Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-24 08:05 UTC

cboxdk / laravel-queue-metrics

Production-ready Laravel queue monitoring with metrics, analytics, and insights

PHPMIT★ 12 stars⑂ 1 forksince Jan 2026View on GitHub ↗

cboxdk/laravel-queue-metrics holds a health index of 75 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Vitality (84/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (36/100). It was last updated today. 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

CboxOrganization
12 followers74 public repossince Jun 2016

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
Packagistcboxdk/laravel-queue-metricsv3.2.12,1172541 days agoqueueperformanceanalyticsmonitoringmetricslaravelcboxlaravel-queue-metrics

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

84Excellent · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 0 days ago
10.4/36Commit cadence15/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume193 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained14 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year193
human_commit_share0.89
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year15

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases15 releases published
36/36Release recencylatest release 39 days ago
27/27Release cadencea release every ~11 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count15
latest_release_tagv3.2.1
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release39
mean_days_between_releases11
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?

36Weak · 17% of overall
How it's scored
16.9/60Stars12 stars
0/25Forks1 forks
0/15Watchers0 watchers
Inputs used
forks1
stars12
watchers0
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_badges4
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesshields.io
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
44.3/80Monthly downloads2,117 downloads/month across packagist
3.2/20Registry dependents2 packages depend on it
Inputs used
packagescboxdk/laravel-queue-metrics
dependents2
ecosystemspackagist
total_downloads6,843
monthly_downloads2,117
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 factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0.2/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 99% 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_share0.989
How it's scored
42/42Issue resolution100% of issues closed
28.8/30PR acceptance24/25 decided PRs merged
13/13Newcomer PR acceptance2/2 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 2/24 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs24
open_issues0
closed_issues3
prs_merged_7d2
prs_decided_7d2
prs_merged_30d2
prs_decided_30d2
issue_closed_ratio1
closed_unmerged_prs1
first_time_authors_30d1
first_time_prs_merged_30d2
first_time_prs_decided_30d2
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backingorganization-owned
0/20Verified domain
8/25Owner reach12 followers of cboxdk
25/25Track record74 public repos, account ~10 yr old
Inputs used
followers12
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_logincboxdk
public_repos74
account_age_days3,722

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable1 package(s) on packagist
35/35Publish recencylatest publish 41 days ago
20/20Version history25 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagescboxdk/laravel-queue-metrics
ecosystemspackagist
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish41

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

83Excellent · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows5 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
18/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests14 out of 15 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

100Exceptional
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage sitehttps://cbox.dk/packages/laravel-queue-metrics
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics8 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicslaravel, metrics, queue, analytics, cbox, monitoring, performance, laravel-queue-metrics
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://cbox.dk/packages/laravel-queue-metrics
docs_sitehttps://cbox.dk/packages/laravel-queue-metrics
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

52Moderate · 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
2.2/2.5CI-Tests14 out of 15 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-ReviewFound 2/24 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
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
7.5/7.5Maintained14 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
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_aggregate5.2
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.

66Good · 4% of overall
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructionsCLAUDE.md
15/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)llms.txt served by the project website (https://cbox.dk/llms.txt)
39.6/40Legible commit history66 of 89 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtyes
llms_txt_urlhttps://cbox.dk/llms.txt
legible_history_share0.742
agent_instruction_filesCLAUDE.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes31,018
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
0/11Static type checking
0/10Reproducible environment
10/10Demonstrated agent practice12 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
8/8Automated maintenance8 of the last 100 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_share0.12
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share0.08
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 sizes0/205 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePHP
largest_source_bytes34,283
source_files_sampled205
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

12GitHub stars
2contributors
193commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
15releases
1bus factor
0open issues
Packagistpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • GitHub dependency-graph SBOM unavailable (404); the dependency graph may be disabled for this repository

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.2 / 10
5.2aggregate

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 · 2026-08-24 08:05 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
9CI-Tests14 out of 15 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 2/24 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
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
10Maintained14 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 4
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Packagistcboxdk/system-metrics^3.0composer.json
Packagistilluminate/contracts^11.0|^12.0|^13.0composer.json
Packagistspatie/laravel-package-tools^1.16composer.json
Packagistspatie/laravel-prometheus^1.3composer.json
All dependencies not collected

The resolved dependency set could not be collected for this report: GitHub dependency-graph SBOM unavailable (404); the dependency graph may be disabled for this repository

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 statisticsPackagist.