# onfido/onfido-php — health index 67/100 (Moderate)

> Inspection of the public repository onfido/onfido-php by inspect.software. It holds a health index of 67 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. The index is a signal derived from publicly visible practice, not a warranty, a security audit, or an endorsement, and it is independent of payment.

- Repository: https://github.com/onfido/onfido-php
- Report page: https://inspect.software/software/onfido/onfido-php
- Full JSON report: https://inspect.software/api/repositories/onfido/onfido-php/report
- Badge: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/inspect-software/badges/main/v1/o/onfido/onfido-php.svg
- Inspected: 2026-07-24
- Methodology: metrics 1.13.0, report schema 0.27.0 (https://inspect.software/methodology.md)

## Category summary

| Category | Weight | Index | Band |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vitality | 22% | 78/100 | Good |
| Community & Adoption | 18% | 48/100 | At risk |
| Sustainability & Governance | 24% | 68/100 | Moderate |
| Engineering Quality | 20% | 72/100 | Good |
| Security | 16% | 63/100 | Moderate |
| AI Readiness | not counted | 44/100 | At risk |

## Repository facts

| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Description | PHP library for the Onfido API |
| Primary language | PHP |
| License | MIT |
| Stars | 20 |
| Forks | 28 |
| Created | 2017-01-31 |
| Last push | 2026-07-24 |
| Latest release | v10.2.0 |
| Commits (last year) | 26 |
| Bus factor | 1 |
| Topics | php, onfido-api, onfido |

## Published packages

| Registry | Package | Latest | Monthly downloads |
|---|---|---|---|
| packagist | onfido/onfido-php | 10.2.0 | 13,476 |

## Vitality — 78/100 (Good)

Is the project alive — is code being written and are releases shipping? Weight: 22% of the overall index.

### Development activity — 64/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Push recency | met | 36 / 36 | last push 0 days ago |
| Commit cadence | partial | 7.6 / 36 | 11/52 weeks with commits |
| Commit volume | partial | 12.9 / 18 | 26 commits in the last year |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained | partial | 8 / 10 | 10 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 8 |

### Release discipline — 100/100 (Excellent)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ships releases | met | 27 / 27 | 60 releases published |
| Release recency | met | 36 / 36 | latest release 64 days ago |
| Release cadence | met | 27 / 27 | a release every ~39.9 days |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases | excluded | 0 / 10 | no releases found |

### Abandonment — 100/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Project is still maintained | met | 100 / 100 | last human commit 11 days ago |

## Community & Adoption — 48/100 (At risk)

Does the project have users, downloads, attention, and a welcoming setup for contributors? Weight: 18% of the overall index.

### Popularity & adoption — 40/100 (At risk)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stars | partial | 20.7 / 60 | 20 stars |
| Forks | partial | 11.9 / 25 | 28 forks |
| Watchers | partial | 7.4 / 15 | 22 watchers |

### Community health — 50/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| README | met | 22.5 / 22.5 | — |
| License | met | 22.5 / 22.5 | recognized license (MIT) |
| CONTRIBUTING guide | not met | 0 / 18 | — |
| Code of conduct | not met | 0 / 13.5 | — |
| Issue template | not met | 0 / 7.2 | — |
| PR template | not met | 0 / 6.3 | — |

### Ecosystem adoption (downloads) — 57/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Monthly downloads | partial | 55.1 / 80 | 13,476 downloads/month across packagist |
| Registry dependents | partial | 2 / 20 | 1 packages depend on it |

## Sustainability & Governance — 68/100 (Moderate)

Will the project survive its people — bus factor, responsiveness, who backs it, and package upkeep? Weight: 24% of the overall index.

### Maintainer resilience (bus factor) — 35/100 (At risk)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bus factor | partial | 9 / 54 | 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits |
| Commit distribution | partial | 9.3 / 22.5 | top contributor authored 59% of commits |
| Contributor breadth | met | 13.5 / 13.5 | 27 contributors |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors | partial | 3 / 10 | project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3 |

### Issue & PR responsiveness — 81/100 (Good)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Issue resolution. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue resolution | excluded | 0 / 46.8 | no issues or no data |
| PR acceptance | partial | 34.1 / 38.2 | 73/82 decided PRs merged |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review | partial | 9 / 15 | Found 13/19 approved changesets -- score normalized to 6 |

### Ownership & stewardship — 67/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership backing | met | 30 / 30 | organization-owned |
| Verified domain | not met | 0 / 20 | — |
| Owner reach | partial | 12.3 / 25 | 50 followers of onfido |
| Track record | met | 25 / 25 | 85 public repos, account ~12 yr old |

### Package maintenance — 100/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Published & resolvable | met | 25 / 25 | 1 package(s) on packagist |
| Publish recency | met | 35 / 35 | latest publish 64 days ago |
| Version history | met | 20 / 20 | 61 published versions |
| Not deprecated | met | 20 / 20 | active, not deprecated or yanked |

## Engineering Quality — 72/100 (Good)

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place? Weight: 20% of the overall index.

### Engineering practices — 80/100 (Good)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| CI workflows | met | 24 / 24 | 1 workflow(s) |
| Tests present | met | 24 / 24 | — |
| Linter config | met | 16 / 16 | .php-cs-fixer.dist.php |
| Pre-commit hooks | not met | 0 / 9.6 | — |
| .editorconfig | not met | 0 / 6.4 | — |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests | excluded | 0 / 20 | internal error: internal error: Client.Repositories.ListCheckRunsForRef: error during graphqlHandler.setupCheckRuns: non-200 OK status code: 504 Gateway Timeout body: "{\"message\": \"We couldn't respond to your request in time. Sorry about that. Please try resubmitting your request and contact us if the problem persists.\"}\r\n" |

### Documentation — 60/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| README | met | 30 / 30 | — |
| Documentation directory | not met | 0 / 25 | — |
| Documentation / homepage site | not met | 0 / 15 | — |
| Repository description | met | 10 / 10 | — |
| Topics | met | 10 / 10 | 3 topics |
| Wiki | met | 10 / 10 | — |

## Security — 63/100 (Moderate)

Are visible security and supply-chain practices strong, with no malicious dependency and no unresolved high-risk jurisdiction exposure? Weight: 16% of the overall index.

### Security posture — 60/100 (Moderate)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, CI-Tests, Packaging, SAST, Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Binary-Artifacts | met | 7.5 / 7.5 | no binaries found in the repo |
| Branch-Protection | excluded | 0 / 7.5 | internal 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 |
| CI-Tests | excluded | 0 / 2.5 | internal error: internal error: Client.Repositories.ListCheckRunsForRef: error during graphqlHandler.setupCheckRuns: non-200 OK status code: 504 Gateway Timeout body: "{\"message\": \"We couldn't respond to your request in time. Sorry about that. Please try resubmitting your request and contact us if the problem persists.\"}\r\n" |
| CII-Best-Practices | not met | 0 / 2.5 | no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected |
| Code-Review | partial | 4.5 / 7.5 | Found 13/19 approved changesets -- score normalized to 6 |
| Contributors | partial | 0.8 / 2.5 | project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3 |
| Dangerous-Workflow | met | 10 / 10 | no dangerous workflow patterns detected |
| Dependency-Update-Tool | met | 7.5 / 7.5 | update tool detected |
| Fuzzing | not met | 0 / 5 | project is not fuzzed |
| License | met | 2.5 / 2.5 | license file detected |
| Maintained | partial | 6 / 7.5 | 10 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 8 |
| Packaging | excluded | 0 / 5 | packaging workflow not detected |
| Pinned-Dependencies | partial | 0.5 / 5 | dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 1 |
| SAST | excluded | 0 / 5 | internal error: internal error: Client.Checks.ListCheckRunsForRef: error during graphqlHandler.setupCheckRuns: non-200 OK status code: 504 Gateway Timeout body: "{\"message\": \"We couldn't respond to your request in time. Sorry about that. Please try resubmitting your request and contact us if the problem persists.\"}\r\n" |
| Security-Policy | not met | 0 / 5 | security policy file not detected |
| Signed-Releases | excluded | 0 / 7.5 | no releases found |
| Token-Permissions | met | 7.5 / 7.5 | GitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege |
| Vulnerabilities | not met | 0 / 7.5 | 12 existing vulnerabilities detected |

### Dependency advisories — 75/100 (Good)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 69 resolved dependencies against OSV. 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.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Direct dependencies free of known advisories | partial | 16.3 / 35 | 2 affected: guzzlehttp/guzzle 7.8.1 (moderate 5.9), guzzlehttp/psr7 2.6.2 (moderate 5.3) |
| Indirect dependencies free of known advisories | excluded | 0 / 25 | transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope |
| No advisories left outstanding | met | 40 / 40 | no advisory has been public longer than 90 days |

### Malicious dependencies — 100/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| No dependency reported as a malicious package | met | 100 / 100 | no dependency is reported as a malicious package |

### High-Risk Jurisdiction Exposure — 100/100 (Excellent)

Only high-confidence self-published location evidence affects this multiplier. Ambiguous matches are review-only; country evidence is not proof of nationality, citizenship, legal registration, malicious intent, or sanctions status.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Policy exposure multiplier | met | 100 / 100 | no confirmed policy-scope location match |

## AI Readiness — 44/100 (At risk)

How well is the repo equipped to be developed and maintained with AI coding agents? An independent, experimental badge — weight 0.0, so it is surfaced on its own and does not affect the overall health score.

### Agent context & guidance — 22/100 (Critical)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agent instructions | not met | 0 / 45 | no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules |
| Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) | not met | 0 / 15 | — |
| Legible commit history | partial | 22.1 / 40 | 41 of 99 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body) |

### Verify loop (build / test / typecheck) — 56/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| One-command bootstrap | not met | 0 / 18 | — |
| Automated tests | met | 22 / 22 | — |
| Lint / format config | met | 11 / 11 | .php-cs-fixer.dist.php |
| Static type checking | not met | 0 / 11 | — |
| Reproducible environment | met | 10 / 10 | lockfile |
| Demonstrated agent practice | partial | 4 / 10 | 2 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited |
| Automated maintenance | met | 8 / 8 | 1 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies | partial | 1 / 10 | dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 1 |

### Code legibility for models — 55/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Type-checkable code | not met | 0 / 45 | PHP without a type-check config |
| Manageable file sizes | partial | 54.7 / 55 | 2/350 source files over 60KB |

## Collection warnings

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

## What this report is

inspect.software measures public repositories against a single published, versioned methodology and reports the result as a 1–100 health index. Findings are signals derived from what is visible in public repository data — they are not a security audit, a warranty, or an endorsement, and no result depends on payment.

- Methodology, formulas and weights: https://inspect.software/methodology.md
- What a result does and does not claim: https://inspect.software/wiki/signals-not-warranties.md
- Rating bands: https://inspect.software/wiki/scoring-bands.md
- Corrections: https://inspect.software/contact.md
- Index of all documents: https://inspect.software/llms.txt