Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-14 08:33 UTC

yiisoft / yii2-apidoc

API documentation generator

HTML · PHPBSD-3-Clause★ 260 stars⑂ 119 forkssince Jan 2014View on GitHub ↗
KindCommand-line toolLibraryhow this is determined

yiisoft/yii2-apidoc holds a health index of 34 out of 100, placing it in the At Risk band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (84/100) and lowest on Security (34/100). It was last updated 8 days ago. 2 contributors account for most of its recent work.

34
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.

34
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). High-Risk Jurisdiction Policy applies a 75% 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/yii2-apidoc4.0.14,1392714 days agodocumentationphpdocapiyii2apidoc

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

56Moderate · 21% of overall
How it's scored
28.8/36Push recency — last push 8 days ago
15.9/36Commit cadence — 23/52 weeks with commits
17.4/18Commit volume — 85 commits in the last year
8/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 10 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 8
Inputs used
commits_last_year85
human_commit_share0.98
days_since_last_push8
active_weeks_last_year23
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 3 releases published
0/36Release recency — latest release 2,247 days ago
5.4/27Release cadence — a release every ~667.7 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count3
latest_release_tag2.1.5
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release2,247
mean_days_between_releases667.7
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?

75Good · 17% of overall
How it's scored
39.1/60Stars — 260 stars
17.3/25Forks — 119 forks
7.9/15Watchers — 27 watchers
Inputs used
forks119
stars260
watchers27
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

100Exceptional
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
7.2/7.2Issue template
6.3/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges5
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateyes
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_servicescodecov.io, github.com, poser.pugx.org
has_pull_request_templateyes
How it's scored
48.2/80Monthly downloads — 4,139 downloads/month across packagist
11.1/20Registry dependents — 45 packages depend on it
Inputs used
packagesyiisoft/yii2-apidoc
dependents45
ecosystemspackagist
total_downloads723,432
monthly_downloads4,139
unverified_packages_excluded—

Sustainability & Governance

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

84Excellent · 23% of overall
How it's scored
25.2/54Bus factor — 2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
13.6/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 40% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 35 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 56 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor2
contributors_sampled35
top_contributor_share0.397
How it's scored
41/42Issue resolution — 98% of issues closed
26.7/30PR acceptance — 153/172 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
7.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 16/28 approved changesets -- score normalized to 5
Inputs used
merged_prs153
open_issues5
closed_issues217
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d4
prs_decided_30d4
issue_closed_ratio0.977
closed_unmerged_prs19
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
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_days5,503

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on packagist
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 14 days ago
20/20Version history — 27 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesyiisoft/yii2-apidoc
ecosystemspackagist
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish14

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

70Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 5 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 25 out of 25 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
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://www.yiiframework.com
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 7 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsyii, yii2, phpdoc, api-documentation, documentation, generator, 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?

34At Risk · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — no data
2.5/2.5CI-Tests — 25 out of 25 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
3.8/7.5Code-Review — Found 16/28 approved changesets -- score normalized to 5
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 56 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
6/7.5Maintained — 10 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 8
0/5Packaging — no data
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — no data
4/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 8
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_evaluated12
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive6
scorecard_aggregate7
high_risk_jurisdiction_cap34
high_risk_jurisdiction_multiplier75
security_posture_after_multiplier52
security_posture_before_jurisdiction70
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, Dangerous-Workflow, Packaging, Pinned-Dependencies, Signed-Releases, Token-Permissions. Remaining weights renormalized. High-Risk Jurisdiction Policy applies a 75% 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.

50Moderate · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history — 83 of 98 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.847
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrap — templates/pdf/Makefile
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
0/11Static type checking
0/10Reproducible environment
2/10Demonstrated agent practice — 1 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
8/8Automated maintenance — 2 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_filestemplates/pdf/Makefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0.01
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0.02
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — HTML without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/112 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageHTML
largest_source_bytes32,840
source_files_sampled112
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

260GitHub stars
35contributors
85commits, last 12 months
8days since last push
3releases
2bus factor
5open 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 ★ / 119 ⇿
0Stars
119Forks
3Releases

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.

02040608010012011032014-042020-052026-05
Major 0Minor 0Patch 3

Each point covers 12 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 7.0 / 10
7.0aggregate

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 · 2026-09-14 08:32 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-Tests25 out of 25 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 16/28 approved changesets -- score normalized to 5
10Contributorsproject has 56 contributing companies or organizations
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
8Maintained10 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 8
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
n/aPinned-Dependenciesno dependencies found
8SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 8
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
n/aToken-PermissionsNo tokens found
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 6
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Packagistyiisoft/yii2~2.0.16composer.json
Packagistnikic/php-parser^5.0composer.json
Packagistcebe/js-search~0.9.0composer.json
Packagistcebe/markdown^1.0composer.json
Packagistcebe/markdown-latex^1.0composer.json
Packagistscrivo/highlight.php^9.0composer.json
All dependencies 18

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 6 direct and 12 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
Packagistcebe/js-search—direct
Packagistcebe/markdown—direct
Packagistcebe/markdown-latex—direct
Packagistnikic/php-parser—direct
Packagistscrivo/highlight.php—direct
Packagistyiisoft/yii2—direct
Packagistext-dom—indirect
Packagistext-mbstring—indirect
Packagistmspirkov/yii2-rector—indirect
Packagistphp—indirect
Packagistphpdocumentor/reflection—indirect
Packagistphpdocumentor/type-resolver—indirect
Packagistphpstan/phpstan—indirect
Packagistphpunit/phpunit—indirect
Packagistrector/rector—indirect
Packagistspatie/phpunit-snapshot-assertions—indirect
Packagistyiisoft/yii2-bootstrap—indirect
Packagistyiisoft/yii2-coding-standards—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.