Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-22 13:21 UTC

spiral / security

[READ ONLY] RBAC security layer based on NIST definition, role/rule/permission associations, bulletproof. Subtree split of the Spiral Security component (see spiral/framework)

PHPMIT★ 6 stars⑂ 1 forksince Jan 2016View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryhow this is determined
#spiral#rbac#security#nist

spiral/security holds a health index of 34 out of 100, placing it in the At Risk band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (62/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (27/100). It was last updated 6 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

34
overall / 100
At Risk

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.

34
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 52 is calibrated to 53 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02). High-Risk Jurisdiction Policy applies a 75% multiplier to weighted overall health and gives it an At Risk ceiling of 34.

Ownership

Spiral ScoutOrganization
338 followers90 public repossince Mar 2015

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
Packagistspiral/security3.17.2455,36010617 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

59Moderate · 21% of overall

Development activity

64Moderate
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 6 days ago
6.2/36Commit cadence — 9/52 weeks with commits
11.5/18Commit volume — 18 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 13 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year18
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push6
active_weeks_last_year9

Release discipline

52Moderate
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 21 releases published
0/36Release recency — latest release 2,506 days ago
19.8/27Release cadence — a release every ~45.9 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count21
latest_release_tagv2.2.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release2,506
mean_days_between_releases45.9
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?

45Weak · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

13Critical
How it's scored
11.3/60Stars — 6 stars
0/25Forks — 1 forks
1.7/15Watchers — 3 watchers
Inputs used
forks1
stars6
watchers3
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

57Moderate
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (MIT)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
6.3/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges7
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicescodecov.io, github.com, poser.pugx.org, shields.io
has_pull_request_templateyes

Ecosystem adoption (downloads)

80Excellent
How it's scored
75.4/80Monthly downloads — 455,360 downloads/month across packagist
4.7/20Registry dependents — 4 packages depend on it
Inputs used
packagesspiral/security
dependents4
ecosystemspackagist
total_downloads4,880,853
monthly_downloads455,360
unverified_packages_excluded—

Sustainability & Governance

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

62Moderate · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

34At Risk
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
1.7/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 93% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 17 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 13 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled17
top_contributor_share0.926

Issue & PR responsiveness

56Moderate
How it's scored
0/42Issue resolution — no issues or no data
25/30PR acceptance — 10/12 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs10
open_issues0
closed_issues0
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio—
closed_unmerged_prs2
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.

Ownership & stewardship

73Good
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain
18.2/25Owner reach — 338 followers of spiral
25/25Track record — 90 public repos, account ~11 yr old
Inputs used
followers338
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_loginspiral
public_repos90
account_age_days4,181

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on packagist
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 17 days ago
20/20Version history — 106 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesspiral/security
ecosystemspackagist
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish17

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

62Moderate · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

60Moderate
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 2 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — no data
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests. Remaining weights renormalized.

Documentation

65Good
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://github.com/spiral/framework
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 4 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsspiral, rbac, security, nist
has_wikino
homepagehttps://github.com/spiral/framework
docs_sitehttps://github.com/spiral/framework
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

31At Risk · 16% of overall

Security posture

31At Risk
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0/2.5CI-Tests — no data
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-Review — Found 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 13 contributing companies or organizations
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 — 13 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 — no SAST tool detected
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_aggregate4.1
high_risk_jurisdiction_cap34
high_risk_jurisdiction_multiplier75
security_posture_after_multiplier31
security_posture_before_jurisdiction41
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): CI-Tests, Dangerous-Workflow, Packaging, Pinned-Dependencies, Signed-Releases, Token-Permissions. Remaining weights renormalized. High-Risk Jurisdiction Policy applies a 75% 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.

27At Risk · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

18Critical
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
18.1/40Legible commit history — 34 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.34
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

24At Risk
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 practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
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
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies. Remaining weights renormalized.

Code legibility for models

55Moderate
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — PHP without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/40 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePHP
largest_source_bytes5,033
source_files_sampled40
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

6GitHub stars
17contributors
18commits, last 12 months
6days since last push
21releases
1bus factor
0open 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 4.1 / 10
4.1aggregate

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 · 2026-08-22 13:21 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
n/aCI-Testsno pull request found
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
10Contributorsproject has 13 contributing companies or organizations
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained13 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
0SASTno SAST tool detected
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
Packagistspiral/core^3.18composer.json
Packagistspiral/hmvc^3.18composer.json
All dependencies 7

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 2 direct and 5 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
Packagistspiral/core—direct
Packagistspiral/hmvc—direct
Packagistmockery/mockery—indirect
Packagistphp—indirect
Packagistphpunit/phpunit—indirect
Packagistspiral/console—indirect
Packagistvimeo/psalm—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.

Related records

Inspected repositories sharing catalogue tags or ecosystems with spiral/security. Read them side by side →

89spatie/laravel-permissionAssociate users with roles and permissionsExcellent100openfga/openfgaA high performance and flexible authorization/permission engine built for developers and inspired by Google ZanzibarExceptional98intuitem/ciso-assistant-communityCISO Assistant is a one-stop-shop GRC platform for Risk Management, AppSec, Compliance & Audit, TPRM, BIA, Privacy, and Reporting. It supports 200+ global frameworks with automatic control mapping, including ISO 27001, NIST CSF, SOC 2, CIS, PCI DSS, NIS2, DORA, GDPR, HIPAA, CMMC, and more.Exceptional98authzed/spicedbOpen Source, Google Zanzibar-inspired database for scalably storing and querying fine-grained authorization dataExceptional98gravitational/teleportThe easiest, and most secure way to access and protect all of your infrastructure.Exceptional96Permify/permifyAn open-source authorization as a service inspired by Google Zanzibar, designed to build and manage fine-grained and scalable authorization systems for any application. — Permify is now part of FusionAuth 🎉Exceptional

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.