Public record
Software health reportschema 0.31.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-06 05:40 UTC

mjaschen / phpgeo

Simple Yet Powerful Geo Library for PHP

PHPMIT★ 1,612 stars⑂ 198 forkssince Feb 2013View on GitHub ↗

mjaschen/phpgeo holds a health index of 80 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (87/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (44/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

80
overall / 100
Excellent

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.

80
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 68 is calibrated to 80 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Marcus JaschenPersonal account
97 followers151 public repossince Jul 2010MTB-News.de

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

Package ecosystems

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

59Moderate · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 0 days ago
2.1/36Commit cadence3/52 weeks with commits
10/18Commit volume12 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_year12
human_commit_share0.97
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year3
How it's scored
16.2/27Ships releases54 version tags (no GitHub releases)
36/36Release recencylatest release 0 days ago
12.6/27Release cadencea release every ~190.1 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count54
latest_release_tag6.0.4
releases_from_tagsyes
days_since_latest_release0
mean_days_between_releases190.1
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?

83Excellent · 17% of overall
How it's scored
52/60Stars1,612 stars
19.1/25Forks198 forks
10.5/15Watchers77 watchers
Inputs used
forks198
stars1,612
watchers77
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

85Excellent
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
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges5
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_servicesgithub.com, poser.pugx.org
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
70.6/80Monthly downloads197,995 downloads/month across packagist
9.7/20Registry dependents28 packages depend on it
Inputs used
packagesmjaschen/phpgeo
dependents28
ecosystemspackagist
total_downloads9,500,371
monthly_downloads197,995
unverified_packages_excluded

Sustainability & Governance

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

58Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
1.4/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 94% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth17 contributors
6/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled17
top_contributor_share0.939
How it's scored
28.9/42Issue resolution69% of issues closed
26.1/30PR acceptance47/54 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 0/12 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs47
open_issues21
closed_issues46
prs_merged_7d1
prs_decided_7d1
prs_merged_30d1
prs_decided_30d1
issue_closed_ratio0.687
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): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backingpersonal (user) account
0/20Verified domainnot applicable to user accounts
14.3/25Owner reach97 followers of mjaschen
25/25Track record151 public repos, account ~16 yr old
Inputs used
followers97
owner_typeUser
is_verified
owner_loginmjaschen
public_repos151
account_age_days5,870
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 246 days ago
20/20Version history52 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesmjaschen/phpgeo
ecosystemspackagist
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish246

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

87Excellent · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows2 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter configphpstan.neon
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
14/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests7 out of 9 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 7
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

100Exceptional
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage sitehttps://phpgeo.marcusjaschen.de
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics13 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsphp, vincenty, polyline, area-calculator, coordinates, geofence, distance-calculation, gps, simplify, douglas-peucker, location, tracks, ellipsoid
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://phpgeo.marcusjaschen.de
docs_sitehttps://phpgeo.marcusjaschen.de
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

60Moderate · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protectionno data
1.8/2.5CI-Tests7 out of 9 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 7
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-ReviewFound 0/12 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
1.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
10/10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5Licenselicense file detected
1.5/7.5Maintained3 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 2
5/5Packagingpackaging workflow detected
0/5Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
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-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate5
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, Signed-Releases. 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_packages30
unassessed_packages4
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 30 resolved dependencies against OSV. 4 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.

44Weak · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
3.8/40Legible commit history7 of 97 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.072
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrapMakefile
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format configphpstan.neon
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environmentDockerfile, lockfile
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-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesuv.lock
has_dockerfileyes
typed_languageno
bootstrap_filesMakefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share0.03
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable codePHP without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes0/82 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePHP
largest_source_bytes30,332
source_files_sampled82
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

1,612GitHub stars
17contributors
12commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
54releases
1bus factor
21open issues
Packagist, PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • Could not fetch pypi package 'phpgeo-documentation' from its registry

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 198 ⇿
0Stars
198Forks
52Releases

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.

0408012016020019352013-022019-102026-07
Major 6Minor 16Patch 30

Each point covers 13 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 · 2026-08-06 05:40 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
7CI-Tests7 out of 9 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 7
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 0/12 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
6Contributorsproject has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
2Maintained3 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 2
10Packagingpackaging workflow detected
0Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 2
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPImkdocs==1.6.1documentation/pyproject.toml
PyPImkdocs-material==9.7.1documentation/pyproject.toml
All dependencies 34

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 2 direct and 32 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPImkdocs1.6.1direct
PyPImkdocs-material9.7.1direct
Packagistphpindirect
Packagistphpstan/phpstanindirect
Packagistphpunit/phpunitindirect
Packagistsquizlabs/php_codesnifferindirect
PyPIbabel2.18.0indirect
PyPIbackrefs8.0indirect
PyPIcertifi2026.7.22indirect
PyPIcharset-normalizer3.4.9indirect
PyPIclick8.4.2indirect
PyPIcolorama0.4.6indirect
PyPIghp-import2.1.0indirect
PyPIidna3.18indirect
PyPIjinja23.1.6indirect
PyPImarkdown3.10.3indirect
PyPImarkupsafe3.0.3indirect
PyPImergedeep1.3.4indirect
PyPImkdocs-get-deps0.2.2indirect
PyPImkdocs-material-extensions1.3.1indirect
PyPIpackaging26.3indirect
PyPIpaginate0.5.7indirect
PyPIpathspec1.1.1indirect
PyPIphpgeo-documentation0.1.0indirect
PyPIplatformdirs4.11.0indirect
PyPIpygments2.20.0indirect
PyPIpymdown-extensions11.0.1indirect
PyPIpython-dateutil2.9.0.post0indirect
PyPIpyyaml6.0.3indirect
PyPIpyyaml-env-tag1.1indirect
PyPIrequests2.34.2indirect
PyPIsix1.17.0indirect
PyPIurllib32.7.0indirect
PyPIwatchdog6.0.0indirect
Dependency advisories 0

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 30 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct. 4 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 v0.31.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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