagistext-xmlwriterindirect
Packagistinfection/infectionindirect
Packagistjbelien/phpstan-sarif-formatterindirect
Packagistmimmi20/coding-standardindirect
Packagistmimmi20/ua-browser-typeindirect
Packagistnikic/php-parserindirect
Packagistphpindirect
Packagistphpstan/extension-installerindirect
Packagistphpstan/phpstanindirect
Packagistphpstan/phpstan-deprecation-rulesindirect
Packagistphpunit/phpunitindirect
Packagistrector/rectorindirect
Packagistrector/type-perfectindirect
Packagistshipmonk/composer-dependency-analyserindirect
Packagistsymfony/processindirect
Packagistsymplify/phpstan-rulesindirect
Packagisttomasvotruba/cognitive-complexityindirect
Packagisttomasvotruba/type-coverageindirect
Packagisttomasvotruba/unused-publicindirect
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 v0.31.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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