Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-25 07:36 UTC

pradosoft / prado

Prado - Component Framework for PHP

PHP · JavaScriptCustom license★ 194 stars⑂ 70 forkssince Mar 2013View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryCommand-line toolhow this is determined

pradosoft/prado holds a health index of 80 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (80/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (53/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

80
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.

80
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 68 is calibrated to 80 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

The PRADO GroupOrganization
7 followers17 public repossince Sep 2013

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
Packagistpradosoft/prado4.3.22,01131239 days agoframeworkcomponent

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

75Good · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
18.7/36Commit cadence — 27/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 226 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 20 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year226
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year27
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 18 releases published
16.2/36Release recency — latest release 239 days ago
12.6/27Release cadence — a release every ~275.8 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count18
latest_release_tag4.3.2
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release239
mean_days_between_releases275.8
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?

53Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
37.1/60Stars — 194 stars
15.3/25Forks — 70 forks
8.4/15Watchers — 33 watchers
Inputs used
forks70
stars194
watchers33
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
16.9/22.5License — license 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_badges3
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesgithub.com, poser.pugx.org
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
44/80Monthly downloads — 2,011 downloads/month across packagist
9.3/20Registry dependents — 24 packages depend on it
Inputs used
packagespradosoft/prado
dependents24
ecosystemspackagist
total_downloads99,988
monthly_downloads2,011
unverified_packages_excluded—

Sustainability & Governance

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

69Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
11/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 51% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 19 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 4 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled19
top_contributor_share0.513
How it's scored
40.3/42Issue resolution — 96% of issues closed
28.1/30PR acceptance — 397/424 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
13.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 27/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 9
Inputs used
merged_prs397
open_issues35
closed_issues810
prs_merged_7d13
prs_decided_7d13
prs_merged_30d36
prs_decided_30d36
issue_closed_ratio0.959
closed_unmerged_prs27
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
6.5/25Owner reach — 7 followers of pradosoft
21.1/25Track record — 17 public repos, account ~13 yr old
Inputs used
followers7
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_loginpradosoft
public_repos17
account_age_days4,759
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on packagist
26/35Publish recency — latest publish 239 days ago
20/20Version history — 31 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagespradosoft/prado
ecosystemspackagist
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish239

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

80Excellent · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 1 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — .php-cs-fixer.dist.php, eslint.config.js
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 2 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsframework, php
has_wikino
homepage—
docs_site—
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

60Moderate · 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
2.5/2.5CI-Tests — 30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
6.8/7.5Code-Review — Found 27/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 9
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 4 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
2.2/2.5License — license file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 20 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_aggregate5
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
advisories0
affected_packages0
assessed_packages1
unassessed_packages40
affected_by_severitynone
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 1 resolved dependencies against OSV. 40 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.

58Moderate · 4% of overall
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructions — AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history — 86 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.86
agent_instruction_filesAGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes26,440
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — .php-cs-fixer.dist.php, eslint.config.js
0/11Static type checking
0/10Reproducible environment
6/10Demonstrated agent practice — 3 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
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_share0.03
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — PHP without a type-check config
54.5/55Manageable file sizes — 21/2,139 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePHP
largest_source_bytes268,674
source_files_sampled2,139
oversized_source_files21

Key facts

194GitHub stars
19contributors
226commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
18releases
1bus factor
35open issues
npm, 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 ★ / 70 ⇿
0Stars
70Forks
18Releases

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.

01325385063757022013-102020-012026-04
Major 1Minor 4Patch 13

Each point covers 12 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.0 / 10
5.0aggregate

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 · 2026-09-25 07:36 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
10CI-Tests30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
9Code-ReviewFound 27/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 9
10Contributorsproject has 4 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
9Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 20 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 19
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Packagistfirephp/firephp-core^0composer.json
Packagisterusev/parsedown^1composer.json
Packagistezyang/htmlpurifier^4composer.json
Packagistmrclay/jsmin-php^2composer.json
Packagistpradosoft/prado-wsdlgenerator^1composer.json
Packagistpradosoft/prado-tinymce3^3composer.json
Packagistpradosoft/tinymce-langs^5composer.json
Packagistbower-asset/jquery^3composer.json
Packagistbower-asset/jquery-ui^1composer.json
Packagistbower-asset/tinymce^5composer.json
Packagistbower-asset/highlightjs^9composer.json
Packagistbower-asset/clipboard^2composer.json
Packagistbower-asset/highlightjs-line-numbers.js^2composer.json
Packagistpsy/psysh^0composer.json
Packagistpsr/clock^1.0composer.json
Packagistpsr/http-message^2.0composer.json
Packagistpsr/http-factory^1.1composer.json
Packagistpsr/log^3.0composer.json
Packagistlaravel/serializable-closure^2.0composer.json
All dependencies 41

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 19 direct and 22 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
Packagistbower-asset/clipboard—direct
Packagistbower-asset/highlightjs—direct
Packagistbower-asset/highlightjs-line-numbers.js—direct
Packagistbower-asset/jquery—direct
Packagistbower-asset/jquery-ui—direct
Packagistbower-asset/tinymce—direct
Packagisterusev/parsedown—direct
Packagistezyang/htmlpurifier—direct
Packagistfirephp/firephp-core—direct
Packagistlaravel/serializable-closure—direct
Packagistmrclay/jsmin-php—direct
Packagistpradosoft/prado-tinymce3—direct
Packagistpradosoft/prado-wsdlgenerator—direct
Packagistpradosoft/tinymce-langs—direct
Packagistpsr/clock—direct
Packagistpsr/http-factory—direct
Packagistpsr/http-message—direct
Packagistpsr/log—direct
Packagistpsy/psysh—direct
npm@eslint/js^9.14.0indirect
npm@playwright/test1.62.1indirect
npmeslint^9.14.0indirect
npmglobals^15.12.0indirect
npmjquery^3.7.1indirect
npmjsdom^25.0.0indirect
npmvitest^4.1.5indirect
Packagistext-bcmath—indirect
Packagistext-bz2—indirect
Packagistext-ctype—indirect
Packagistext-dom—indirect
Packagistext-intl—indirect
Packagistext-json—indirect
Packagistext-pcre—indirect
Packagistext-spl—indirect
Packagistfriendsofphp/php-cs-fixer—indirect
Packagistphp—indirect
Packagistphp-webdriver/webdriver—indirect
Packagistphpdocumentor/shim—indirect
Packagistphpstan/phpstan—indirect
Packagistphpunit/phpunit—indirect
Packagistpradosoft/prado-phpdoc-template—indirect
Dependency advisories 0

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 1 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct. 40 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list.

No known advisories affect the assessed dependencies.

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.