Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-29 11:01 UTC

rasuvaeff / property-testing-core

Framework-agnostic property-based testing engine: generators, shrinking, runner, regression corpus, events

PHPBSD-3-Clause★ 0 stars⑂ 0 forkssince Aug 2026View on GitHub ↗

rasuvaeff/property-testing-core holds a health index of 11 out of 100, placing it in the Critical band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (90/100) and lowest on Security (6/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

11
overall / 100
Critical

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.

11
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 55 is calibrated to 57 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02). High-Risk Jurisdiction Policy applies a 20% multiplier to weighted overall health and gives it an At Risk ceiling of 34.

Ownership

rasuvaeffPersonal account
5 followers83 public repossince Jan 2012

This repository is owned by a personal account. A single-owner project carries more continuity risk than an organization-backed one.

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
Packagistrasuvaeff/property-testing-corev0.4.24,40098 days agotestingquickcheckgeneratorsproperty-testingfuzzingshrinking

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

72Good · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 0 days ago
1.4/36Commit cadence2/52 weeks with commits
15.9/18Commit volume58 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintainedproject was created within the last 90 days. Please review its contents carefully
Inputs used
commits_last_year58
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year2

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases9 releases published
36/36Release recencylatest release 8 days ago
27/27Release cadencea release every ~1.4 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count9
latest_release_tagv0.4.2
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release8
mean_days_between_releases1.4
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
0/60Stars0 stars
0/25Forks0 forks
0/15Watchers0 watchers
Inputs used
forks0
stars0
watchers0
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (BSD-3-Clause)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges7
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesgithub.com, poser.pugx.org, shields.io
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
48.6/80Monthly downloads4,400 downloads/month across packagist
4.7/20Registry dependents4 packages depend on it
Inputs used
packagesrasuvaeff/property-testing-core
dependents4
ecosystemspackagist
total_downloads4,400
monthly_downloads4,400
unverified_packages_excluded

Sustainability & Governance

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

57Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 100% of commits
1.4/13.5Contributor breadth1 contributors
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled1
top_contributor_share1
How it's scored
42/42Issue resolution100% of issues closed
30/30PR acceptance49/49 decided PRs merged
13/13Newcomer PR acceptance49/49 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs49
open_issues0
closed_issues18
prs_merged_7d1
prs_decided_7d1
prs_merged_30d49
prs_decided_30d49
issue_closed_ratio1
closed_unmerged_prs0
first_time_authors_30d1
first_time_prs_merged_30d49
first_time_prs_decided_30d49
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backingpersonal (user) account
0/20Verified domainnot applicable to user accounts
5.6/25Owner reach5 followers of rasuvaeff
25/25Track record83 public repos, account ~14 yr old
Inputs used
followers5
owner_typeUser
is_verified
owner_loginrasuvaeff
public_repos83
account_age_days5,335
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 8 days ago
20/20Version history9 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesrasuvaeff/property-testing-core
ecosystemspackagist
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish8

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

90Excellent · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows6 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config.php-cs-fixer.php
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

90Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage sitehttps://rasuvaeff.github.io/property-testing-core/
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics10 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsframework-agnostic, fuzzing, hedgehog, php, php8, property-based-testing, property-testing, quickcheck, shrinking, testing
has_wikino
homepagehttps://rasuvaeff.github.io/property-testing-core/
docs_sitehttps://rasuvaeff.github.io/property-testing-core/
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

6Critical · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protectionno data
2.5/2.5CI-Tests30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-ReviewFound 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5Contributorsproject has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
0/10Dangerous-Workflowno data
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5Licenselicense file detected
0/7.5Maintainedproject was created within the last 90 days. Please review its contents carefully
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_evaluated12
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive6
scorecard_aggregate3.2
high_risk_jurisdiction_cap34
high_risk_jurisdiction_multiplier20
security_posture_after_multiplier6
security_posture_before_jurisdiction32
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, Dangerous-Workflow, Packaging, Pinned-Dependencies, Signed-Releases, Token-Permissions. Remaining weights renormalized. High-Risk Jurisdiction Policy applies a 20% 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.

82Excellent · 4% of overall
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructionsAGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md
15/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)llms.txt present
40/40Legible commit history57 of 59 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtyes
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.966
agent_instruction_filesAGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes14,611
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrapMakefile
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config.php-cs-fixer.php
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environmentlockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno agent-authored commits among the last 59
5/8Automated maintenancedependency automation configured, none observed in the sampled commits
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesno data
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilespackage-lock.json
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_filesMakefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
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
55/55Manageable file sizes0/220 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePHP
largest_source_bytes44,075
source_files_sampled220
oversized_source_files0
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 examplescookbook, examples
Inputs used
example_dirscookbook, examples
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

0GitHub stars
1contributors
58commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
9releases
1bus factor
0open issues
npm, Packagistpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • GitHub dependency-graph SBOM unavailable (404); the dependency graph may be disabled for this repository

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 3.2 / 10
3.2aggregate

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 · 2026-08-29 11:00 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
n/aBranch-Protectioninternal error: error during branchesHandler.setup: internal error: some github tokens can't read classic branch protection rules: https://github.com/ossf/scorecard-action/blob/main/docs/authentication/fine-grained-auth-token.md
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
0Code-ReviewFound 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0Contributorsproject has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
0Maintainedproject was created within the last 90 days. Please review its contents carefully
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
All dependencies not collected

The resolved dependency set could not be collected for this report: GitHub dependency-graph SBOM unavailable (404); the dependency graph may be disabled for this repository

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.