Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-31 04:23 UTC

rindow / rindow-matlib-ffi

The Interface of The Rindow Matlib on FFI

PHPBSD-3-Clause★ 0 stars⑂ 1 forksince Mar 2024View on GitHub ↗

rindow/rindow-matlib-ffi holds a health index of 45 out of 100, placing it in the Weak band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (59/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (21/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

45
overall / 100
Weak

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.

45
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 47 is calibrated to 45 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

RindowOrganization
18 followers58 public repossince Sep 2014

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
Packagistrindow/rindow-matlib-ffi1.1.314,0927504 days agomathmatrixffirindow

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

57Moderate · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 0 days ago
0/36Commit cadence0/52 weeks with commits
0/18Commit volume0 commits in the last year
3/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained4 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
commits_last_year0
human_commit_share
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year0
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases8 releases published
36/36Release recencylatest release 0 days ago
12.6/27Release cadencea release every ~128 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count8
latest_release_tag1.1.4
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release0
mean_days_between_releases128
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?

33At Risk · 17% of overall
How it's scored
0/60Stars0 stars
0/25Forks1 forks
0/15Watchers1 watchers
Inputs used
forks1
stars0
watchers1
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_badges4
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesgithub.com, shields.io
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
55.3/80Monthly downloads14,092 downloads/month across packagist
4.7/20Registry dependents4 packages depend on it
Inputs used
packagesrindow/rindow-matlib-ffi
dependents4
ecosystemspackagist
total_downloads296,216
monthly_downloads14,092
unverified_packages_excluded

Sustainability & Governance

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

53Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
1.6/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 93% of commits
2.7/13.5Contributor breadth2 contributors
3/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled2
top_contributor_share0.929
How it's scored
0/42Issue resolutionno issues or no data
30/30PR acceptance1/1 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 1/13 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs1
open_issues0
closed_issues0
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio
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): Issue resolution, Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backingorganization-owned
0/20Verified domain
9.2/25Owner reach18 followers of rindow
24.9/25Track record58 public repos, account ~11 yr old
Inputs used
followers18
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_loginrindow
public_repos58
account_age_days4,365
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable1 package(s) on packagist
14/35Publish recencylatest publish 504 days ago
20/20Version history7 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesrindow/rindow-matlib-ffi
ecosystemspackagist
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish504

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

59Moderate · 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
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests0 out of 1 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage sitehttps://rindow.github.io/mathematics/
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics7 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsacceleration, array, machine-learning, mathematics, php, php8, scientific-computing
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://rindow.github.io/mathematics/
docs_sitehttps://rindow.github.io/mathematics/
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

33At Risk · 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
0/2.5CI-Tests0 out of 1 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-ReviewFound 1/13 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0.8/2.5Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
10/10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5Licenselicense file detected
2.2/7.5Maintained4 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 3
0/5Packagingno data
0/5Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
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-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate3.3
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging, Signed-Releases. 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.

21At 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-Dependenciesdependency 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_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. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable codePHP without a type-check config
44/55Manageable file sizes2/10 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePHP
largest_source_bytes423,515
source_files_sampled10
oversized_source_files2

Key facts

0GitHub stars
2contributors
0commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
8releases
1bus factor
0open issues
Packagistpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • No resolved dependencies carried a version and a supported ecosystem

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 3.3 / 10
3.3aggregate

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 · 2026-08-31 04:23 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0CI-Tests0 out of 1 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 1/13 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
3Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
3Maintained4 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 3
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
Packagistinterop-phpobjects/polite-math^1.0.7composer.json
All dependencies 4

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 1 direct and 3 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
Packagistinterop-phpobjects/polite-mathdirect
Packagistext-ffiindirect
Packagistphpindirect
Packagistrindow/rindow-math-buffer-ffiindirect
Dependency advisories not assessed

Advisory matching could not run for this report: No resolved dependencies carried a version and a supported ecosystem

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.