Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-03 16:45 UTC

pear / HTTP_Request2

Provides an easy way to perform HTTP requests (and does not require curl extension for this).

PHPNo license detected★ 76 stars⑂ 66 forkssince Apr 2012View on GitHub ↗

pear/HTTP_Request2 holds a health index of 22 out of 100, placing it in the At Risk band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (65/100) and lowest on Security (15/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

22
overall / 100
At Risk

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.

22
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 46 is calibrated to 44 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02). High-Risk Jurisdiction Policy applies a 50% multiplier to weighted overall health and gives it an At Risk ceiling of 34.

Ownership

53 followers505 public repossince Jun 2009

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
Packagistpear/http_request2v2.7.037,27710515 days agopearcurlhttprequest

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

40Weak · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 0 days ago
0/36Commit cadence0/52 weeks with commits
0/18Commit volume0 commits in the last year
2/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained2 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 2
Inputs used
commits_last_year0
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year0
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases2 releases published
7.2/36Release recencylatest release 515 days ago
5.4/27Release cadencea release every ~521.8 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count2
latest_release_tagv2.7.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release515
mean_days_between_releases521.8
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?

48Weak · 17% of overall
How it's scored
30.4/60Stars76 stars
15.1/25Forks66 forks
6.4/15Watchers15 watchers
Inputs used
forks66
stars76
watchers15
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
0/22.5Licenseno license file detected
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseno
readme_badges2
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesgithub.com
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
61/80Monthly downloads37,277 downloads/month across packagist
11.9/20Registry dependents61 packages depend on it
Inputs used
packagespear/http_request2
dependents61
ecosystemspackagist
total_downloads4,394,131
monthly_downloads37,277
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
1.7/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 92% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth10 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 5 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled10
top_contributor_share0.925
How it's scored
42/42Issue resolution100% of issues closed
11.1/30PR acceptance7/19 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 1/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs7
open_issues0
closed_issues13
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio1
closed_unmerged_prs12
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
12.5/25Owner reach53 followers of pear
25/25Track record505 public repos, account ~17 yr old
Inputs used
followers53
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_loginpear
public_repos505
account_age_days6,281
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable1 package(s) on packagist
14/35Publish recencylatest publish 515 days ago
20/20Version history10 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagespear/http_request2
ecosystemspackagist
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish515

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

65Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows2 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests0 out of 1 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

90Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage sitehttp://pear.php.net/package/HTTP_Request2
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics5 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicscurl, http, http-client, httpclient, php
has_wikino
homepagehttp://pear.php.net/package/HTTP_Request2
docs_sitehttp://pear.php.net/package/HTTP_Request2
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

15Critical · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
2.2/7.5Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
0/2.5CI-Tests0 out of 1 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-ReviewFound 1/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
2.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 5 contributing companies or organizations
0/10Dangerous-Workflowno data
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
0/2.5Licenselicense file not detected
1.5/7.5Maintained2 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 2
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_evaluated13
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive5
scorecard_aggregate3
high_risk_jurisdiction_cap34
high_risk_jurisdiction_multiplier50
security_posture_after_multiplier15
security_posture_before_jurisdiction30
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Dangerous-Workflow, Packaging, Pinned-Dependencies, Signed-Releases, Token-Permissions. Remaining weights renormalized. High-Risk Jurisdiction Policy applies a 50% multiplier and gives Security posture an At risk ceiling of 34.

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.

34At Risk · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
5.3/40Legible commit history10 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.1
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
53.9/55Manageable file sizes1/51 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePHP
largest_source_bytes212,015
source_files_sampled51
oversized_source_files1
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto)not applicable to this kind of software
0/20MCP servernot applicable to this kind of software
40/40Runnable examplesexamples
Inputs used
example_dirsexamples
has_mcp_signalno
api_schema_files
interfaces_expected_of
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto), MCP server. Remaining weights renormalized.

Key facts

76GitHub stars
10contributors
0commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
2releases
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 ★ / 66 ⇿
0Stars
66Forks
2Releases

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.

01325385063756332012-042019-032026-02
Major 0Minor 2Patch 0

Each point covers 13 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 3.0 / 10
3.0aggregate

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 · 2026-09-03 16:44 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
3Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
0CI-Tests0 out of 1 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 1/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
10Contributorsproject has 5 contributing companies or organizations
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
0Licenselicense file not detected
2Maintained2 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 2
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 2
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Packagistpear/net_url2^2.2.0composer.json
Packagistpear/pear_exception^1.0.0composer.json
All dependencies 5

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 2 direct and 3 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
Packagistpear/net_url2direct
Packagistpear/pear_exceptiondirect
Packagistpear/logindirect
Packagistphpindirect
Packagistyoast/phpunit-polyfillsindirect
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.