Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-27 16:37 UTC

twigphp / Twig

Twig, the flexible, fast, and secure template language for PHP

PHPBSD-3-Clause★ 8,375 stars⑂ 1,287 forkssince Oct 2009View on GitHub ↗

twigphp/Twig holds a health index of 92 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Vitality (97/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (42/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

92
overall / 100
Excellent

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.

92
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 78 is calibrated to 92 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

TwigOrganization · verified domain
89 followers16 public repossince Aug 2013

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
Packagisttwig/twigv4.0.0-alpha18,768,972247102 days agotemplating

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

97Exceptional · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 0 days ago
31.2/36Commit cadence45/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume396 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained30 commit(s) and 5 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year396
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year45

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases7 releases published
36/36Release recencylatest release 54 days ago
27/27Release cadencea release every ~18 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count7
latest_release_tagv3.28.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release54
mean_days_between_releases18
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?

82Excellent · 17% of overall
How it's scored
60/60Stars8,375 stars
25/25Forks1,287 forks
12.9/15Watchers208 watchers
Inputs used
forks1,287
stars8,375
watchers208
growth_stateorganic
growth_factor_pct100
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (BSD-3-Clause)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges0
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
80/80Monthly downloads8,768,972 downloads/month across packagist
20/20Registry dependents7,126 packages depend on it
Inputs used
packagestwig/twig
dependents7,126
ecosystemspackagist
total_downloads481,857,541
monthly_downloads8,768,972
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 factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
3.3/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 86% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth100 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 80 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled100
top_contributor_share0.855
How it's scored
41.4/42Issue resolution99% of issues closed
20.7/30PR acceptance1,800/2,614 decided PRs merged
8.7/13Newcomer PR acceptance2/3 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
7.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 6/12 approved changesets -- score normalized to 5
Inputs used
merged_prs1,800
open_issues31
closed_issues2,191
prs_merged_7d14
prs_decided_7d15
prs_merged_30d24
prs_decided_30d26
issue_closed_ratio0.986
closed_unmerged_prs814
first_time_authors_30d3
first_time_prs_merged_30d2
first_time_prs_decided_30d3
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backingorganization-owned
20/20Verified domain
14.1/25Owner reach89 followers of twigphp
21/25Track record16 public repos, account ~13 yr old
Inputs used
followers89
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedyes
owner_logintwigphp
public_repos16
account_age_days4,752

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable1 package(s) on packagist
35/35Publish recencylatest publish 102 days ago
20/20Version history247 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagestwig/twig
ecosystemspackagist
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish102

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

90Excellent · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows3 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config.php-cs-fixer.dist.php
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests12 out of 12 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

90Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage sitehttps://twig.symfony.com/
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics5 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicstwig, php, template-engine, template-language, templating
has_wikino
homepagehttps://twig.symfony.com/
docs_sitehttps://twig.symfony.com/
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
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
0/7.5Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
2.5/2.5CI-Tests12 out of 12 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 6/12 approved changesets -- score normalized to 5
2.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 80 contributing companies or organizations
0/10Dangerous-Workflowno data
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5Licenselicense file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained30 commit(s) and 5 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packagingno data
0/5Pinned-Dependenciesno data
0/5SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
5/5Security-Policysecurity policy file 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.

42Weak · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
22.4/40Legible commit history42 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.42
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config.php-cs-fixer.dist.php
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environmentlockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno agent-authored commits among the last 100
5/8Automated maintenancedependency automation configured, none observed in the sampled commits
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesno data
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilescomposer.lock
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
54.8/55Manageable file sizes2/459 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePHP
largest_source_bytes118,292
source_files_sampled459
oversized_source_files2

Key facts

8,375GitHub stars
100contributors
396commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
7releases
1bus factor
31open issues
Packagistpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • Star history carried forward from 2026-07-21: GitHub restricted the stargazers API to repository admins, so it can no longer be collected. The repository has 8375 stars today.
  • No resolved dependencies carried a version and a supported ecosystem

More detail

Star and fork history 8,368 ★ / 1,287 ⇿
8,368Stars
1,287Forks
7Releases

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.

Only the most recent history is shown — this repository exceeds the collection window, so the earliest history is not captured.

Star history is shown as collected on 2026-07-21. GitHub restricted the stargazers API to repository administrators in July 2026, so this series can no longer be extended; the current star total above remains live.

02,0004,0006,0008,00010,0008,3681,287252013-052020-012026-08
Major 0Minor 5Patch 1

Each point covers 13 days.

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 · 2026-08-27 16:36 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
10CI-Tests12 out of 12 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 6/12 approved changesets -- score normalized to 5
10Contributorsproject has 80 contributing companies or organizations
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 5 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
n/aPinned-Dependenciesno dependencies found
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
10Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
n/aToken-PermissionsNo tokens found
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 3
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Packagistsymfony/deprecation-contracts^2.5|^3composer.json
Packagistsymfony/polyfill-mbstring^1.3composer.json
Packagistsymfony/polyfill-ctype^1.8composer.json
All dependencies 30

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 3 direct and 27 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
Packagistsymfony/deprecation-contractsdirect
Packagistsymfony/polyfill-ctypedirect
Packagistsymfony/polyfill-mbstringdirect
Packagisterusev/parsedownindirect
Packagistleague/commonmarkindirect
Packagistleague/html-to-markdownindirect
Packagistlorenzo/pinkyindirect
Packagistmichelf/php-markdownindirect
Packagistphpindirect
Packagistphp-cs-fixer/shimindirect
Packagistphpstan/phpstanindirect
Packagistpsr/containerindirect
Packagistsymfony/cacheindirect
Packagistsymfony/framework-bundleindirect
Packagistsymfony/intlindirect
Packagistsymfony/mimeindirect
Packagistsymfony/phpunit-bridgeindirect
Packagistsymfony/stringindirect
Packagistsymfony/translation-contractsindirect
Packagistsymfony/twig-bundleindirect
Packagisttempest/markdownindirect
Packagisttijsverkoyen/css-to-inline-stylesindirect
Packagisttwig/cache-extraindirect
Packagisttwig/cssinliner-extraindirect
Packagisttwig/html-extraindirect
Packagisttwig/inky-extraindirect
Packagisttwig/intl-extraindirect
Packagisttwig/markdown-extraindirect
Packagisttwig/string-extraindirect
Packagisttwig/twigindirect
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.