Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-09 02:11 UTC

octobercms / library

October Rain Library

PHPCustom license★ 160 stars⑂ 173 forkssince Dec 2013View on GitHub ↗

octobercms/library holds a health index of 78 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Vitality (91/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (37/100). It was last updated 3 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

78
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.

78
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 67 is calibrated to 78 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

October CMSOrganization · verified domain
180 followers11 public repossince Sep 2013

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
Packagistoctober/rainv4.4.218,7653963 days agocmsoctoberrain

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

91Excellent · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 3 days ago
29.1/36Commit cadence — 42/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 194 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year194
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push3
active_weeks_last_year42
How it's scored
16.2/27Ships releases — 100 version tags (no GitHub releases)
36/36Release recency — latest release 3 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~11.8 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count100
latest_release_tagv4.4.2
releases_from_tagsyes
days_since_latest_release3
mean_days_between_releases11.8
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?

57Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
35.7/60Stars — 160 stars
18.6/25Forks — 173 forks
7.1/15Watchers — 20 watchers
Inputs used
forks173
stars160
watchers20
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
16.9/22.5License — license file present, not a recognized license
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges0
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services—
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
57/80Monthly downloads — 18,765 downloads/month across packagist
12.3/20Registry dependents — 68 packages depend on it
Inputs used
packagesoctober/rain
dependents68
ecosystemspackagist
total_downloads1,747,759
monthly_downloads18,765
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 factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
8.6/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 62% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 100 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 38 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled100
top_contributor_share0.62
How it's scored
0/42Issue resolution — no issues or no data
20.4/30PR acceptance — 424/625 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
1.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 3/17 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
Inputs used
merged_prs424
open_issues0
closed_issues0
prs_merged_7d2
prs_decided_7d2
prs_merged_30d4
prs_decided_30d5
issue_closed_ratio—
closed_unmerged_prs201
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 backing — organization-owned
20/20Verified domain
16.2/25Owner reach — 180 followers of octobercms
19.9/25Track record — 11 public repos, account ~12 yr old
Inputs used
followers180
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedyes
owner_loginoctobercms
public_repos11
account_age_days4,729

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on packagist
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 3 days ago
20/20Version history — 396 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesoctober/rain
ecosystemspackagist
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish3

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

72Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 1 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — phpcs.xml
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 4 out of 4 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

55Moderate
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — http://octobercms.com
10/10Repository description
0/10Topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics—
has_wikino
homepage—
docs_sitehttp://octobercms.com
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

51Moderate · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
2.5/2.5CI-Tests — 4 out of 4 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0.8/7.5Code-Review — Found 3/17 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 38 contributing companies or organizations
0/10Dangerous-Workflow — no data
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.2/2.5License — license file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packaging — no data
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — no data
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 — no data
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated13
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive5
scorecard_aggregate5.1
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): 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.

37Weak · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
28.3/40Legible commit history — 53 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.53
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — phpcs.xml
0/11Static type checking
0/10Reproducible environment
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
0/8Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — no 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
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — PHP without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/482 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePHP
largest_source_bytes52,665
source_files_sampled482
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

160GitHub stars
100contributors
194commits, last 12 months
3days since last push
100releases
1bus factor
0open 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 ★ / 173 ⇿
0Stars
173Forks
96Releases

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.

0408012016020017252014-012020-042026-08
Major 1Minor 6Patch 89

Each point covers 12 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.1 / 10
5.1aggregate

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 · 2026-09-09 02:11 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
10CI-Tests4 out of 4 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
1Code-ReviewFound 3/17 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
10Contributorsproject has 38 contributing companies or organizations
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
9Licenselicense 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
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 13
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Packagistlarajax/larajax^3.0composer.json
Packagistdoctrine/dbal^2.13.3|^3.1.4composer.json
Packagistintervention/image^3.10composer.json
Packagistjaybizzle/crawler-detect^1.3composer.json
Packagistlinkorb/jsmin-php~1.0composer.json
Packagistwikimedia/less.php~5.2composer.json
Packagistscssphp/scssphp~1.0composer.json
Packagistsymfony/yaml^6.4|^7.0composer.json
Packagisttwig/twig^3.26composer.json
Packagistleague/csv~9.1composer.json
Packagistlaravel/tinker~2.0|~3.0composer.json
Packagistsymfony/html-sanitizer^6.1|^7.0composer.json
Packagistenshrined/svg-sanitize^0.22composer.json
All dependencies 20

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 13 direct and 7 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
Packagistdoctrine/dbal—direct
Packagistenshrined/svg-sanitize—direct
Packagistintervention/image—direct
Packagistjaybizzle/crawler-detect—direct
Packagistlarajax/larajax—direct
Packagistlaravel/tinker—direct
Packagistleague/csv—direct
Packagistlinkorb/jsmin-php—direct
Packagistscssphp/scssphp—direct
Packagistsymfony/html-sanitizer—direct
Packagistsymfony/yaml—direct
Packagisttwig/twig—direct
Packagistwikimedia/less.php—direct
Packagistcomposer/composer—indirect
Packagistcomposer/installers—indirect
Packagistlaravel/framework—indirect
Packagistmeyfa/phpunit-assert-gd—indirect
Packagistphp—indirect
Packagistphpbench/phpbench—indirect
Packagistphpunit/phpunit—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.