Public record
Software health reportschema 0.26.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-22 07:42 UTC

calebdw / laraflake

❄️ Generate X/Twitter Snowflake identifiers in Laravel

PHPMIT★ 9 stars⑂ 3 forkssince Jul 2024View on GitHub ↗

calebdw/laraflake holds a health index of 57 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Vitality (63/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (39/100). It was last updated 22 days ago. 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

Caleb WhitePersonal account
86 followers99 public repossince Apr 2013@eagle-metal

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
Packagistcalebdw/laraflakev2.3.04,6069125 days agodatabasephptwitterlaravelidentifieridstimestampunique-iddistributedsnowflakeunique-identifier

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

63Moderate · 21% of overall
How it's scored
28.8/36Push recencylast push 22 days ago
6.9/36Commit cadence10/52 weeks with commits
10.8/18Commit volume15 commits in the last year
4/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained5 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 4
Inputs used
commits_last_year15
human_commit_share0.724
days_since_last_push22
active_weeks_last_year10
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases9 releases published
27/36Release recencylatest release 125 days ago
19.8/27Release cadencea release every ~75.9 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count9
latest_release_tagv2.3.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release125
mean_days_between_releases75.9
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?

44Weak · 17% of overall
How it's scored
14.6/60Stars9 stars
2.5/25Forks3 forks
0/15Watchers1 watchers
Inputs used
forks3
stars9
watchers1
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonbelow_threshold
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_badges
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
48.8/80Monthly downloads4,606 downloads/month across packagist
0/20Registry dependents0 packages depend on it
Inputs used
packagescalebdw/laraflake
dependents0
ecosystemspackagist
total_downloads38,704
monthly_downloads4,606
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 factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
1.6/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 93% of commits
2.7/13.5Contributor breadth2 contributors
6/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled2
top_contributor_share0.929
How it's scored
42/42Issue resolution100% of issues closed
25/30PR acceptance20/24 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
3/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 3/14 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
Inputs used
merged_prs20
open_issues0
closed_issues2
prs_merged_7d
prs_decided_7d
prs_merged_30d
prs_decided_30d
issue_closed_ratio1
closed_unmerged_prs4
first_time_authors_30d
first_time_prs_merged_30d
first_time_prs_decided_30d
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
13.9/25Owner reach86 followers of calebdw
25/25Track record99 public repos, account ~13 yr old
Inputs used
followers86
owner_typeUser
is_verified
owner_logincalebdw
public_repos99
account_age_days4,844
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 125 days ago
20/20Version history9 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagescalebdw/laraflake
ecosystemspackagist
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish125

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

61Moderate · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows1 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
8/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests9 out of 19 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 4
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

60Moderate
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics9 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsdistributed-id-generator, laravel, snowflake, snowflake-id, twitter, twitter-snowflake, twitter-snowflake-algorithm, unique-id, unique-id-generator
has_wikiyes
homepage
docs_site
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
1/2.5CI-Tests9 out of 19 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 4
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
1.5/7.5Code-ReviewFound 3/14 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
1.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
0/10Dangerous-Workflowno data
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5Licenselicense file detected
3/7.5Maintained5 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 4
0/5Packagingno data
0/5Pinned-Dependenciesno data
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-Permissionsno data
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities0 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.

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.

39Weak · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history41 of 42 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.976
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
0/10Reproducible environment
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno agent-authored commits among the last 58
8/8Automated maintenance16 of the last 58 commits are automated dependency updates
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_share0
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share0.276
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable codePHP without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes0/28 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePHP
largest_source_bytes4,650
source_files_sampled28
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

9GitHub stars
2contributors
15commits, last 12 months
22days since last push
9releases
1bus factor
0open issues
Packagistpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • No resolved dependencies carried a version and a supported ecosystem

More detail

Star and fork history 9 ★ / 3 ⇿
9Stars
3Forks
5Releases

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.

02468109312024-082025-082026-07
Major 1Minor 3Patch 1

Each point covers 2 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 · 2026-07-22 07:42 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
4CI-Tests9 out of 19 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 4
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
2Code-ReviewFound 3/14 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
6Contributorsproject has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
4Maintained5 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 4
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 5
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Packagistgodruoyi/php-snowflake^3.0composer.json
Packagistilluminate/contracts^11.0 || ^12.0 || ^13.0composer.json
Packagistilluminate/database^11.0 || ^12.0 || ^13.0composer.json
Packagistilluminate/support^11.0 || ^12.0 || ^13.0composer.json
Packagistilluminate/validation^11.0 || ^12.0 || ^13.0composer.json
All dependencies 10

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 5 direct and 5 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
Packagistgodruoyi/php-snowflakedirect
Packagistilluminate/contractsdirect
Packagistilluminate/databasedirect
Packagistilluminate/supportdirect
Packagistilluminate/validationdirect
Packagistcalebdw/larastanindirect
Packagistlaravel/pintindirect
Packagistorchestra/testbenchindirect
Packagistpestphp/pestindirect
Packagistphpindirect
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 v0.26.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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