Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-14 04:47 UTC

spryker / session

[READ ONLY] Subtree split of the Session module.

PHPCustom license★ 0 stars⑂ 3 forkssince Jan 2016View on GitHub ↗

spryker/session holds a health index of 62 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (75/100) and lowest on Security (40/100). It was last updated 12 days ago. 2 contributors account for most of its recent work.

62
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.

62
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 58 is calibrated to 62 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

SprykerOrganization
114 followers1,334 public repossince Dec 2014

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
Packagistspryker/session4.20.033,3745726 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

68Good · 21% of overall
How it's scored
28.8/36Push recencylast push 12 days ago
6.9/36Commit cadence10/52 weeks with commits
11.1/18Commit volume16 commits in the last year
5/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained6 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 5
Inputs used
commits_last_year16
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push12
active_weeks_last_year10
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases57 releases published
36/36Release recencylatest release 26 days ago
19.8/27Release cadencea release every ~113.3 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count57
latest_release_tag4.20.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release26
mean_days_between_releases113.3
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?

48Weak · 17% of overall
How it's scored
0/60Stars0 stars
2.5/25Forks3 forks
9.5/15Watchers53 watchers
Inputs used
forks3
stars0
watchers53
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
16.9/22.5Licenselicense file present, not a recognized license
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
6.3/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges2
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesposer.pugx.org, shields.io
has_pull_request_templateyes
How it's scored
60.3/80Monthly downloads33,374 downloads/month across packagist
11.8/20Registry dependents57 packages depend on it
Inputs used
packagesspryker/session
dependents57
ecosystemspackagist
total_downloads2,994,715
monthly_downloads33,374
unverified_packages_excluded

Sustainability & Governance

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

57Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
25.2/54Bus factor2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
15.8/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 30% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth33 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 9 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor2
contributors_sampled33
top_contributor_share0.299
How it's scored
0/42Issue resolutionno issues or no data
0/30PR acceptance0/3 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs0
open_issues0
closed_issues0
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio
closed_unmerged_prs3
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
14.8/25Owner reach114 followers of spryker
25/25Track record1,334 public repos, account ~11 yr old
Inputs used
followers114
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_loginspryker
public_repos1,334
account_age_days4,294

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable1 package(s) on packagist
35/35Publish recencylatest publish 26 days ago
20/20Version history57 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesspryker/session
ecosystemspackagist
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish26

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

75Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows1 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter configphpstan.neon
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Testsno data
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests. Remaining weights renormalized.

Documentation

55Moderate
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage sitehttps://spryker.com
10/10Repository description
0/10Topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics
has_wikino
homepagehttps://spryker.com
docs_sitehttps://spryker.com
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

40Weak · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
3.8/7.5Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
0/2.5CI-Testsno data
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-ReviewFound 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
2.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 9 contributing companies or organizations
0/10Dangerous-Workflowno data
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.2/2.5Licenselicense file detected
3.8/7.5Maintained6 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 5
0/5Packagingno data
0/5Pinned-Dependenciesno data
0/5SASTno SAST tool detected
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_evaluated12
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive6
scorecard_aggregate4
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): CI-Tests, 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.

43Weak · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
15/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)llms.txt served by the project website (https://docs.spryker.com/llms.txt)
29.9/40Legible commit history56 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtyes
llms_txt_urlhttps://docs.spryker.com/llms.txt
legible_history_share0.56
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format configphpstan.neon
0/11Static type checking
0/10Reproducible environment
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno agent-authored commits among the last 100
0/8Automated maintenanceno automated dependency updates observed
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesno data
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
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.
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable codePHP without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes0/102 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePHP
largest_source_bytes11,310
source_files_sampled102
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

0GitHub stars
33contributors
16commits, last 12 months
12days since last push
57releases
2bus factor
0open issues
Packagistpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • No resolved dependencies carried a version and a supported ecosystem

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 3 ⇿
0Stars
3Forks
5Releases

When each star and fork was added, collected from GitHub and bucketed by day. Cumulative growth sits directly above the daily additions it is made of, so the two read against each other: steady organic accretion looks nothing like an abrupt, short-lived burst. Where that difference is measurable, it is reported as growth authenticity.

12233312016-052016-082016-10
Major 0Minor 2Patch 3
OpenSSF Scorecard 4.0 / 10
4.0aggregate

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 04:46 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
5Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all 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 9 contributing companies or organizations
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
9Licenselicense file detected
5Maintained6 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 5
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 11
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Packagistspryker/application-extension^1.0.0composer.json
Packagistspryker/config^3.0.0composer.json
Packagistspryker/event-dispatcher-extension^1.0.0composer.json
Packagistspryker/health-check-extension^1.0.0composer.json
Packagistspryker/kernel^3.52.0composer.json
Packagistspryker/message-broker-extension^1.0.0composer.json
Packagistspryker/monitoring^1.0.0 || ^2.0.0composer.json
Packagistspryker/ramsey-uuid^1.0.0 || ^2.0.0composer.json
Packagistspryker/redis^2.0.0composer.json
Packagistspryker/session-extension^1.0.0composer.json
Packagistspryker/symfony^3.5.0composer.json
All dependencies 19

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 11 direct and 8 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
Packagistspryker/application-extensiondirect
Packagistspryker/configdirect
Packagistspryker/event-dispatcher-extensiondirect
Packagistspryker/health-check-extensiondirect
Packagistspryker/kerneldirect
Packagistspryker/message-broker-extensiondirect
Packagistspryker/monitoringdirect
Packagistspryker/ramsey-uuiddirect
Packagistspryker/redisdirect
Packagistspryker/session-extensiondirect
Packagistspryker/symfonydirect
Packagistphpindirect
Packagistspryker/applicationindirect
Packagistspryker/code-snifferindirect
Packagistspryker/containerindirect
Packagistspryker/event-dispatcherindirect
Packagistspryker/propelindirect
Packagistspryker/silexindirect
Packagistspryker/testifyindirect
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.