Public record
Software health reportschema 0.12.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-17 20:41 UTC

SanderMuller / laravel-queue-insights

PHP · BladeMIT★ 5 stars⑂ 0 forkssince Apr 2026View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryNetwork servicehow this is determined

SanderMuller/laravel-queue-insights holds a health index of 57 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Vitality (77/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (34/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

57
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.

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

Ownership

Sander MullerPersonal account
50 followers67 public repossince Oct 2014@blinqx-vh and @hihaho

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
Packagistsandermuller/laravel-queue-insights0.29.06,6793218 days agoqueuemetricslaravelsqsdashboardhorizonobservability

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

77Good · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 0 days ago
6.9/36Commit cadence10/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume312 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintainedproject was created within the last 90 days. Please review its contents carefully
Inputs used
commits_last_year312
human_commit_share
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year10

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases32 releases published
36/36Release recencylatest release 18 days ago
27/27Release cadencea release every ~5 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count32
latest_release_tag0.29.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release18
mean_days_between_releases5
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?

34At Risk · 17% of overall
How it's scored
9.8/60Stars5 stars
0/25Forks0 forks
0/15Watchers1 watchers
Inputs used
forks0
stars5
watchers1
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (MIT)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
51/80Monthly downloads6,679 downloads/month across packagist
0/20Registry dependents0 packages depend on it
Inputs used
packagessandermuller/laravel-queue-insights
dependents0
ecosystemspackagist
total_downloads12,106
monthly_downloads6,679
unverified_packages_excluded

Sustainability & Governance

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

53Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0.6/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 97% of commits
2.7/13.5Contributor breadth2 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled2
top_contributor_share0.974
How it's scored
0/42Issue resolutionno issues or no data
21.8/30PR acceptance8/11 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 0/26 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs8
open_issues0
closed_issues0
prs_merged_7d
prs_decided_7d
prs_merged_30d
prs_decided_30d
issue_closed_ratio
closed_unmerged_prs3
first_time_authors_30d
first_time_prs_merged_30d
first_time_prs_decided_30d
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Issue resolution, Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backingpersonal (user) account
0/20Verified domainnot applicable to user accounts
12.3/25Owner reach50 followers of SanderMuller
25/25Track record67 public repos, account ~11 yr old
Inputs used
followers50
owner_typeUser
is_verified
owner_loginSanderMuller
public_repos67
account_age_days4,300
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 18 days ago
20/20Version history32 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagessandermuller/laravel-queue-insights
ecosystemspackagist
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish18

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

56Moderate · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows6 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests2 out of 2 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

Documentation

30At Risk
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
0/10Repository description
0/10Topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics
has_wikino
homepage
docs_site
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionno

Security

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

50Moderate · 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
2.5/2.5CI-Tests2 out of 2 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-ReviewFound 0/26 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
2.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
0/10Dangerous-Workflowno data
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5Licenselicense file detected
0/7.5Maintainedproject was created within the last 90 days. Please review its contents carefully
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
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Dangerous-Workflow, Packaging, Pinned-Dependencies, Signed-Releases, Token-Permissions. 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.

47Weak · 4% of overall
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructionsAGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
0/40Legible commit historyno data
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share
agent_instruction_filesAGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes19,218
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
0/11Lint / format config
0/11Static type checking
0/10Reproducible environment
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
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, OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable codePHP without a type-check config
54.9/55Manageable file sizes1/473 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePHP
largest_source_bytes75,583
source_files_sampled473
oversized_source_files1
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto)
20/20MCP server
0/40Runnable examples
Inputs used
example_dirs
has_mcp_signalyes
api_schema_files
interfaces_expected_ofnetwork-service

Key facts

5GitHub stars
2contributors
312commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
32releases
1bus factor
0open issues
Packagistpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Could not fetch packagist package 'sandermuller/laravel-queue-insights-demo' from its registry

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.0 / 10
5.0aggregate

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 · 2026-07-17 20:41 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
10CI-Tests2 out of 2 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 0/26 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
10Contributorsproject has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
0Maintainedproject was created within the last 90 days. Please review its contents carefully
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 10
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Packagistilluminate/console^11.0||^12.0||^13.0composer.json
Packagistilluminate/contracts^11.0||^12.0||^13.0composer.json
Packagistilluminate/notifications^11.0||^12.0||^13.0composer.json
Packagistilluminate/queue^11.0||^12.0||^13.0composer.json
Packagistilluminate/redis^11.0||^12.0||^13.0composer.json
Packagistilluminate/support^11.0||^12.0||^13.0composer.json
Packagistlaravel/framework^13.0demo/composer.json
Packagistlivewire/livewire^3.0demo/composer.json
Packagistpredis/predis^2.2demo/composer.json
Packagistsandermuller/laravel-queue-insights@devdemo/composer.json
All dependencies 40

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 10 direct and 30 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
Packagistilluminate/consoledirect
Packagistilluminate/contractsdirect
Packagistilluminate/notificationsdirect
Packagistilluminate/queuedirect
Packagistilluminate/redisdirect
Packagistilluminate/supportdirect
Packagistlaravel/frameworkdirect
Packagistlivewire/livewiredirect
Packagistpredis/predisdirect
Packagistsandermuller/laravel-queue-insightsdirect
Packagistaws/aws-sdk-phpindirect
Packagistdg/bypass-finalsindirect
Packagistdriftingly/rector-laravelindirect
Packagistlarastan/larastanindirect
Packagistlaravel/boostindirect
Packagistlaravel/horizonindirect
Packagistlaravel/paoindirect
Packagistlaravel/pintindirect
Packagistmockery/mockeryindirect
Packagistmrpunyapal/peststanindirect
Packagistmrpunyapal/rector-pestindirect
Packagistnunomaduro/collisionindirect
Packagistorchestra/testbenchindirect
Packagistpestphp/pestindirect
Packagistpestphp/pest-plugin-archindirect
Packagistpestphp/pest-plugin-laravelindirect
Packagistphpindirect
Packagistphpstan/extension-installerindirect
Packagistphpstan/phpstan-deprecation-rulesindirect
Packagistphpstan/phpstan-phpunitindirect
Packagistphpstan/phpstan-strict-rulesindirect
Packagistrector/rectorindirect
Packagistrector/type-perfectindirect
Packagistsandermuller/boost-skillsindirect
Packagistsandermuller/package-boost-laravelindirect
Packagistsentry/sentryindirect
Packagistspaze/phpstan-disallowed-callsindirect
Packagistsymplify/phpstan-extensionsindirect
Packagisttomasvotruba/cognitive-complexityindirect
Packagisttomasvotruba/type-coverageindirect
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 v0.12.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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