Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-13 21:39 UTC

php-stubs / wordpress-stubs

Up-to-date WordPress function and class declaration stubs for static analysis by PHPStan

PHPMIT★ 206 stars⑂ 25 forkssince Aug 2019View on GitHub ↗

php-stubs/wordpress-stubs holds a health index of 86 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Vitality (84/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (39/100). It was last updated 4 days ago. 2 contributors account for most of its recent work.

86
overall / 100
Excellent

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.

86
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 72 is calibrated to 86 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

PHP Stubs LibraryOrganization
73 followers14 public repossince Aug 2019

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
Packagistphp-stubs/wordpress-stubsv7.1.01,372,62126116 days agowordpressstatic-analysisphpstan

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

84Excellent · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 4 days ago
14.5/36Commit cadence — 21/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 106 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 28 commit(s) and 3 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year106
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push4
active_weeks_last_year21
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 36 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 16 days ago
19.8/27Release cadence — a release every ~71.3 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count36
latest_release_tagv7.1.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release16
mean_days_between_releases71.3
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?

62Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
37.5/60Stars — 206 stars
11.5/25Forks — 25 forks
1.7/15Watchers — 3 watchers
Inputs used
forks25
stars206
watchers3
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized 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_badges3
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesgithub.com, shields.io
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
80/80Monthly downloads — 1,372,621 downloads/month across packagist
17.2/20Registry dependents — 378 packages depend on it
Inputs used
packagesphp-stubs/wordpress-stubs
dependents378
ecosystemspackagist
total_downloads19,116,195
monthly_downloads1,372,621
unverified_packages_excluded—

Sustainability & Governance

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

76Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
25.2/54Bus factor — 2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
12.4/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 45% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 15 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 20 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor2
contributors_sampled15
top_contributor_share0.447
How it's scored
38.6/42Issue resolution — 92% of issues closed
27.4/30PR acceptance — 354/388 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
10.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 21/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 7
Inputs used
merged_prs354
open_issues8
closed_issues89
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d14
prs_decided_30d14
issue_closed_ratio0.918
closed_unmerged_prs34
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 backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain
13.4/25Owner reach — 73 followers of php-stubs
20.6/25Track record — 14 public repos, account ~7 yr old
Inputs used
followers73
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_loginphp-stubs
public_repos14
account_age_days2,588

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on packagist
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 16 days ago
20/20Version history — 261 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesphp-stubs/wordpress-stubs
ecosystemspackagist
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish16

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

79Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 3 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — phpstan.neon
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
18/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 23 out of 24 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://packagist.org/packages/php-stubs/wordpress-stubs
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 5 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicswordpress, stubs, static-analysis, phpstan, definitions
has_wikino
homepagehttps://packagist.org/packages/php-stubs/wordpress-stubs
docs_sitehttps://packagist.org/packages/php-stubs/wordpress-stubs
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

59Moderate · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
2.2/2.5CI-Tests — 23 out of 24 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
5.2/7.5Code-Review — Found 21/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 7
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 20 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained — 28 commit(s) and 3 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packaging — no data
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — no data
0/7.5Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate4.9
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging, Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories1
affected_packages1
assessed_packages2
unassessed_packages15
affected_by_severityhigh 1
direct_affected_packages0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories, No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 2 resolved dependencies against OSV. 15 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list. 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.

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.

39Weak · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history — 78 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.78
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — phpstan.neon
0/11Static type checking
0/10Reproducible environment
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
0/8Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles—
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — PHP without a type-check config
54.8/55Manageable file sizes — 1/228 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePHP
largest_source_bytes5,952,562
source_files_sampled228
oversized_source_files1

Key facts

206GitHub stars
15contributors
106commits, last 12 months
4days since last push
36releases
2bus factor
8open issues
Packagistpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

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

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 25 ⇿
0Stars
25Forks
35Releases

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.

05101520252512020-032023-062026-08
Major 2Minor 9Patch 24

Each point covers 6 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.9 / 10
4.9aggregate

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 · 2026-09-13 21:38 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
9CI-Tests23 out of 24 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
7Code-ReviewFound 21/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 7
10Contributorsproject has 20 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained28 commit(s) and 3 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
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 1
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Packagistjohnpbloch/wordpress7.1source/composer.json
All dependencies 17

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 1 direct and 16 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
Packagistjohnpbloch/wordpress7.1direct
Packagistdealerdirect/phpcodesniffer-composer-installer—indirect
Packagistext-gettext—indirect
Packagistext-hash—indirect
Packagistext-json—indirect
Packagistext-mbstring—indirect
Packagistext-openssl—indirect
Packagistext-sodium—indirect
Packagistnikic/php-parser—indirect
Packagistphp—indirect
Packagistphp-stubs/generator—indirect
Packagistphpdocumentor/reflection-docblock—indirect
Packagistphpstan/phpstan—indirect
Packagistphpunit/phpunit—indirect
Packagistsymfony/polyfill-php80—indirect
Packagistszepeviktor/phpcs-psr-12-neutron-hybrid-ruleset—indirect
Packagistwp-coding-standards/wpcs2.3.0indirect
Dependency advisories 1

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 2 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 1 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct. 15 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
wp-coding-standards/wpcs2.3.0indirecthigh13.4.1

An advisory means the version recorded in the dependency graph falls inside an advisory’s affected range. Reachability is not analysed, and the graph includes development and test pins — a finding may concern tooling rather than shipped software.

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 statistics — Packagist.