Public record
Software health reportschema 0.16.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-20 17:03 UTC

Laravel-Lang / common

Easily connect the necessary language packs to the application

PHPMIT★ 160 stars⑂ 9 forkssince Feb 2023View on GitHub ↗

Laravel-Lang/common holds a health index of 34 out of 100, placing it in the At Risk band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (71/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (38/100). It was last updated 30 days ago. A single contributor accounts 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 63 is calibrated to 71 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

Laravel LangOrganization
166 followers24 public repossince Jul 2020

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

Package ecosystems

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

66Good · 21% of overall
How it's scored
28.8/36Push recencylast push 30 days ago
7.6/36Commit cadence11/52 weeks with commits
14.4/18Commit volume39 commits in the last year
5/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained2 commit(s) and 4 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 5
Inputs used
commits_last_year39
human_commit_share
days_since_last_push30
active_weeks_last_year11
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases29 releases published
27/36Release recencylatest release 124 days ago
19.8/27Release cadencea release every ~80.6 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count29
latest_release_tag6.8.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release124
mean_days_between_releases80.6
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?

68Good · 17% of overall
How it's scored
35.7/60Stars160 stars
7.5/25Forks9 forks
1.7/15Watchers3 watchers
Inputs used
forks9
stars160
watchers3
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

85Excellent
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (MIT)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5Code 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_conductyes
readme_badge_services
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
72.2/80Monthly downloads258,169 downloads/month across packagist
10.1/20Registry dependents32 packages depend on it
Inputs used
packageslaravel-lang/common
dependents32
ecosystemspackagist
total_downloads3,974,539
monthly_downloads258,169
unverified_packages_excluded

Sustainability & Governance

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

71Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
1.6/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 93% of commits
9.5/13.5Contributor breadth7 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 10 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled7
top_contributor_share0.929
How it's scored
42/42Issue resolution100% of issues closed
29.5/30PR acceptance111/113 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 0/11 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs111
open_issues0
closed_issues56
prs_merged_7d
prs_decided_7d
prs_merged_30d
prs_decided_30d
issue_closed_ratio1
closed_unmerged_prs2
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
30/30Ownership backingorganization-owned
0/20Verified domainverified-domain status not read for this organization
16/25Owner reach166 followers of Laravel-Lang
22.1/25Track record24 public repos, account ~5 yr old
Inputs used
followers166
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified
owner_loginLaravel-Lang
public_repos24
account_age_days2,184
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 124 days ago
20/20Version history29 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packageslaravel-lang/common
ecosystemspackagist
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish124

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

70Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows7 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter configbiome.json
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
10/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests7 out of 14 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 5
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage sitehttps://laravel-lang.com/packages-common.html
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics15 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicslanguage, languages, laravel-lang, locale, translation, translation-management, translations, locales, attribute, attributes, http-status, http-status-code, i18n, locales-translation, statuses
has_wikino
homepagehttps://laravel-lang.com/packages-common.html
docs_sitehttps://laravel-lang.com/packages-common.html
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

42Weak · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
2.2/7.5Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
1.2/2.5CI-Tests7 out of 14 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 5
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-ReviewFound 0/11 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
2.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 10 contributing companies or organizations
0/10Dangerous-Workflowno data
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5Licenselicense file detected
3.8/7.5Maintained2 commit(s) and 4 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 5
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_aggregate5.7
high_risk_jurisdiction_cap34
high_risk_jurisdiction_multiplier50
security_posture_after_multiplier28
security_posture_before_jurisdiction57
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.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisoriesno direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisoriestransitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40No advisories left outstandingno advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories0
affected_packages0
assessed_packages9
unassessed_packages16
affected_by_severitynone
direct_affected_packages0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories, No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 9 resolved dependencies against OSV. 16 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list. This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so the repository dependency graph was assessed instead. That graph mixes development and test pins with shipped dependencies, so only the declared runtime dependencies are scored; transitive findings are reported as context and excluded from the score. Reachability is not analyzed.

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.

38Weak · 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
11/11Lint / format configbiome.json
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-Dependenciesno data
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilespackage-lock.json
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Demonstrated agent practice, OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable codePHP without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes0/6 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePHP
largest_source_bytes2,858
source_files_sampled6
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

160GitHub stars
7contributors
39commits, last 12 months
30days since last push
29releases
1bus factor
0open issues
Packagistpackage ecosystems

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.7 / 10
5.7aggregate

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 · 2026-07-20 17:03 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
3Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
5CI-Tests7 out of 14 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 5
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 0/11 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
10Contributorsproject has 10 contributing companies or organizations
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
5Maintained2 commit(s) and 4 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 5
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 11
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Packagistlaravel-lang/actions^1.9composer.json
Packagistlaravel-lang/attributes^2.12composer.json
Packagistlaravel-lang/http-statuses^3.8composer.json
Packagistlaravel-lang/json-fallback^2.2composer.json
Packagistlaravel-lang/lang^13.12 || ^14.0 || ^15.5.1composer.json
Packagistlaravel-lang/locales^2.10composer.json
Packagistlaravel-lang/models^1.3composer.json
Packagistlaravel-lang/moonshine^1.2composer.json
Packagistlaravel-lang/publisher^16.5composer.json
Packagistlaravel-lang/routes^1.7composer.json
Packagistlaravel-lang/starter-kits^1.0composer.json
All dependencies 25

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 11 direct and 14 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
Packagistlaravel-lang/actionsdirect
Packagistlaravel-lang/attributesdirect
Packagistlaravel-lang/http-statusesdirect
Packagistlaravel-lang/json-fallbackdirect
Packagistlaravel-lang/langdirect
Packagistlaravel-lang/localesdirect
Packagistlaravel-lang/modelsdirect
Packagistlaravel-lang/moonshinedirect
Packagistlaravel-lang/publisherdirect
Packagistlaravel-lang/routesdirect
Packagistlaravel-lang/starter-kitsdirect
npm@biomejs/biome2.2.2indirect
npm@biomejs/cli-darwin-arm642.2.2indirect
npm@biomejs/cli-darwin-x642.2.2indirect
npm@biomejs/cli-linux-arm642.2.2indirect
npm@biomejs/cli-linux-arm64-musl2.2.2indirect
npm@biomejs/cli-linux-x642.2.2indirect
npm@biomejs/cli-linux-x64-musl2.2.2indirect
npm@biomejs/cli-win32-arm642.2.2indirect
npm@biomejs/cli-win32-x642.2.2indirect
Packagistdragon-code/supportindirect
Packagistorchestra/testbenchindirect
Packagistphpindirect
Packagistphpunit/phpunitindirect
Packagistsymfony/var-dumperindirect
Dependency advisories 0

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 9 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct. 16 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list.

No known advisories affect the assessed dependencies.

An advisory means the version recorded in the dependency graph falls inside an advisory’s affected range. Reachability is not analysed, and the graph includes development and test pins — a finding may concern tooling rather than shipped software.

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 v0.16.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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