Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-14 19:37 UTC

seatplus / esi-client

A standalone ESI (Eve Swagger Interface) Client Library using guzzle

PHPMIT★ 1 star⑂ 1 forksince Sep 2021View on GitHub ↗

seatplus/esi-client holds a health index of 54 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Vitality (66/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (34/100). It was last updated 27 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

54
overall / 100
Moderate

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.

54
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 53 is calibrated to 54 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

seatplusOrganization
4 followers26 public repossince Apr 2019

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
Packagistseatplus/esi-client5.0.04001927 days agocachelibraryesilaraveleve-onlinecache-controlpsr6rfc7234seatplus

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

66Good · 21% of overall
How it's scored
28.8/36Push recency — last push 27 days ago
4.2/36Commit cadence — 6/52 weeks with commits
11.3/18Commit volume — 17 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 12 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year17
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push27
active_weeks_last_year6
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 19 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 27 days ago
12.6/27Release cadence — a release every ~145.1 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count19
latest_release_tag5.0.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release27
mean_days_between_releases145.1
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?

34At Risk · 17% of overall
How it's scored
0/60Stars — 1 stars
0/25Forks — 1 forks
0/15Watchers — 2 watchers
Inputs used
forks1
stars1
watchers2
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (MIT)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges7
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesapi.codeclimate.com, github.com, poser.pugx.org
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
34.7/80Monthly downloads — 400 downloads/month across packagist
3.2/20Registry dependents — 2 packages depend on it
Inputs used
packagesseatplus/esi-client
dependents2
ecosystemspackagist
total_downloads5,812
monthly_downloads400
unverified_packages_excluded—

Sustainability & Governance

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

55Moderate · 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
35/42Issue resolution — 83% of issues closed
27.3/30PR acceptance — 40/44 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/23 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs40
open_issues2
closed_issues10
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d1
prs_decided_30d1
issue_closed_ratio0.833
closed_unmerged_prs4
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
5/25Owner reach — 4 followers of seatplus
22.4/25Track record — 26 public repos, account ~7 yr old
Inputs used
followers4
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_loginseatplus
public_repos26
account_age_days2,703

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on packagist
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 27 days ago
20/20Version history — 19 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesseatplus/esi-client
ecosystemspackagist
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish27

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

65Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 2 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
14/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 17 out of 23 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 7
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

60Moderate
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 10 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsesi, eve-online, seatplus, eve, laravel, psr-6, rfc7234, rfc-7234, cache, library
has_wikiyes
homepage—
docs_site—
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

39Weak · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0.8/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
1.8/2.5CI-Tests — 17 out of 23 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 7
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-Review — Found 0/23 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
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 — 12 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
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_evaluated13
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive5
scorecard_aggregate3.9
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Dangerous-Workflow, Packaging, Pinned-Dependencies, Signed-Releases, Token-Permissions. 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.

54Moderate · 4% of overall
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructions — CLAUDE.md
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
32.7/40Legible commit history — 35 of 57 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.614
agent_instruction_filesCLAUDE.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes1,482
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
0/11Static type checking
0/10Reproducible environment
10/10Demonstrated agent practice — 15 of the last 57 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
0/8Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — no data
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles—
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0.263
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 code — PHP without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/41 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePHP
largest_source_bytes14,248
source_files_sampled41
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

1GitHub stars
1contributors
17commits, last 12 months
27days since last push
19releases
1bus factor
2open issues
Packagistpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • No resolved dependencies carried a version and a supported ecosystem

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 3.9 / 10
3.9aggregate

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 · 2026-09-14 19:36 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
1Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
7CI-Tests17 out of 23 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 7
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 0/23 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
10Maintained12 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
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
Direct dependencies 6
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Packagistfirebase/php-jwt^7.0composer.json
Packagistguzzlehttp/guzzle^7.9.2composer.json
Packagistkevinrob/guzzle-cache-middleware^8.0composer.json
Packagistmonolog/monolog^3.7composer.json
Packagistnesbot/carbon^3.0composer.json
Packagistseatplus/esi-schema^4.1 || ^5.0composer.json
All dependencies 21

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 6 direct and 15 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
Packagistfirebase/php-jwt—direct
Packagistguzzlehttp/guzzle—direct
Packagistkevinrob/guzzle-cache-middleware—direct
Packagistmonolog/monolog—direct
Packagistnesbot/carbon—direct
Packagistseatplus/esi-schema—direct
Packagistext-json—indirect
Packagistext-openssl—indirect
Packagistfakerphp/faker—indirect
Packagistilluminate/cache—indirect
Packagistlaravel/pint—indirect
Packagistmikey179/vfsstream—indirect
Packagistmockery/mockery—indirect
Packagistnunomaduro/collision—indirect
Packagistpestphp/pest—indirect
Packagistpestphp/pest-plugin-phpstan—indirect
Packagistpestphp/pest-plugin-type-coverage—indirect
Packagistphp—indirect
Packagistphpstan/phpstan—indirect
Packagistphpstan/phpstan-mockery—indirect
Packagistrector/rector—indirect
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 statistics — Packagist.