Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-12 00:55 UTC

Laravel-Lang / common

Easily connect the necessary language packs to the application

PHPMIT★ 161 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 (70/100) and lowest on Security (42/100). It was last updated 83 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 62 is calibrated to 69 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 · verified domain
168 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?

58Moderate · 21% of overall
How it's scored
18/36Push recency — last push 83 days ago
5.5/36Commit cadence — 8/52 weeks with commits
13.5/18Commit volume — 31 commits in the last year
5/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 1 commit(s) and 5 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 5
Inputs used
commits_last_year31
human_commit_share0.91
days_since_last_push83
active_weeks_last_year8
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 29 releases published
27/36Release recency — latest release 178 days ago
19.8/27Release cadence — a release every ~80.6 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count29
latest_release_tag6.8.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release178
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?

69Good · 17% of overall
How it's scored
35.8/60Stars — 161 stars
7.5/25Forks — 9 forks
1.7/15Watchers — 3 watchers
Inputs used
forks9
stars161
watchers3
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

85Excellent
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized 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_badges0
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_services—
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
74.5/80Monthly downloads — 386,489 downloads/month across packagist
10.9/20Registry dependents — 42 packages depend on it
Inputs used
packageslaravel-lang/common
dependents42
ecosystemspackagist
total_downloads4,604,910
monthly_downloads386,489
unverified_packages_excluded—

Sustainability & Governance

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

70Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0.7/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 97% of commits
6.8/13.5Contributor breadth — 5 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 10 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled5
top_contributor_share0.969
How it's scored
41.3/42Issue resolution — 98% of issues closed
29.5/30PR acceptance — 111/113 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/11 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs111
open_issues1
closed_issues59
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio0.983
closed_unmerged_prs2
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
16/25Owner reach — 168 followers of Laravel-Lang
22.2/25Track record — 24 public repos, account ~6 yr old
Inputs used
followers168
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedyes
owner_loginLaravel-Lang
public_repos24
account_age_days2,237

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on packagist
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 178 days ago
20/20Version history — 29 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packageslaravel-lang/common
ecosystemspackagist
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish178

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

70Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 7 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — biome.json
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
10/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 7 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 site — https://laravel-lang.com/packages-common.html
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 15 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-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
2.2/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
1.2/2.5CI-Tests — 7 out of 14 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 5
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-Review — Found 0/11 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 10 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
3.8/7.5Maintained — 1 commit(s) and 5 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 5
0/5Packaging — no data
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — no data
0/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
5/5Security-Policy — security policy file 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_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 advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40No advisories left outstanding — no 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.

48Weak · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
15/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) — llms.txt served by the project website (https://laravel-lang.com/llms.txt)
18.2/40Legible commit history — 31 of 91 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtyes
llms_txt_urlhttps://laravel-lang.com/llms.txt
legible_history_share0.341
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — biome.json
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environment — lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
8/8Automated maintenance — 5 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — no 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_share0
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0.05
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — PHP without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/6 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePHP
largest_source_bytes2,858
source_files_sampled6
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

161GitHub stars
5contributors
31commits, last 12 months
83days since last push
29releases
1bus factor
1open issues
Packagistpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

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

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 9 ⇿
0Stars
9Forks
24Releases

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.

0246810912023-022024-092026-05
Major 3Minor 13Patch 8

Each point covers 3 days.

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 · 2026-09-12 00:55 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
5Maintained1 commit(s) and 5 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/actions—direct
Packagistlaravel-lang/attributes—direct
Packagistlaravel-lang/http-statuses—direct
Packagistlaravel-lang/json-fallback—direct
Packagistlaravel-lang/lang—direct
Packagistlaravel-lang/locales—direct
Packagistlaravel-lang/models—direct
Packagistlaravel-lang/moonshine—direct
Packagistlaravel-lang/publisher—direct
Packagistlaravel-lang/routes—direct
Packagistlaravel-lang/starter-kits—direct
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/support—indirect
Packagistorchestra/testbench—indirect
Packagistphp—indirect
Packagistphpunit/phpunit—indirect
Packagistsymfony/var-dumper—indirect
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 v0.34.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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