Public record
Software health reportschema 0.12.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-17 17:26 UTC

Laravel-Backpack / LogManager

An interface to preview, download and delete Laravel log files, using Backpack.

PHP · BladeCustom license★ 275 stars⑂ 54 forkssince Mar 2016View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryhow this is determined

Laravel-Backpack/LogManager holds a health index of 60 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (74/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (18/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

60
overall / 100
Moderate

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.

60
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 57 is calibrated to 60 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Backpack for LaravelOrganization
408 followers33 public repossince Oct 2015

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
Packagistbackpack/logmanager5.1.19,40061191 days agolaravellogslog-managerlog-interfacebackpack

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

54Moderate · 21% of overall

Development activity

49Weak
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
2.1/36Commit cadence — 3/52 weeks with commits
10/18Commit volume — 12 commits in the last year
1/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 2 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 1
Inputs used
commits_last_year12
human_commit_share—
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year3

Release discipline

62Moderate
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 23 releases published
16.2/36Release recency — latest release 191 days ago
12.6/27Release cadence — a release every ~142.9 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count23
latest_release_tag5.1.1
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release191
mean_days_between_releases142.9
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?

66Good · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

60Moderate
How it's scored
39.5/60Stars — 275 stars
14.4/25Forks — 54 forks
6.2/15Watchers — 14 watchers
Inputs used
forks54
stars275
watchers14
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

79Good
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
16.9/22.5License — license file present, not a recognized license
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
7.2/7.2Issue template
6.3/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges—
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateyes
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services—
has_pull_request_templateyes

Ecosystem adoption (downloads)

58Moderate
How it's scored
53/80Monthly downloads — 9,400 downloads/month across packagist
4.7/20Registry dependents — 4 packages depend on it
Inputs used
packagesbackpack/logmanager
dependents4
ecosystemspackagist
total_downloads726,494
monthly_downloads9,400
unverified_packages_excluded—

Sustainability & Governance

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

74Good · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

39Weak
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
6.1/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 73% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 28 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 8 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled28
top_contributor_share0.727

Issue & PR responsiveness

88Excellent
How it's scored
42/42Issue resolution — 100% of issues closed
27.1/30PR acceptance — 46/51 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
7.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 6/11 approved changesets -- score normalized to 5
Inputs used
merged_prs46
open_issues0
closed_issues23
prs_merged_7d—
prs_decided_7d—
prs_merged_30d—
prs_decided_30d—
issue_closed_ratio1
closed_unmerged_prs5
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.

Ownership & stewardship

90Excellent
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain — verified-domain status not read for this organization
18.8/25Owner reach — 408 followers of Laravel-Backpack
23.2/25Track record — 33 public repos, account ~10 yr old
Inputs used
followers408
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified—
owner_loginLaravel-Backpack
public_repos33
account_age_days3,936
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

91Excellent
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on packagist
26/35Publish recency — latest publish 191 days ago
20/20Version history — 61 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesbackpack/logmanager
ecosystemspackagist
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish191

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

42Weak · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

34At Risk
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
4/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 3 out of 11 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 2
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsno
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

55Moderate
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — http://backpackforlaravel.com
10/10Repository description
0/10Topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics—
has_wikino
homepagehttp://backpackforlaravel.com
docs_sitehttp://backpackforlaravel.com
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

56Moderate · 16% of overall

Security posture

56Moderate
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — no data
0.5/2.5CI-Tests — 3 out of 11 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 2
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
3.8/7.5Code-Review — Found 6/11 approved changesets -- score normalized to 5
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 8 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.2/2.5License — license file detected
0.8/7.5Maintained — 2 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 1
0/5Packaging — no data
5/5Pinned-Dependencies — all dependencies are pinned
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 — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated15
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive3
scorecard_aggregate5.6
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.

18Critical · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

1Critical
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
0/40Legible commit history — no 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.

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

17Critical
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 data
5/8Automated maintenance — dependency automation configured, none observed in the sampled commits
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — all dependencies are pinned
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsno
lockfiles—
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.

Code legibility for models

55Moderate
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — PHP without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/23 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePHP
largest_source_bytes6,503
source_files_sampled23
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

275GitHub stars
28contributors
12commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
23releases
1bus factor
0open issues
Packagistpackage ecosystems

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.6 / 10
5.6aggregate

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 17:26 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
2CI-Tests3 out of 11 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 2
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
5Code-ReviewFound 6/11 approved changesets -- score normalized to 5
10Contributorsproject has 8 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
9Licenselicense file detected
1Maintained2 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 1
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
10Pinned-Dependenciesall dependencies are pinned
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 1
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Packagistbackpack/crud^6.0|^7.0composer.json
All dependencies 1

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 1 direct and 0 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
Packagistbackpack/crud—direct
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.

Related records

Inspected repositories sharing catalogue tags or ecosystems with Laravel-Backpack/LogManager. Read them side by side →

91Laravel-Backpack/CRUDBuild custom admin panels. Fast!Excellent84laravel/pailDive into your Laravel application's log files directly from the console. 🪣Excellent98api-platform/coreThe server component of API Platform: hypermedia and GraphQL APIs in minutesExceptional95laravel/horizonDashboard and code-driven configuration for Laravel queues.Exceptional95laravel/frameworkLaravel is a web application framework with expressive, elegant syntax.Exceptional95laravel/boostLaravel-focused MCP server for augmenting your AI powered local development experience.Exceptional

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 statistics — Packagist.