Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-18 02:08 UTC

thephpleague / openapi-psr7-validator

It validates PSR-7 messages (HTTP request/response) against OpenAPI specifications

PHPMIT★ 562 stars⑂ 109 forkssince Sep 2019View on GitHub ↗

thephpleague/openapi-psr7-validator holds a health index of 28 out of 100, placing it in the At Risk band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (72/100) and lowest on Security (24/100). It was last updated 111 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

28
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.

28
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 54 is calibrated to 56 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02). High-Risk Jurisdiction Policy applies a 50% multiplier to weighted overall health and gives it an At Risk ceiling of 34.

Ownership

The League of Extraordinary PackagesOrganization · verified domain
946 followers159 public repossince Dec 2010

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
Packagistleague/openapi-psr7-validator0.24586,73738132 days agohttpvalidationopenapipsr7

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

43Weak · 21% of overall
How it's scored
9.9/36Push recency — last push 111 days ago
3.5/36Commit cadence — 5/52 weeks with commits
10/18Commit volume — 12 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
commits_last_year12
human_commit_share0.99
days_since_last_push111
active_weeks_last_year5
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 37 releases published
27/36Release recency — latest release 132 days ago
12.6/27Release cadence — a release every ~187 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count37
latest_release_tag0.24
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release132
mean_days_between_releases187
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?

68Good · 17% of overall
How it's scored
44.6/60Stars — 562 stars
16.9/25Forks — 109 forks
7.1/15Watchers — 20 watchers
Inputs used
forks109
stars562
watchers20
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
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
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges3
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesposer.pugx.org, shields.io
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
76.9/80Monthly downloads — 586,737 downloads/month across packagist
12.8/20Registry dependents — 81 packages depend on it
Inputs used
packagesleague/openapi-psr7-validator
dependents81
ecosystemspackagist
total_downloads18,780,607
monthly_downloads586,737
unverified_packages_excluded—

Sustainability & Governance

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

72Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
10.7/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 52% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 49 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 9 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled49
top_contributor_share0.523
How it's scored
24.4/42Issue resolution — 58% of issues closed
20.3/30PR acceptance — 82/121 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
9/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 6/9 approved changesets -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
merged_prs82
open_issues55
closed_issues76
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio0.58
closed_unmerged_prs39
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
20/20Verified domain
21.4/25Owner reach — 946 followers of thephpleague
25/25Track record — 159 public repos, account ~15 yr old
Inputs used
followers946
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedyes
owner_loginthephpleague
public_repos159
account_age_days5,753

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on packagist
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 132 days ago
20/20Version history — 38 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesleague/openapi-psr7-validator
ecosystemspackagist
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish132

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

63Moderate · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 1 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — phpcs.xml, phpstan.neon
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
8/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 4 out of 9 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 4
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

50Moderate
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
0/10Topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics—
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?

24At Risk · 16% of overall
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
1/2.5CI-Tests — 4 out of 9 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 4
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
4.5/7.5Code-Review — Found 6/9 approved changesets -- score normalized to 6
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 9 contributing companies or organizations
0/10Dangerous-Workflow — no data
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
0/7.5Maintained — 0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
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_aggregate4.7
high_risk_jurisdiction_cap34
high_risk_jurisdiction_multiplier50
security_posture_after_multiplier24
security_posture_before_jurisdiction47
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Dangerous-Workflow, Packaging, Pinned-Dependencies, Signed-Releases, Token-Permissions. Remaining weights renormalized. High-Risk Jurisdiction Policy applies a 50% 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.

36Weak · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
14/40Legible commit history — 26 of 99 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.263
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — phpcs.xml, phpstan.neon
0/11Static type checking
0/10Reproducible environment
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
8/8Automated maintenance — 1 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — no 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_share0.01
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 — 0/186 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePHP
largest_source_bytes16,522
source_files_sampled186
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

562GitHub stars
49contributors
12commits, last 12 months
111days since last push
37releases
1bus factor
55open 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

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 109 ⇿
0Stars
109Forks
34Releases

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.

02040608010012010642019-092023-012026-05
Major 0Minor 0Patch 14

Each point covers 7 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.7 / 10
4.7aggregate

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 · 2026-09-18 02:07 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
4CI-Tests4 out of 9 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 4
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
6Code-ReviewFound 6/9 approved changesets -- score normalized to 6
10Contributorsproject has 9 contributing companies or organizations
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
0Maintained0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
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 9
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Packagistdevizzent/cebe-php-openapi^1.0composer.json
Packagistleague/uri^6.3 || ^7.0composer.json
Packagistpsr/cache^1.0 || ^2.0 || ^3.0composer.json
Packagistpsr/http-message^1.0 || ^2.0composer.json
Packagistpsr/http-server-middleware^1.0composer.json
Packagistrespect/validation^1.1.3 || ^2.0composer.json
Packagistriverline/multipart-parser^2.0.3composer.json
Packagistsymfony/polyfill-php80^1.27composer.json
Packagistwebmozart/assert^1.4 || ^2.0composer.json
All dependencies 20

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 9 direct and 11 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
Packagistdevizzent/cebe-php-openapi—direct
Packagistleague/uri—direct
Packagistpsr/cache—direct
Packagistpsr/http-message—direct
Packagistpsr/http-server-middleware—direct
Packagistrespect/validation—direct
Packagistriverline/multipart-parser—direct
Packagistsymfony/polyfill-php80—direct
Packagistwebmozart/assert—direct
Packagistdoctrine/coding-standard—indirect
Packagistext-json—indirect
Packagistguzzlehttp/psr7—indirect
Packagisthansott/psr7-cookies—indirect
Packagistphp—indirect
Packagistphpstan/extension-installer—indirect
Packagistphpstan/phpstan—indirect
Packagistphpstan/phpstan-phpunit—indirect
Packagistphpstan/phpstan-webmozart-assert—indirect
Packagistphpunit/phpunit—indirect
Packagistsymfony/cache—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.