Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-12 01:10 UTC

yiisoft / dummy-provider

Dummy implementation provider used for testing packages requiring implementations

BSD-3-Clause★ 7 stars⑂ 2 forkssince Jul 2021View on GitHub ↗

yiisoft/dummy-provider holds a health index of 22 out of 100, placing it in the At Risk band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (63/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (18/100). It was last updated 7 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

22
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.

22
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 46 is calibrated to 44 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

Yii SoftwareOrganization · verified domain
689 followers214 public repossince Aug 2011

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
Packagistyiisoft/dummy-provider1.1.04,1573431 days agotestingproviderdummyprovides

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

49Weak · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 7 days ago
4.2/36Commit cadence — 6/52 weeks with commits
7.6/18Commit volume — 6 commits in the last year
4/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 5 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 4
Inputs used
commits_last_year6
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push7
active_weeks_last_year6
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 2 releases published
7.2/36Release recency — latest release 431 days ago
5.4/27Release cadence — a release every ~518 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count2
latest_release_tag1.1.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release431
mean_days_between_releases518
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?

54Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
12.6/60Stars — 7 stars
0/25Forks — 2 forks
5.6/15Watchers — 11 watchers
Inputs used
forks2
stars7
watchers11
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

92Excellent
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (BSD-3-Clause)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
6.3/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges8
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_servicesposer.pugx.org, shields.io
has_pull_request_templateyes
How it's scored
48.3/80Monthly downloads — 4,157 downloads/month across packagist
10.3/20Registry dependents — 34 packages depend on it
Inputs used
packagesyiisoft/dummy-provider
dependents34
ecosystemspackagist
total_downloads90,244
monthly_downloads4,157
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 factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
9.9/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 56% of commits
5.4/13.5Contributor breadth — 4 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 13 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled4
top_contributor_share0.56
How it's scored
0/42Issue resolution — no issues or no data
24/30PR acceptance — 16/20 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
3/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 5/25 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
Inputs used
merged_prs16
open_issues0
closed_issues0
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d1
prs_decided_30d1
issue_closed_ratio—
closed_unmerged_prs4
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 backing — organization-owned
20/20Verified domain
20.4/25Owner reach — 689 followers of yiisoft
25/25Track record — 214 public repos, account ~15 yr old
Inputs used
followers689
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedyes
owner_loginyiisoft
public_repos214
account_age_days5,501
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on packagist
14/35Publish recency — latest publish 431 days ago
12/20Version history — 3 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesyiisoft/dummy-provider
ecosystemspackagist
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish431

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

45Weak · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 1 workflow(s)
0/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
2/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 3 out of 16 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 1
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsno
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://www.yiiframework.com/
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 3 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsprovides, yii3, hacktoberfest
has_wikino
homepagehttps://www.yiiframework.com/
docs_sitehttps://www.yiiframework.com/
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

18Critical · 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
0.2/2.5CI-Tests — 3 out of 16 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 1
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
1.5/7.5Code-Review — Found 5/25 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 13 contributing companies or organizations
0/10Dangerous-Workflow — no data
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
3/7.5Maintained — 5 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 4
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_aggregate3.5
high_risk_jurisdiction_cap34
high_risk_jurisdiction_multiplier50
security_posture_after_multiplier18
security_posture_before_jurisdiction35
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.

18Critical · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
34.1/40Legible commit history — 16 of 25 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.64
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
0/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
0/11Static type checking
0/10Reproducible environment
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 25
5/8Automated maintenance — dependency automation configured, none observed in the sampled commits
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — no data
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsno
lockfiles—
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
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.

Key facts

7GitHub stars
4contributors
6commits, last 12 months
7days since last push
2releases
1bus factor
0open issues
Packagistpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

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

More detail

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

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.

111222212022-062023-022023-11

Each point covers 2 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 3.5 / 10
3.5aggregate

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 · 2026-09-12 01:10 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
1CI-Tests3 out of 16 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 1
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
2Code-ReviewFound 5/25 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
10Contributorsproject has 13 contributing companies or organizations
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
4Maintained5 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 4
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
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 v0.34.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

How one result sits in the wider record: aggregate statistics — Packagist.