Public record
Software health reportschema 0.16.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-20 19:53 UTC

perplorm / perpl

Perpl is an improved and still maintained fork of Propel2, an open-source high-performance Object-Relational Mapping (ORM) for modern PHP

PHPMIT★ 24 stars⑂ 5 forkssince Feb 2021forkView on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryCommand-line toolhow this is determined

perplorm/perpl holds a health index of 65 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Vitality (88/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (31/100). It was last updated today. 3 contributors account for most of its recent work.

65
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.

65
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 60 is calibrated to 65 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

perplormOrganization
1 follower4 public repossince May 2025

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
Packagistperplorm/perplv2.9.02,4092328 days agodatabaseormpersistencepropelactive-recordpropel2perpl

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

88Excellent · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 0 days ago
20.8/36Commit cadence30/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume255 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained30 commit(s) and 5 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year255
human_commit_share
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year30
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases11 releases published
36/36Release recencylatest release 28 days ago
19.8/27Release cadencea release every ~47.7 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count11
latest_release_tagv2.9.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release28
mean_days_between_releases47.7
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?

31At Risk · 17% of overall
How it's scored
22.1/60Stars24 stars
5/25Forks5 forks
0/15Watchers2 watchers
Inputs used
forks5
stars24
watchers2
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
0/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (MIT)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeno
has_licenseno
readme_badges
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
45.1/80Monthly downloads2,409 downloads/month across packagist
0/20Registry dependents0 packages depend on it
Inputs used
packagesperplorm/perpl
dependents0
ecosystemspackagist
total_downloads13,455
monthly_downloads2,409
unverified_packages_excluded

Sustainability & Governance

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

73Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
36/54Bus factor3 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
15.7/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 30% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth100 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 64 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor3
contributors_sampled100
top_contributor_share0.303
How it's scored
34.2/42Issue resolution82% of issues closed
28/30PR acceptance111/119 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 0/16 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs111
open_issues5
closed_issues22
prs_merged_7d
prs_decided_7d
prs_merged_30d
prs_decided_30d
issue_closed_ratio0.815
closed_unmerged_prs8
first_time_authors_30d
first_time_prs_merged_30d
first_time_prs_decided_30d
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backingorganization-owned
0/20Verified domainverified-domain status not read for this organization
2.2/25Owner reach1 followers of perplorm
7.4/25Track record4 public repos, account ~1 yr old
Inputs used
followers1
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified
owner_loginperplorm
public_repos4
account_age_days419
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable1 package(s) on packagist
35/35Publish recencylatest publish 28 days ago
20/20Version history23 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesperplorm/perpl
ecosystemspackagist
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish28

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

60Moderate · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows2 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter configphpcs.xml, phpstan.neon
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
14/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests3 out of 4 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 7
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

25At Risk
How it's scored
0/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage sitehttps://perplorm.github.io/
0/10Repository description
0/10Topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://perplorm.github.io/
docs_sitehttps://perplorm.github.io/
has_readmeno
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionno

Security

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

42Weak · 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
1.8/2.5CI-Tests3 out of 4 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 0/16 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
2.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 64 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5Licenselicense file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained30 commit(s) and 5 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packagingno data
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
4.5/7.5Vulnerabilities4 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate4.2
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging, Signed-Releases. 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.

35Weak · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
0/40Legible commit historyno data
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Legible commit history. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format configphpcs.xml, phpstan.neon
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environmentlockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno data
0/8Automated maintenanceno data
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilescomposer.lock
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Demonstrated agent practice, Automated maintenance. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable codePHP without a type-check config
54.6/55Manageable file sizes6/883 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePHP
largest_source_bytes133,382
source_files_sampled883
oversized_source_files6

Key facts

24GitHub stars
100contributors
255commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
11releases
3bus factor
5open issues
Packagistpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Community profile unavailable
  • No resolved dependencies carried a version and a supported ecosystem

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.2 / 10
4.2aggregate

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 · 2026-07-20 19:53 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
3Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
7CI-Tests3 out of 4 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 0/16 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
10Contributorsproject has 64 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 5 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not 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
6Vulnerabilities4 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 12
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Packagistpsr/log^1.0 || ^2.0 || ^3.0composer.json
Packagistsymfony/yaml^6.0.0 || ^7.0.0 || ^8.0.0composer.json
Packagistsymfony/config^6.0.0 || ^7.0.0 || ^8.0.0composer.json
Packagistsymfony/console^6.0.0 || ^7.0.0 || ^8.0.0composer.json
Packagistsymfony/filesystem^6.0.0 || ^7.0.0 || ^8.0.0composer.json
Packagistsymfony/finder^6.0.0 || ^7.0.0 || ^8.0.0composer.json
Packagistsymfony/translation^6.0.0 || ^7.0.0 || ^8.0.0composer.json
Packagistsymfony/validator^6.0.0 || ^7.0.0 || ^8.0.0composer.json
Packagistsymfony/polyfill-php82^1.33composer.json
Packagistsymfony/polyfill-php83^1.33composer.json
Packagistsymfony/polyfill-php84^1.33composer.json
Packagistsymfony/polyfill-php85^1.33composer.json
All dependencies 24

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 12 direct and 12 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
Packagistpsr/logdirect
Packagistsymfony/configdirect
Packagistsymfony/consoledirect
Packagistsymfony/filesystemdirect
Packagistsymfony/finderdirect
Packagistsymfony/polyfill-php82direct
Packagistsymfony/polyfill-php83direct
Packagistsymfony/polyfill-php84direct
Packagistsymfony/polyfill-php85direct
Packagistsymfony/translationdirect
Packagistsymfony/validatordirect
Packagistsymfony/yamldirect
Packagistext-jsonindirect
Packagistext-pdoindirect
Packagistext-xmlindirect
Packagistmikey179/vfsstreamindirect
Packagistmonolog/monologindirect
Packagistphpindirect
Packagistphpstan/extension-installerindirect
Packagistphpstan/phpstanindirect
Packagistphpstan/phpstan-deprecation-rulesindirect
Packagistphpunit/phpunitindirect
Packagistpsalm/pharindirect
Packagistspryker/code-snifferindirect
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 v0.16.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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