Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-10-20 23:30 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 12 out of 100, placing it in the Critical band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (90/100) and lowest on Security (9/100). It was last updated 1 day ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

12
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.

12
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 56 is calibrated to 59 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
6 followers91 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-corev1.2.05,7592118 days agotestingquickcheckgeneratorsproperty-testingfuzzingshrinking

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

77Good · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 1 days ago
6.9/36Commit cadence — 10/52 weeks with commits
17.9/18Commit volume — 97 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — project was created within the last 90 days. Please review its contents carefully
Inputs used
commits_last_year97
human_commit_share0.938
days_since_last_push1
active_weeks_last_year10

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 21 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 18 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~3.2 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count21
latest_release_tagv1.2.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release18
mean_days_between_releases3.2
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?

32At Risk · 17% of overall
How it's scored
0/60Stars — 0 stars
0/25Forks — 0 forks
0/15Watchers — 0 watchers
Inputs used
forks0
stars0
watchers0
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized 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
50.1/80Monthly downloads — 5,759 downloads/month across packagist
5.6/20Registry dependents — 6 packages depend on it
Inputs used
packagesrasuvaeff/property-testing-core
dependents6
ecosystemspackagist
total_downloads15,989
monthly_downloads5,759
unverified_packages_excluded—

Sustainability & Governance

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

56Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 100% of commits
1.4/13.5Contributor breadth — 1 contributors
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled1
top_contributor_share1
How it's scored
40.9/42Issue resolution — 98% of issues closed
30/30PR acceptance — 87/87 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/25 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs87
open_issues2
closed_issues79
prs_merged_7d1
prs_decided_7d1
prs_merged_30d5
prs_decided_30d5
issue_closed_ratio0.975
closed_unmerged_prs0
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
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
6.1/25Owner reach — 6 followers of rasuvaeff
25/25Track record — 91 public repos, account ~14 yr old
Inputs used
followers6
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginrasuvaeff
public_repos91
account_age_days5,388
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on packagist
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 18 days ago
20/20Version history — 21 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesrasuvaeff/property-testing-core
ecosystemspackagist
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish18

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

90Excellent · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 6 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-Tests — 30 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 site — https://rasuvaeff.github.io/property-testing-core/
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 10 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?

9Critical · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — no data
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
0/7.5Code-Review — Found 0/25 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
0/10Dangerous-Workflow — no data
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
0/7.5Maintained — project was created within the last 90 days. Please review its contents carefully
0/5Packaging — no data
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — no data
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 — no data
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated12
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive6
scorecard_aggregate4.4
high_risk_jurisdiction_cap34
high_risk_jurisdiction_multiplier20
security_posture_after_multiplier9
security_posture_before_jurisdiction44
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.

84Excellent · 4% of overall
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructions — AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md
15/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) — llms.txt present
40/40Legible commit history — 88 of 91 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtyes
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.967
agent_instruction_filesAGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes20,263
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrap — Makefile
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — .php-cs-fixer.php
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environment — lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 97
8/8Automated maintenance — 6 of the last 97 commits are automated dependency updates
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — no 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_share0.062
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — PHP without a type-check config
54.8/55Manageable file sizes — 1/307 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePHP
largest_source_bytes66,584
source_files_sampled307
oversized_source_files1
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — not applicable to this kind of software
0/20MCP server — not applicable to this kind of software
40/40Runnable examples — cookbook, 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
97commits, last 12 months
1days since last push
21releases
1bus factor
2open 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 4.4 / 10
4.4aggregate

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 · 2026-10-20 23:30 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 0/25 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0Contributorsproject has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate 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 statistics — Packagist.