Public record
Software health reportschema 0.11.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-16 15:41 UTC

shipmonk-rnd / input-mapper

Performant array-to-object mapper supporting generics, array shapes, optional fields and much more!

PHPNo license detected★ 30 stars⑂ 1 forksince Apr 2023View on GitHub ↗

shipmonk-rnd/input-mapper holds a health index of 63 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Vitality (76/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (26/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

63
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.

63
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 59 is calibrated to 63 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

ShipMonk R&DOrganization
80 followers27 public repossince Aug 2021

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
Packagistshipmonk/input-mapper2.2.03,3432114 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

76Good · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 0 days ago
9/36Commit cadence13/52 weeks with commits
13.5/18Commit volume31 commits in the last year
7/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained9 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 7
Inputs used
commits_last_year31
human_commit_share
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year13
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases13 releases published
36/36Release recencylatest release 14 days ago
19.8/27Release cadencea release every ~84 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count13
latest_release_tag2.2.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release14
mean_days_between_releases84
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?

30At Risk · 17% of overall
How it's scored
23.7/60Stars30 stars
0/25Forks1 forks
1.7/15Watchers3 watchers
Inputs used
forks1
stars30
watchers3
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
0/22.5Licenseno license file detected
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseno
readme_badges
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
47/80Monthly downloads3,343 downloads/month across packagist
0/20Registry dependents0 packages depend on it
Inputs used
packagesshipmonk/input-mapper
dependents0
ecosystemspackagist
total_downloads32,646
monthly_downloads3,343
unverified_packages_excluded

Sustainability & Governance

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

68Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
4.2/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 82% of commits
8.1/13.5Contributor breadth6 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 5 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled6
top_contributor_share0.815
How it's scored
32.7/42Issue resolution78% of issues closed
25.5/30PR acceptance96/113 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
7.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 13/26 approved changesets -- score normalized to 5
Inputs used
merged_prs96
open_issues2
closed_issues7
prs_merged_7d
prs_decided_7d
prs_merged_30d
prs_decided_30d
issue_closed_ratio0.778
closed_unmerged_prs17
first_time_authors_30d
first_time_prs_merged_30d
first_time_prs_decided_30d
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backingorganization-owned
0/20Verified domainverified-domain status not read for this organization
13.7/25Owner reach80 followers of shipmonk-rnd
20.4/25Track record27 public repos, account ~4 yr old
Inputs used
followers80
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified
owner_loginshipmonk-rnd
public_repos27
account_age_days1,793
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 14 days ago
20/20Version history21 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesshipmonk/input-mapper
ecosystemspackagist
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish14

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

64Moderate · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows1 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
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_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

50Moderate
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics5 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsarray, input, mapper, mapping, object
has_wikino
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?

55Moderate · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
2.2/7.5Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
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
3.8/7.5Code-ReviewFound 13/26 approved changesets -- score normalized to 5
2.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 5 contributing companies or organizations
0/10Dangerous-Workflowno data
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
0/2.5Licenselicense file not detected
5.2/7.5Maintained9 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 7
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_evaluated13
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive5
scorecard_aggregate5.5
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.

26At 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
5/8Automated maintenancedependency automation configured, none observed in the sampled commits
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesno data
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_share0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Demonstrated agent practice, OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable codePHP without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes0/391 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePHP
largest_source_bytes47,207
source_files_sampled391
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

30GitHub stars
6contributors
31commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
13releases
1bus factor
2open issues
Packagistpackage ecosystems

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.5 / 10
5.5aggregate

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 · 2026-07-16 15:40 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
3Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all 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
5Code-ReviewFound 13/26 approved changesets -- score normalized to 5
10Contributorsproject has 5 contributing companies or organizations
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
0Licenselicense file not detected
7Maintained9 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 7
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 2
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Packagistnette/utils^3.2 || ^4.0composer.json
Packagistnikic/php-parser^5.0composer.json
All dependencies 16

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 2 direct and 14 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
Packagistnette/utilsdirect
Packagistnikic/php-parserdirect
Packagisteditorconfig-checker/editorconfig-checkerindirect
Packagistergebnis/composer-normalizeindirect
Packagistphpindirect
Packagistphpstan/phpdoc-parserindirect
Packagistphpstan/phpstanindirect
Packagistphpstan/phpstan-phpunitindirect
Packagistphpstan/phpstan-strict-rulesindirect
Packagistphpunit/phpunitindirect
Packagistshipmonk/coding-standardindirect
Packagistshipmonk/composer-dependency-analyserindirect
Packagistshipmonk/coverage-guardindirect
Packagistshipmonk/dead-code-detectorindirect
Packagistshipmonk/name-collision-detectorindirect
Packagistshipmonk/phpstan-rulesindirect
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 v0.11.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

How one result sits in the wider record: aggregate statisticsPackagist.