Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-04 21:03 UTC

oroinc / crm

Main OroCRM package with core functionality.

PHPCustom license★ 682 stars⑂ 217 forkssince Jun 2013View on GitHub ↗

oroinc/crm holds a health index of 71 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Vitality (80/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (30/100). It was last updated today. 8 contributors account for most of its recent work.

71
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.

71
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 63 is calibrated to 71 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Oro, Inc.Organization
122 followers104 public repossince Apr 2013

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
Packagistoro/crm7.0.42,25029333 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

80Excellent · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 0 days ago
29.1/36Commit cadence42/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume147 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year147
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year42
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases86 releases published
0/36Release recencylatest release 3,430 days ago
27/27Release cadencea release every ~7.8 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count86
latest_release_tag2.0.6
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release3,430
mean_days_between_releases7.8
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?

60Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
46/60Stars682 stars
19.5/25Forks217 forks
11.5/15Watchers117 watchers
Inputs used
forks217
stars682
watchers117
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
16.9/22.5Licenselicense 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
44.7/80Monthly downloads2,250 downloads/month across packagist
9.4/20Registry dependents25 packages depend on it
Inputs used
packagesoro/crm
dependents25
ecosystemspackagist
total_downloads93,108
monthly_downloads2,250
unverified_packages_excluded

Sustainability & Governance

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

79Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
54/54Bus factor8 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
20.3/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 10% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth100 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 12 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor8
contributors_sampled100
top_contributor_share0.097
How it's scored
34.5/42Issue resolution82% of issues closed
9/30PR acceptance15/50 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs15
open_issues58
closed_issues267
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio0.822
closed_unmerged_prs35
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
30/30Ownership backingorganization-owned
0/20Verified domain
15/25Owner reach122 followers of oroinc
25/25Track record104 public repos, account ~13 yr old
Inputs used
followers122
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_loginoroinc
public_repos104
account_age_days4,889

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable1 package(s) on packagist
35/35Publish recencylatest publish 33 days ago
20/20Version history293 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesoro/crm
ecosystemspackagist
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish33

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

42Weak · 19% of overall
How it's scored
0/24CI workflows
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Testsno data
Inputs used
has_cino
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests. Remaining weights renormalized.

Documentation

60Moderate
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics7 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicscrm, crm-platform, crm-system, symfony, php, orocrm, oroplatform
has_wikiyes
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?

54Moderate · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protectionno data
0/2.5CI-Testsno data
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-ReviewFound 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
2.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 12 contributing companies or organizations
0/10Dangerous-Workflowno data
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.2/2.5Licenselicense file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packagingno data
0/5Pinned-Dependenciesno data
0/5SASTno SAST tool detected
5/5Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
0/7.5Signed-Releasesno data
0/7.5Token-Permissionsno data
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated11
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive7
scorecard_aggregate5.4
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, CI-Tests, 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.

30At Risk · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
26.1/40Legible commit history49 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.49
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
0/11Static type checking
0/10Reproducible environment
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno agent-authored commits among the last 100
0/8Automated maintenanceno automated dependency updates observed
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesno data
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
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 codePHP without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes0/1,139 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePHP
largest_source_bytes34,965
source_files_sampled1,139
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

682GitHub stars
100contributors
147commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
86releases
8bus factor
58open 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 ★ / 217 ⇿
0Stars
217Forks
86Releases

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.

0408012016020024021582013-062020-012026-09
Major 2Minor 11Patch 56

Each point covers 13 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.4 / 10
5.4aggregate

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 · 2026-09-04 21:03 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
n/aCI-Testsno pull request found
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
10Contributorsproject has 12 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
0SASTno SAST tool detected
10Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
n/aToken-PermissionsNo tokens found
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 5
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Packagistoro/platform7.1.*composer.json
Packagistoro/crm-task-bundle7.1.*composer.json
Packagistoro/crm-call-bundle7.1.*composer.json
Packagistoro/calendar-bundle7.1.*composer.json
Packagistoro/marketing7.1.*composer.json
All dependencies 27

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 5 direct and 22 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
Packagistoro/calendar-bundledirect
Packagistoro/crm-call-bundledirect
Packagistoro/crm-task-bundledirect
Packagistoro/marketingdirect
Packagistoro/platformdirect
Packagistbehat/behatindirect
Packagistbehat/gherkinindirect
Packagistbehat/minkindirect
Packagistbehat/mink-selenium2-driverindirect
Packagistfriends-of-behat/mink-extensionindirect
Packagistfriends-of-behat/symfony-extensionindirect
Packagistfriendsofphp/php-cs-fixerindirect
Packagistnelmio/aliceindirect
Packagistoro/twig-inspectorindirect
Packagistphpmd/phpmdindirect
Packagistphpunit/phpunitindirect
Packagistsquizlabs/php_codesnifferindirect
Packagistsymfony/browser-kitindirect
Packagistsymfony/css-selectorindirect
Packagistsymfony/debug-bundleindirect
Packagistsymfony/dom-crawlerindirect
Packagistsymfony/phpunit-bridgeindirect
Packagistsymfony/stopwatchindirect
Packagistsymfony/var-dumperindirect
Packagistsymfony/var-exporterindirect
Packagistsymfony/web-profiler-bundleindirect
Packagisttheofidry/alice-data-fixturesindirect
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 statisticsPackagist.