Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-15 22:47 UTC

defstudio / filament-searchable-input

A searchable autocomplete input for Filament

PHP · Blade · JavaScriptMIT★ 34 stars⑂ 7 forkssince Mar 2025View on GitHub ↗

defstudio/filament-searchable-input holds a health index of 65 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (74/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (33/100). It was last updated 44 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

65
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.

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

Ownership

def:studioOrganization · verified domain
41 followers53 public repossince Jan 2021

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
Packagistdefstudio/filament-searchable-inputv5.0.23,85535182 days agoformsinputlaravelsearchablefilamentdefstudiofilamentphp

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

60Moderate · 21% of overall
How it's scored
18/36Push recencylast push 44 days ago
11.8/36Commit cadence17/52 weeks with commits
14.8/18Commit volume43 commits in the last year
3/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained4 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
commits_last_year43
human_commit_share0.72
days_since_last_push44
active_weeks_last_year17
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases35 releases published
16.2/36Release recencylatest release 182 days ago
27/27Release cadencea release every ~23.2 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count35
latest_release_tagv5.0.2
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release182
mean_days_between_releases23.2
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?

50Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
24.6/60Stars34 stars
6.5/25Forks7 forks
1.7/15Watchers3 watchers
Inputs used
forks7
stars34
watchers3
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
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_badges3
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesshields.io
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
47.8/80Monthly downloads3,855 downloads/month across packagist
0/20Registry dependents0 packages depend on it
Inputs used
packagesdefstudio/filament-searchable-input
dependents0
ecosystemspackagist
total_downloads31,512
monthly_downloads3,855
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
2.5/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 89% of commits
4.1/13.5Contributor breadth3 contributors
6/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled3
top_contributor_share0.889
How it's scored
18/42Issue resolution43% of issues closed
30/30PR acceptance25/25 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
4.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 1/3 approved changesets -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
merged_prs25
open_issues4
closed_issues3
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio0.429
closed_unmerged_prs0
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 backingorganization-owned
20/20Verified domain
11.7/25Owner reach41 followers of defstudio
24/25Track record53 public repos, account ~5 yr old
Inputs used
followers41
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedyes
owner_logindefstudio
public_repos53
account_age_days2,077
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable1 package(s) on packagist
26/35Publish recencylatest publish 182 days ago
20/20Version history35 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesdefstudio/filament-searchable-input
ecosystemspackagist
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish182

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

74Good · 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
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests10 out of 10 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
0/10Topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics
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?

58Moderate · 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
2.5/2.5CI-Tests10 out of 10 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
2.2/7.5Code-ReviewFound 1/3 approved changesets -- score normalized to 3
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
2.2/7.5Maintained4 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 3
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
6.8/7.5Vulnerabilities1 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated13
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive5
scorecard_aggregate4.7
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 advisoriesno direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisoriestransitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40No advisories left outstandingno advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories1
affected_packages1
assessed_packages47
unassessed_packages16
affected_by_severityhigh 1
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 47 resolved dependencies against OSV. 16 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.

33At Risk · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
7.4/40Legible commit history10 of 72 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.139
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 environmentlockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno agent-authored commits among the last 100
8/8Automated maintenance18 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesno 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
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 codePHP without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes0/15 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePHP
largest_source_bytes3,640
source_files_sampled15
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

34GitHub stars
3contributors
43commits, last 12 months
44days since last push
35releases
1bus factor
4open 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 ★ / 7 ⇿
0Stars
7Forks
16Releases

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.

1234567712025-062025-102026-02
Major 0Minor 0Patch 12
OpenSSF Scorecard 4.7 / 10
4.7aggregate

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 · 2026-09-15 22:47 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
10CI-Tests10 out of 10 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
3Code-ReviewFound 1/3 approved changesets -- score normalized to 3
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
3Maintained4 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 3
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
9Vulnerabilities1 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 3
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Packagistfilament/filament^5.0composer.json
Packagistfilament/forms^5.0composer.json
Packagistspatie/laravel-package-tools^1.15composer.json
All dependencies 63

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 3 direct and 60 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
Packagistfilament/filamentdirect
Packagistfilament/formsdirect
Packagistspatie/laravel-package-toolsdirect
npm@emnapi/core1.10.0indirect
npm@emnapi/runtime1.10.0indirect
npm@emnapi/wasi-threads1.2.1indirect
npm@napi-rs/wasm-runtime1.1.5indirect
npm@oxc-project/types0.133.0indirect
npm@rolldown/binding-android-arm641.0.3indirect
npm@rolldown/binding-darwin-arm641.0.3indirect
npm@rolldown/binding-darwin-x641.0.3indirect
npm@rolldown/binding-freebsd-x641.0.3indirect
npm@rolldown/binding-linux-arm-gnueabihf1.0.3indirect
npm@rolldown/binding-linux-arm64-gnu1.0.3indirect
npm@rolldown/binding-linux-arm64-musl1.0.3indirect
npm@rolldown/binding-linux-ppc64-gnu1.0.3indirect
npm@rolldown/binding-linux-s390x-gnu1.0.3indirect
npm@rolldown/binding-linux-x64-gnu1.0.3indirect
npm@rolldown/binding-linux-x64-musl1.0.3indirect
npm@rolldown/binding-openharmony-arm641.0.3indirect
npm@rolldown/binding-wasm32-wasi1.0.3indirect
npm@rolldown/binding-win32-arm64-msvc1.0.3indirect
npm@rolldown/binding-win32-x64-msvc1.0.3indirect
npm@rolldown/pluginutils1.0.1indirect
npm@tybys/wasm-util0.10.2indirect
npmdetect-libc2.1.2indirect
npmfdir6.5.0indirect
npmfsevents2.3.3indirect
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
npmnanoid3.3.16indirect
npmpicocolors1.1.1indirect
npmpicomatch4.0.4indirect
npmpostcss8.5.25indirect
npmprettier3.6.2indirect
npmrolldown1.0.3indirect
npmsource-map-js1.2.1indirect
npmtinyglobby0.2.17indirect
npmtslib2.8.1indirect
npmvite8.0.16indirect
Packagistlarastan/larastanindirect
Packagistlaravel/pintindirect
Packagistnunomaduro/collisionindirect
Packagistorchestra/testbenchindirect
Packagistpestphp/pestindirect
Packagistpestphp/pest-plugin-archindirect
Packagistpestphp/pest-plugin-laravelindirect
Packagistpestphp/pest-plugin-livewireindirect
Packagistphpindirect
Packagistphpstan/extension-installerindirect
Packagistphpstan/phpstan-deprecation-rulesindirect
Packagistphpstan/phpstan-phpunitindirect
Packagistrector/rectorindirect
Dependency advisories 1

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 47 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 1 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct. 16 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
nanoid3.3.16indirecthigh15.1.6

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 statisticsPackagist.