Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-05 20:28 UTC

RicLeP / laravel-storyblok

Make Laravel and Storyblok work together beautifully.

PHPMIT★ 62 stars⑂ 18 forkssince Nov 2019View on GitHub ↗

RicLeP/laravel-storyblok holds a health index of 71 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Vitality (80/100) and lowest on Security (46/100). It was last updated 1 day ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

71
overall / 100
Good

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.

71
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).

Ownership

Ric Le PoidevinPersonal account
15 followers72 public repossince Jun 2016U&US

This repository is owned by a personal account. A single-owner project carries more continuity risk than an organization-backed one.

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
Packagistriclep/laravel-storyblok3.0.12,58318853 days agocmscontent-managementlaravelstoryblokheadless-cms

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

80Excellent · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 1 days ago
9/36Commit cadence13/52 weeks with commits
14.4/18Commit volume39 commits in the last year
7/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained9 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 7
Inputs used
commits_last_year39
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push1
active_weeks_last_year13

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases86 releases published
36/36Release recencylatest release 53 days ago
27/27Release cadencea release every ~29.7 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count86
latest_release_tag3.0.1
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release53
mean_days_between_releases29.7
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?

53Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
29/60Stars62 stars
10.3/25Forks18 forks
1.7/15Watchers3 watchers
Inputs used
forks18
stars62
watchers3
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (MIT)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges5
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesshields.io
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
45.5/80Monthly downloads2,583 downloads/month across packagist
4/20Registry dependents3 packages depend on it
Inputs used
packagesriclep/laravel-storyblok
dependents3
ecosystemspackagist
total_downloads84,166
monthly_downloads2,583
unverified_packages_excluded

Sustainability & Governance

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

60Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
1.5/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 93% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth10 contributors
6/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled10
top_contributor_share0.934
How it's scored
38.2/42Issue resolution91% of issues closed
22.2/30PR acceptance40/54 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
1.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 1/10 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
Inputs used
merged_prs40
open_issues2
closed_issues20
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio0.909
closed_unmerged_prs14
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
10/30Ownership backingpersonal (user) account
0/20Verified domainnot applicable to user accounts
8.7/25Owner reach15 followers of RicLeP
25/25Track record72 public repos, account ~10 yr old
Inputs used
followers15
owner_typeUser
is_verified
owner_loginRicLeP
public_repos72
account_age_days3,746
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 53 days ago
20/20Version history188 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesriclep/laravel-storyblok
ecosystemspackagist
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish53

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

72Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows1 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter configphpstan.neon
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests0 out of 2 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage sitehttps://ls.sirric.co.uk/
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics9 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicslaravel, storyblok, storyblok-client, storyblok-api, content-management-system, content-management, headless-cms, php, headless
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://ls.sirric.co.uk/
docs_sitehttps://ls.sirric.co.uk/
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

46Weak · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0/2.5CI-Tests0 out of 2 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0.8/7.5Code-ReviewFound 1/10 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
1.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
10/10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5Licenselicense file detected
5.2/7.5Maintained9 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 7
0/5Packagingno data
0/5Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0/5SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releasesno data
0/7.5Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate4.6
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): 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.

48Weak · 4% of overall
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructionsAGENTS.md
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
20.3/40Legible commit history38 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.38
agent_instruction_filesAGENTS.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes12,309
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format configphpstan.neon
0/11Static type checking
0/10Reproducible environment
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno agent-authored commits among the last 100
0/8Automated maintenanceno automated dependency updates observed
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable codePHP without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes0/92 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePHP
largest_source_bytes39,043
source_files_sampled92
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

62GitHub stars
10contributors
39commits, last 12 months
1days since last push
86releases
1bus factor
2open 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 ★ / 18 ⇿
0Stars
18Forks
82Releases

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.

04812161622021-012023-092026-05
Major 1Minor 49Patch 26

Each point covers 5 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.6 / 10
4.6aggregate

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 · 2026-09-05 20:27 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0CI-Tests0 out of 2 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
1Code-ReviewFound 1/10 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
6Contributorsproject has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
7Maintained9 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 7
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
0Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
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 11
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Packagistbarryvdh/reflection-docblock^2.0composer.json
Packagistembed/embed^3.4|^4composer.json
Packagistilluminate/support^11.0|^12.0|^13.0composer.json
Packagistimgix/imgix-php^3.3|^4.0composer.json
Packagistivopetkov/html5-dom-document-php2.*composer.json
Packagistleague/commonmark^2.0composer.json
Packagiststoryblok/php-content-api-client^1.0composer.json
Packagiststoryblok/php-management-api-client^1.0composer.json
Packagistspatie/laravel-ignition^2.8composer.json
Packagistspatie/schema-org^3.3|^4.0composer.json
Packagiststoryblok/php-tiptap-extension^1.0composer.json
All dependencies 20

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 11 direct and 9 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
Packagistbarryvdh/reflection-docblockdirect
Packagistembed/embeddirect
Packagistilluminate/supportdirect
Packagistimgix/imgix-phpdirect
Packagistivopetkov/html5-dom-document-phpdirect
Packagistleague/commonmarkdirect
Packagistspatie/laravel-ignitiondirect
Packagistspatie/schema-orgdirect
Packagiststoryblok/php-content-api-clientdirect
Packagiststoryblok/php-management-api-clientdirect
Packagiststoryblok/php-tiptap-extensiondirect
Packagistext-jsonindirect
Packagistlarastan/larastanindirect
Packagistlaravel/boostindirect
Packagistlaravel/pintindirect
Packagistmockery/mockeryindirect
Packagistorchestra/testbenchindirect
Packagistphpindirect
Packagistphpstan/phpstanindirect
Packagistphpunit/phpunitindirect
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 statisticsPackagist.