Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-11 21:16 UTC

asbiin / laravel-webauthn

Webauthn adapter for Laravel

PHP · ShellMIT★ 312 stars⑂ 43 forkssince Mar 2019View on GitHub ↗

asbiin/laravel-webauthn holds a health index of 67 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (76/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (46/100). It was last updated 16 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

67
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.

67
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 61 is calibrated to 67 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Alexis SaettlerPersonal account
244 followers84 public repossince Jan 2017@monicahq

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
Packagistasbiin/laravel-webauthn6.0.028,49961101 days agophpsecuritylaravelwebauthn

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

57Moderate · 21% of overall
How it's scored
28.8/36Push recency — last push 16 days ago
3.5/36Commit cadence — 5/52 weeks with commits
8.6/18Commit volume — 8 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 1 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
commits_last_year8
human_commit_share0.82
days_since_last_push16
active_weeks_last_year5
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 61 releases published
27/36Release recency — latest release 101 days ago
19.8/27Release cadence — a release every ~50.4 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count61
latest_release_tag6.0.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release101
mean_days_between_releases50.4
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?

56Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
40.4/60Stars — 312 stars
13.5/25Forks — 43 forks
4.7/15Watchers — 8 watchers
Inputs used
forks43
stars312
watchers8
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized 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_badges5
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesshields.io
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
59.4/80Monthly downloads — 28,499 downloads/month across packagist
0/20Registry dependents — 0 packages depend on it
Inputs used
packagesasbiin/laravel-webauthn
dependents0
ecosystemspackagist
total_downloads709,597
monthly_downloads28,499
unverified_packages_excluded—

Sustainability & Governance

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

61Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
2.5/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 89% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 16 contributors
3/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled16
top_contributor_share0.888
How it's scored
38.4/42Issue resolution — 92% of issues closed
18.1/30PR acceptance — 278/462 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 1/24 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs278
open_issues5
closed_issues54
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d1
prs_decided_30d1
issue_closed_ratio0.915
closed_unmerged_prs184
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 backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
17.2/25Owner reach — 244 followers of asbiin
25/25Track record — 84 public repos, account ~9 yr old
Inputs used
followers244
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginasbiin
public_repos84
account_age_days3,512
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on packagist
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 101 days ago
20/20Version history — 61 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesasbiin/laravel-webauthn
ecosystemspackagist
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish101

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 — phpstan.neon
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
6/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 9 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 7 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicswebauthn, laravel-webauthn, laravel, library, php, authentication, hacktoberfest
has_wikino
homepage—
docs_site—
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

58Moderate · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0.8/2.5CI-Tests — 9 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 3
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-Review — Found 1/24 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0.8/2.5Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
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
0/7.5Maintained — 1 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
0/5Packaging — no data
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — no data
1/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 2
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_aggregate4.6
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Dangerous-Workflow, Packaging, Pinned-Dependencies, Signed-Releases, Token-Permissions. Remaining weights renormalized.

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_packages1
unassessed_packages21
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 1 resolved dependencies against OSV. 21 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.

46Weak · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history — 82 of 82 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share1
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — phpstan.neon
0/11Static type checking
0/10Reproducible environment
2/10Demonstrated agent practice — 1 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
8/8Automated maintenance — 18 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — no data
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles—
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0.01
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0.18
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 — 0/103 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePHP
largest_source_bytes17,107
source_files_sampled103
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

312GitHub stars
16contributors
8commits, last 12 months
16days since last push
61releases
1bus factor
5open 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 ★ / 43 ⇿
0Stars
43Forks
54Releases

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.

010203040504322019-062022-122026-06
Major 6Minor 22Patch 22

Each point covers 7 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 · 2026-09-11 21:15 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
3CI-Tests9 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 3
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 1/24 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
3Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
0Maintained1 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
n/aPinned-Dependenciesno dependencies found
2SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 2
10Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
n/aToken-PermissionsNo tokens found
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 8
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Packagistilluminate/support^11.0 || ^12.0 || ^13.0composer.json
Packagistpsr/http-factory-implementation1.0composer.json
Packagistsymfony/property-access^6.4 || ^7.0composer.json
Packagistsymfony/property-info^6.4 || ^7.0composer.json
Packagistsymfony/serializer^6.4 || ^7.0composer.json
Packagistweb-auth/cose-lib^4.0composer.json
Packagistweb-auth/webauthn-lib^5.3composer.json
Packagistweb-token/jwt-library^3.0 || ^4.0composer.json
All dependencies 22

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 8 direct and 14 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
Packagistilluminate/support—direct
Packagistpsr/http-factory-implementation1.0direct
Packagistsymfony/property-access—direct
Packagistsymfony/property-info—direct
Packagistsymfony/serializer—direct
Packagistweb-auth/cose-lib—direct
Packagistweb-auth/webauthn-lib—direct
Packagistweb-token/jwt-library—direct
Packagistbrainmaestro/composer-git-hooks—indirect
Packagistext-sqlite3—indirect
Packagistguzzlehttp/psr7—indirect
Packagistlarastan/larastan—indirect
Packagistlaravel/legacy-factories—indirect
Packagistlaravel/pint—indirect
Packagistocramius/package-versions—indirect
Packagistorchestra/testbench—indirect
Packagistphp—indirect
Packagistphpstan/phpstan-deprecation-rules—indirect
Packagistphpstan/phpstan-phpunit—indirect
Packagistphpstan/phpstan-strict-rules—indirect
Packagistphpunit/phpunit—indirect
Packagistpsalm/plugin-laravel—indirect
Dependency advisories 0

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 1 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct. 21 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.