Public record
Software health reportschema 0.12.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-17 19:39 UTC

u01jmg3 / ics-parser

Parser for iCalendar Events • PHP 8+, 7 (≥ 7.4), 5 (≥ 5.6)

PHPMIT★ 481 stars⑂ 146 forkssince Jul 2013View on GitHub ↗

u01jmg3/ics-parser holds a health index of 75 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Community & Adoption (72/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (39/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

75
overall / 100
Good

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.

75
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 65 is calibrated to 75 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Jonathan GoodePersonal account
56 followers24 public repossince Dec 2011@uofa

This repository is owned by a personal account. A single-owner project carries more continuity risk than an organization-backed one.

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
Packagistjohngrogg/ics-parserv3.5.1116,07047175 days agoicalendaricsicalics-parserical-parserifb

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

67Good · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 0 days ago
6.9/36Commit cadence10/52 weeks with commits
14/18Commit volume35 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_year35
human_commit_share
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year10
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases47 releases published
27/36Release recencylatest release 175 days ago
12.6/27Release cadencea release every ~161.4 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count47
latest_release_tagv3.5.1
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release175
mean_days_between_releases161.4
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?

72Good · 17% of overall
How it's scored
43.5/60Stars481 stars
18/25Forks146 forks
8/15Watchers29 watchers
Inputs used
forks146
stars481
watchers29
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (MIT)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
67.5/80Monthly downloads116,070 downloads/month across packagist
9.4/20Registry dependents25 packages depend on it
Inputs used
packagesjohngrogg/ics-parser
dependents25
ecosystemspackagist
total_downloads4,112,065
monthly_downloads116,070
unverified_packages_excluded

Sustainability & Governance

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

63Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
5.2/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 77% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth46 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 5 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled46
top_contributor_share0.769
How it's scored
40.7/42Issue resolution97% of issues closed
21.7/30PR acceptance94/130 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 1/22 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs94
open_issues7
closed_issues220
prs_merged_7d
prs_decided_7d
prs_merged_30d
prs_decided_30d
issue_closed_ratio0.969
closed_unmerged_prs36
first_time_authors_30d
first_time_prs_merged_30d
first_time_prs_decided_30d
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backingpersonal (user) account
0/20Verified domainnot applicable to user accounts
12.6/25Owner reach56 followers of u01jmg3
22.2/25Track record24 public repos, account ~14 yr old
Inputs used
followers56
owner_typeUser
is_verified
owner_loginu01jmg3
public_repos24
account_age_days5,328
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable1 package(s) on packagist
35/35Publish recencylatest publish 175 days ago
20/20Version history47 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesjohngrogg/ics-parser
ecosystemspackagist
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish175

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

68Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows2 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests4 out of 4 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

60Moderate
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics7 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsphp, icalendar, ics, ics-parser, ical, ical-parser, ifb
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?

60Moderate · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protectionno data
2.5/2.5CI-Tests4 out of 4 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
0/7.5Code-ReviewFound 1/22 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
2.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 5 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5Licenselicense 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-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
7.5/7.5Token-PermissionsGitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated15
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive3
scorecard_aggregate6
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.

39Weak · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
0/40Legible commit historyno data
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Legible commit history. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environmentlockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno data
5/8Automated maintenancedependency automation configured, none observed in the sampled commits
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilescomposer.lock
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Demonstrated agent practice. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable codePHP without a type-check config
50/55Manageable file sizes1/11 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePHP
largest_source_bytes108,477
source_files_sampled11
oversized_source_files1
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto)not applicable to this kind of software
0/20MCP servernot applicable to this kind of software
40/40Runnable examplesexamples
Inputs used
example_dirsexamples
has_mcp_signalno
api_schema_files
interfaces_expected_of
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto), MCP server. Remaining weights renormalized.

Key facts

481GitHub stars
46contributors
35commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
47releases
1bus factor
7open issues
Packagistpackage ecosystems

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 6.0 / 10
6.0aggregate

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 · 2026-07-17 19:39 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
10CI-Tests4 out of 4 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 1/22 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
10Contributorsproject has 5 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
5Maintained6 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 5
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
10Token-PermissionsGitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
All dependencies 28

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 28 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
Packagistdoctrine/instantiator1.5.0indirect
Packagistmyclabs/deep-copy1.13.4indirect
Packagistnikic/php-parser5.7.0indirect
Packagistphar-io/manifest2.0.4indirect
Packagistphar-io/version3.2.1indirect
Packagistphpunit/php-code-coverage9.2.32indirect
Packagistphpunit/php-file-iterator3.0.6indirect
Packagistphpunit/php-invoker3.1.1indirect
Packagistphpunit/php-text-template2.0.4indirect
Packagistphpunit/php-timer5.0.3indirect
Packagistphpunit/phpunit9.6.34indirect
Packagistsebastian/cli-parser1.0.2indirect
Packagistsebastian/code-unit1.0.8indirect
Packagistsebastian/code-unit-reverse-lookup2.0.3indirect
Packagistsebastian/comparator4.0.10indirect
Packagistsebastian/complexity2.0.3indirect
Packagistsebastian/diff4.0.6indirect
Packagistsebastian/environment5.1.5indirect
Packagistsebastian/exporter4.0.8indirect
Packagistsebastian/global-state5.0.8indirect
Packagistsebastian/lines-of-code1.0.4indirect
Packagistsebastian/object-enumerator4.0.4indirect
Packagistsebastian/object-reflector2.0.4indirect
Packagistsebastian/recursion-context4.0.6indirect
Packagistsebastian/resource-operations3.0.4indirect
Packagistsebastian/type3.2.1indirect
Packagistsebastian/version3.0.2indirect
Packagisttheseer/tokenizer1.3.1indirect
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 v0.12.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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