Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-28 07:58 UTC

archtechx / tenancy

Automatic multi-tenancy for Laravel. No code changes needed.

PHPMIT★ 4,398 stars⑂ 490 forkssince Jan 2019View on GitHub ↗

archtechx/tenancy holds a health index of 89 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Vitality (86/100) and lowest on Security (50/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

89
overall / 100
Excellent

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.

89
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 75 is calibrated to 89 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

ARCHTECHOrganization · verified domain
137 followers26 public repossince May 2021

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
Packagiststancl/tenancyv3.10.1731,6809423 days agolaraveltenancymulti-tenancymulti-database

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

86Excellent · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
18.7/36Commit cadence — 27/52 weeks with commits
17.3/18Commit volume — 84 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 14 commit(s) and 9 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year84
human_commit_share0.96
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year27
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 75 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 23 days ago
19.8/27Release cadence — a release every ~97.3 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count75
latest_release_tagv3.10.1
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release23
mean_days_between_releases97.3
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?

84Excellent · 17% of overall
How it's scored
59.1/60Stars — 4,398 stars
22.4/25Forks — 490 forks
10.4/15Watchers — 74 watchers
Inputs used
forks490
stars4,398
watchers74
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized 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_badges4
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesgithub.com, poser.pugx.org, shields.io
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
78.2/80Monthly downloads — 731,680 downloads/month across packagist
11.3/20Registry dependents — 48 packages depend on it
Inputs used
packagesstancl/tenancy
dependents48
ecosystemspackagist
total_downloads9,460,114
monthly_downloads731,680
unverified_packages_excluded—

Sustainability & Governance

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

74Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
3.8/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 83% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 70 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 19 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled70
top_contributor_share0.831
How it's scored
41.8/42Issue resolution — 100% of issues closed
21.4/30PR acceptance — 315/442 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
10.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 21/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 7
Inputs used
merged_prs315
open_issues4
closed_issues862
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d2
prs_decided_30d2
issue_closed_ratio0.995
closed_unmerged_prs127
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
15.4/25Owner reach — 137 followers of archtechx
21/25Track record — 26 public repos, account ~5 yr old
Inputs used
followers137
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedyes
owner_loginarchtechx
public_repos26
account_age_days1,929

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on packagist
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 23 days ago
20/20Version history — 94 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesstancl/tenancy
ecosystemspackagist
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish23

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

76Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 4 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — .php-cs-fixer.php, phpstan.neon
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 25 out of 25 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
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://tenancyforlaravel.com
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 7 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicslaravel, tenancy, tenant, multi-tenancy, saas, multitenancy, software-as-a-service
has_wikino
homepagehttps://tenancyforlaravel.com
docs_sitehttps://tenancyforlaravel.com
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

50Moderate · 16% of overall
How it's scored
3.8/7.5Binary-Artifacts — binaries present in source code
0/7.5Branch-Protection — no data
2.5/2.5CI-Tests — 25 out of 25 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
5.2/7.5Code-Review — Found 21/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 7
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 19 contributing companies or organizations
0/10Dangerous-Workflow — no data
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained — 14 commit(s) and 9 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packaging — no data
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — no data
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 — no data
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated12
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive6
scorecard_aggregate5
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, 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.

77Good · 4% of overall
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructions — CLAUDE.md
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history — 76 of 96 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.792
agent_instruction_filesCLAUDE.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes5,299
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrap — extensions/Makefile
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — .php-cs-fixer.php, phpstan.neon
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environment — Dockerfile
10/10Demonstrated agent practice — 5 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
0/8Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — no data
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles—
has_dockerfileyes
typed_languageno
bootstrap_filesextensions/Makefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0.05
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0
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 — 0/363 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePHP
largest_source_bytes54,948
source_files_sampled363
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

4,398GitHub stars
70contributors
84commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
75releases
1bus factor
4open 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 ★ / 490 ⇿
0Stars
490Forks
75Releases

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.

010020030040050048282019-022022-112026-08
Major 2Minor 15Patch 55

Each point covers 7 days.

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 · 2026-08-28 07:57 UTC

5Binary-Artifactsbinaries present in source code
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
10CI-Tests25 out of 25 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
7Code-ReviewFound 21/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 7
10Contributorsproject has 19 contributing companies or organizations
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained14 commit(s) and 9 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
n/aPinned-Dependenciesno dependencies found
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
n/aToken-PermissionsNo tokens found
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 8
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Packagistilluminate/support^12.0|^13.0composer.json
Packagistlaravel/tinker^2.0|^3.0composer.json
Packagistramsey/uuid^4.7.3composer.json
Packagiststancl/jobpipeline2.0.0-rc7composer.json
Packagiststancl/virtualcolumn^1.5.0composer.json
Packagistspatie/invade*composer.json
Packagistlaravel/prompts0.*composer.json
Packagistcode-lts/doctumv5.5.x-devdoctum/composer.json
All dependencies 18

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 8 direct and 10 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
Packagistcode-lts/doctum—direct
Packagistilluminate/support—direct
Packagistlaravel/prompts—direct
Packagistlaravel/tinker—direct
Packagistramsey/uuid—direct
Packagistspatie/invade—direct
Packagiststancl/jobpipeline—direct
Packagiststancl/virtualcolumn—direct
Packagistdoctrine/dbal—indirect
Packagistext-json—indirect
Packagistlarastan/larastan—indirect
Packagistlaravel/framework—indirect
Packagistleague/flysystem-aws-s3-v3—indirect
Packagistleague/flysystem-path-prefixing—indirect
Packagistorchestra/testbench—indirect
Packagistpestphp/pest—indirect
Packagistphp—indirect
Packagistspatie/valuestore—indirect
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 statistics — Packagist.