Public record
Software health reportschema 0.30.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-04 12:11 UTC

symplify / coding-standard

[Deprecated] Use ECS that includes this set with more new rules

PHPMIT★ 381 stars⑂ 25 forkssince Dec 2015archivedView on GitHub ↗

symplify/coding-standard holds a health index of 19 out of 100, placing it in the Critical band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (73/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (34/100). The repository is archived, so no further maintenance is expected.

19
overall / 100
Critical

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.

19
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 60 is calibrated to 65 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

symplifyOrganization
72 followers9 public repossince Dec 2015

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
Packagistsymplify/coding-standard⚠ symplify/easy-coding-standard13.1.181,25072855 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

60Moderate · 21% of overall
How it's scored
28.8/36Push recencylast push 22 days ago
4.2/36Commit cadence6/52 weeks with commits
10.8/18Commit volume15 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintainedproject is archived
Inputs used
commits_last_year15
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push22
active_weeks_last_year6
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases3 releases published
36/36Release recencylatest release 54 days ago
12.6/27Release cadencea release every ~196.5 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count3
latest_release_tag13.1.1
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release54
mean_days_between_releases196.5
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?

61Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
41.8/60Stars381 stars
11.5/25Forks25 forks
5.3/15Watchers10 watchers
Inputs used
forks25
stars381
watchers10
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (MIT)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges1
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesshields.io
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
65.5/80Monthly downloads81,250 downloads/month across packagist
12.5/20Registry dependents73 packages depend on it
Inputs used
packagessymplify/coding-standard
dependents73
ecosystemspackagist
total_downloads8,232,461
monthly_downloads81,250
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
4.5/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 80% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth13 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 15 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled13
top_contributor_share0.802
How it's scored
42/42Issue resolution100% of issues closed
26.2/30PR acceptance56/64 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
4.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 9/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
merged_prs56
open_issues0
closed_issues25
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d1
issue_closed_ratio1
closed_unmerged_prs8
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 backingorganization-owned
0/20Verified domainverified-domain status not read for this organization
13.4/25Owner reach72 followers of symplify
19.3/25Track record9 public repos, account ~10 yr old
Inputs used
followers72
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified
owner_loginsymplify
public_repos9
account_age_days3,872
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable1 package(s) on packagist
35/35Publish recencylatest publish 55 days ago
20/20Version history728 published versions
0/20Not deprecatedsymplify/coding-standard: symplify/easy-coding-standard
Inputs used
packagessymplify/coding-standard
ecosystemspackagist
any_deprecatedyes
min_days_since_publish55

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

73Good · 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
8/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests9 out of 22 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 4
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage sitehttps://github.com/ecsphp/ecs
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics4 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicscoding-standard, php, coding-style, ecs
has_wikino
homepagehttps://github.com/ecsphp/ecs
docs_sitehttps://github.com/ecsphp/ecs
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-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protectionno data
1/2.5CI-Tests9 out of 22 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 4
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
2.2/7.5Code-ReviewFound 9/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 3
2.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 15 contributing companies or organizations
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
0/7.5Maintainedproject is archived
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_evaluated15
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive3
scorecard_aggregate3.9
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, 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.

34At Risk · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
21.9/40Legible commit history41 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.41
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
2/10Demonstrated agent practice1 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
0/8Automated maintenanceno automated dependency updates observed
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_configyes
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share0.01
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable codePHP without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes0/135 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePHP
largest_source_bytes7,610
source_files_sampled135
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

381GitHub stars
13contributors
15commits, last 12 months
22days since last push
3releases
1bus factor
0open issues
Packagistpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 25 ⇿
0Stars
25Forks
2Releases

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.

048121620242422018-072022-022025-09
Major 0Minor 0Patch 2

Each point covers 7 days.

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 · 2026-08-04 12:11 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
n/aBranch-Protectioninternal error: error during branchesHandler.setup: internal error: some github tokens can't read classic branch protection rules: https://github.com/ossf/scorecard-action/blob/main/docs/authentication/fine-grained-auth-token.md
4CI-Tests9 out of 22 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 4
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
3Code-ReviewFound 9/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 3
10Contributorsproject has 15 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
0Maintainedproject is archived
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
Packagistfriendsofphp/php-cs-fixer^3.95.4composer.json
All dependencies 0

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 0 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
Dependency advisories not assessed

Advisory matching could not run for this report: No resolved dependencies to assess

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 v0.30.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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