Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-09 05:49 UTC

awcodes / filament-sticky-header

A Filament Panels plugin to make headers sticky when scrolling.

PHP · JavaScriptMIT★ 83 stars⑂ 14 forkssince Jun 2022View on GitHub ↗

awcodes/filament-sticky-header holds a health index of 75 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Vitality (80/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (46/100). It was last updated 4 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

75
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.

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

Ownership

Adam WestonPersonal account
417 followers76 public repossince Feb 2013Community Choice Financial

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
Packagistawcodes/filament-sticky-headerv4.2.08,3033749 days agoframeworklaravelfilament

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 recency — last push 4 days ago
11.1/36Commit cadence — 16/52 weeks with commits
14.4/18Commit volume — 39 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 16 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year39
human_commit_share0.68
days_since_last_push4
active_weeks_last_year16
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 37 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 49 days ago
19.8/27Release cadence — a release every ~105.4 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count37
latest_release_tagv4.2.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release49
mean_days_between_releases105.4
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?

54Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
31/60Stars — 83 stars
9.3/25Forks — 14 forks
0/15Watchers — 2 watchers
Inputs used
forks14
stars83
watchers2
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_servicesshields.io
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
52.3/80Monthly downloads — 8,303 downloads/month across packagist
2/20Registry dependents — 1 packages depend on it
Inputs used
packagesawcodes/filament-sticky-header
dependents1
ecosystemspackagist
total_downloads158,631
monthly_downloads8,303
unverified_packages_excluded—

Sustainability & Governance

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

62Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0.8/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 97% of commits
5.4/13.5Contributor breadth — 4 contributors
3/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled4
top_contributor_share0.966
How it's scored
42/42Issue resolution — 100% of issues closed
28.4/30PR acceptance — 53/56 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/12 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs53
open_issues0
closed_issues10
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d2
prs_decided_30d2
issue_closed_ratio1
closed_unmerged_prs3
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
18.8/25Owner reach — 417 followers of awcodes
25/25Track record — 76 public repos, account ~13 yr old
Inputs used
followers417
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginawcodes
public_repos76
account_age_days4,954
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 49 days ago
20/20Version history — 37 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesawcodes/filament-sticky-header
ecosystemspackagist
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish49

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

72Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 4 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
16/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 9 out of 11 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 8
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

85Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 2 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsfilament, filament-plugin
has_wikiyes
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?

60Moderate · 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
2/2.5CI-Tests — 9 out of 11 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 8
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-Review — Found 0/12 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
7.5/7.5Maintained — 16 commit(s) and 0 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_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.

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_packages92
unassessed_packages10
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 92 resolved dependencies against OSV. 10 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)
29/40Legible commit history — 37 of 68 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.544
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environment — lockfile
10/10Demonstrated agent practice — 8 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
8/8Automated maintenance — 23 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_configno
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0.08
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0.23
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 — 0/24 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePHP
largest_source_bytes2,942
source_files_sampled24
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

83GitHub stars
4contributors
39commits, last 12 months
4days since last push
37releases
1bus factor
0open issues
npm, 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 ★ / 14 ⇿
0Stars
14Forks
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.

24681012141422022-082024-042025-12
Major 2Minor 3Patch 14

Each point covers 4 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 · 2026-09-09 05:49 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
8CI-Tests9 out of 11 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 8
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 0/12 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
10Maintained16 commit(s) and 0 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 2
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Packagistfilament/filament^4.0|^5.0composer.json
Packagistspatie/laravel-package-tools^1.15.0composer.json
All dependencies 102

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 2 direct and 100 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
Packagistfilament/filament—direct
Packagistspatie/laravel-package-tools—direct
npm@esbuild/aix-ppc640.25.5indirect
npm@esbuild/android-arm0.25.5indirect
npm@esbuild/android-arm640.25.5indirect
npm@esbuild/android-x640.25.5indirect
npm@esbuild/darwin-arm640.25.5indirect
npm@esbuild/darwin-x640.25.5indirect
npm@esbuild/freebsd-arm640.25.5indirect
npm@esbuild/freebsd-x640.25.5indirect
npm@esbuild/linux-arm0.25.5indirect
npm@esbuild/linux-arm640.25.5indirect
npm@esbuild/linux-ia320.25.5indirect
npm@esbuild/linux-loong640.25.5indirect
npm@esbuild/linux-mips64el0.25.5indirect
npm@esbuild/linux-ppc640.25.5indirect
npm@esbuild/linux-riscv640.25.5indirect
npm@esbuild/linux-s390x0.25.5indirect
npm@esbuild/linux-x640.25.5indirect
npm@esbuild/netbsd-arm640.25.5indirect
npm@esbuild/netbsd-x640.25.5indirect
npm@esbuild/openbsd-arm640.25.5indirect
npm@esbuild/openbsd-x640.25.5indirect
npm@esbuild/sunos-x640.25.5indirect
npm@esbuild/win32-arm640.25.5indirect
npm@esbuild/win32-ia320.25.5indirect
npm@esbuild/win32-x640.25.5indirect
npm@jridgewell/gen-mapping0.3.13indirect
npm@jridgewell/remapping2.3.5indirect
npm@jridgewell/resolve-uri3.1.2indirect
npm@jridgewell/sourcemap-codec1.6.0indirect
npm@jridgewell/trace-mapping0.3.31indirect
npm@parcel/watcher2.5.1indirect
npm@parcel/watcher-android-arm642.5.1indirect
npm@parcel/watcher-darwin-arm642.5.1indirect
npm@parcel/watcher-darwin-x642.5.1indirect
npm@parcel/watcher-freebsd-x642.5.1indirect
npm@parcel/watcher-linux-arm-glibc2.5.1indirect
npm@parcel/watcher-linux-arm-musl2.5.1indirect
npm@parcel/watcher-linux-arm64-glibc2.5.1indirect
npm@parcel/watcher-linux-arm64-musl2.5.1indirect
npm@parcel/watcher-linux-x64-glibc2.5.1indirect
npm@parcel/watcher-linux-x64-musl2.5.1indirect
npm@parcel/watcher-win32-arm642.5.1indirect
npm@parcel/watcher-win32-ia322.5.1indirect
npm@parcel/watcher-win32-x642.5.1indirect
npm@tailwindcss/cli4.3.3indirect
npm@tailwindcss/node4.3.3indirect
npm@tailwindcss/oxide4.3.3indirect
npm@tailwindcss/oxide-android-arm644.3.3indirect
npm@tailwindcss/oxide-darwin-arm644.3.3indirect
npm@tailwindcss/oxide-darwin-x644.3.3indirect
npm@tailwindcss/oxide-freebsd-x644.3.3indirect
npm@tailwindcss/oxide-linux-arm-gnueabihf4.3.3indirect
npm@tailwindcss/oxide-linux-arm64-gnu4.3.3indirect
npm@tailwindcss/oxide-linux-arm64-musl4.3.3indirect
npm@tailwindcss/oxide-linux-x64-gnu4.3.3indirect
npm@tailwindcss/oxide-linux-x64-musl4.3.3indirect
npm@tailwindcss/oxide-wasm32-wasi4.3.3indirect
npm@tailwindcss/oxide-win32-arm64-msvc4.3.3indirect
npm@tailwindcss/oxide-win32-x64-msvc4.3.3indirect
npmbraces3.0.3indirect
npmdetect-libc1.0.3indirect
npmdetect-libc2.1.2indirect
npmenhanced-resolve5.24.5indirect
npmesbuild0.25.5indirect
npmfill-range7.1.1indirect
npmgraceful-fs4.2.11indirect
npmis-extglob2.1.1indirect
npmis-glob4.0.3indirect
npmis-number7.0.0indirect
npmjiti2.7.0indirect
npmlightningcss1.32.0indirect
npmlightningcss-android-arm641.32.0indirect
npmlightningcss-darwin-arm641.32.0indirect
npmlightningcss-darwin-x641.32.0indirect
npmlightningcss-freebsd-x641.32.0indirect
npmlightningcss-linux-arm-gnueabihf1.32.0indirect
npmlightningcss-linux-arm64-gnu1.32.0indirect
npmlightningcss-linux-arm64-musl1.32.0indirect
npmlightningcss-linux-x64-gnu1.32.0indirect
npmlightningcss-linux-x64-musl1.32.0indirect
npmlightningcss-win32-arm64-msvc1.32.0indirect
npmlightningcss-win32-x64-msvc1.32.0indirect
npmmagic-string0.30.21indirect
npmmicromatch4.0.8indirect
npmmri1.2.0indirect
npmnode-addon-api7.1.1indirect
npmpicocolors1.1.1indirect
npmpicomatch2.3.2indirect
npmsource-map-js1.2.1indirect
npmtailwindcss4.3.3indirect
npmtapable2.3.3indirect
npmto-regex-range5.0.1indirect
Packagistlaravel/pint—indirect
Packagistorchestra/testbench—indirect
Packagistpestphp/pest—indirect
Packagistpestphp/pest-plugin-laravel—indirect
Packagistpestphp/pest-plugin-livewire—indirect
Packagistphp—indirect
Packagistrector/rector—indirect
Packagistspatie/laravel-ray—indirect
Dependency advisories 0

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 92 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct. 10 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.