Public record
Software health reportschema 0.15.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-20 02:16 UTC

php-embed / Embed

Get info from any web service or page

PHPMIT★ 2,142 stars⑂ 324 forkssince Oct 2012View on GitHub ↗

php-embed/Embed holds a health index of 67 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Vitality (73/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (23/100). It was last updated 11 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

67
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.

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

Ownership

php-embedOrganization
2 followers1 public reposince Apr 2025

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
Packagistembed/embedv4.4.19290,59517411 days agooembedopengraphembedlyembedtwitter-cards

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

73Good · 21% of overall
How it's scored
28.8/36Push recencylast push 11 days ago
6.9/36Commit cadence10/52 weeks with commits
15.3/18Commit volume50 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained18 commit(s) and 2 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year50
human_commit_share
days_since_last_push11
active_weeks_last_year10
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases100 releases published
36/36Release recencylatest release 11 days ago
19.8/27Release cadencea release every ~105.6 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count100
latest_release_tagv4.4.19
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release11
mean_days_between_releases105.6
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?

73Good · 17% of overall
How it's scored
54/60Stars2,142 stars
20.9/25Forks324 forks
10.4/15Watchers75 watchers
Inputs used
forks324
stars2,142
watchers75
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
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_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
72.8/80Monthly downloads290,595 downloads/month across packagist
13.5/20Registry dependents105 packages depend on it
Inputs used
packagesembed/embed
dependents105
ecosystemspackagist
total_downloads12,051,623
monthly_downloads290,595
unverified_packages_excluded

Sustainability & Governance

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

62Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
3.8/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 83% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth68 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 25 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled68
top_contributor_share0.829
How it's scored
34.2/42Issue resolution81% of issues closed
25.9/30PR acceptance159/184 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
7.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 9/18 approved changesets -- score normalized to 5
Inputs used
merged_prs159
open_issues72
closed_issues316
prs_merged_7d
prs_decided_7d
prs_merged_30d
prs_decided_30d
issue_closed_ratio0.814
closed_unmerged_prs25
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
3.4/25Owner reach2 followers of php-embed
4.8/25Track record1 public repos, account ~1 yr old
Inputs used
followers2
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified
owner_loginphp-embed
public_repos1
account_age_days472
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 11 days ago
20/20Version history174 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesembed/embed
ecosystemspackagist
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish11

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

55Moderate · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows1 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
10/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests5 out of 9 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 5
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

50Moderate
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics5 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsopengraph, twitter-cards, embeds, scraping, oembed
has_wikino
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?

46Weak · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
1.2/2.5CI-Tests5 out of 9 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 5
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
3.8/7.5Code-ReviewFound 9/18 approved changesets -- score normalized to 5
2.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 25 contributing companies or organizations
0/10Dangerous-Workflowno data
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5Licenselicense file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained18 commit(s) and 2 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
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_aggregate4.6
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.

23At Risk · 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
0/11Lint / format config
0/11Static type checking
0/10Reproducible environment
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno data
0/8Automated maintenanceno data
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_share
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Demonstrated agent practice, Automated maintenance, OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable codePHP without a type-check config
46.9/55Manageable file sizes48/325 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePHP
largest_source_bytes2,070,596
source_files_sampled325
oversized_source_files48

Key facts

2,142GitHub stars
68contributors
50commits, last 12 months
11days since last push
100releases
1bus factor
72open issues
Packagistpackage ecosystems

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.6 / 10
4.6aggregate

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 02:15 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
5CI-Tests5 out of 9 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 5
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
5Code-ReviewFound 9/18 approved changesets -- score normalized to 5
10Contributorsproject has 25 contributing companies or organizations
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained18 commit(s) and 2 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
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
n/aToken-PermissionsNo tokens found
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 5
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Packagistoscarotero/html-parser^0.1.4composer.json
Packagistpsr/http-message^1.0|^2.0composer.json
Packagistpsr/http-client^1.0composer.json
Packagistpsr/http-factory^1.0composer.json
Packagistml/json-ld^1.1composer.json
All dependencies 19

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 5 direct and 14 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
Packagistml/json-lddirect
Packagistoscarotero/html-parserdirect
Packagistpsr/http-clientdirect
Packagistpsr/http-factorydirect
Packagistpsr/http-messagedirect
Packagistbrick/varexporterindirect
Packagistcomposer/ca-bundleindirect
Packagistext-curlindirect
Packagistext-domindirect
Packagistext-jsonindirect
Packagistext-mbstringindirect
Packagistfriendsofphp/php-cs-fixerindirect
Packagistnyholm/psr7indirect
Packagistoscarotero/php-cs-fixer-configindirect
Packagistphpindirect
Packagistphpstan/phpstanindirect
Packagistphpstan/phpstan-strict-rulesindirect
Packagistphpunit/phpunitindirect
Packagistsymfony/css-selectorindirect
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 v0.15.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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