Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-12 01:37 UTC

defstudio / telegraph

Telegraph is a Laravel package for fluently interacting with Telegram Bots

PHPMIT★ 822 stars⑂ 141 forkssince Nov 2021View on GitHub ↗

defstudio/telegraph holds a health index of 34 out of 100, placing it in the At Risk band. It scores highest on Vitality (90/100) and lowest on Security (34/100). It was last updated 1 day ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

34
overall / 100
At Risk

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.

34
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 71 is calibrated to 84 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02). High-Risk Jurisdiction Policy applies a 75% multiplier to weighted overall health and gives it an At Risk ceiling of 34.

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/telegraphv1.72.121,0311824 days agolaraveltelegraphdefstudio

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

90Excellent · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 1 days ago
19.4/36Commit cadence — 28/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 194 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 26 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year194
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push1
active_weeks_last_year28

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 100 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 4 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~22.4 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count100
latest_release_tagv1.72.1
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release4
mean_days_between_releases22.4
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?

68Good · 17% of overall
How it's scored
47.3/60Stars — 822 stars
17.9/25Forks — 141 forks
4.7/15Watchers — 8 watchers
Inputs used
forks141
stars822
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)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges7
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesshields.io
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
57.6/80Monthly downloads — 21,031 downloads/month across packagist
3.2/20Registry dependents — 2 packages depend on it
Inputs used
packagesdefstudio/telegraph
dependents2
ecosystemspackagist
total_downloads378,840
monthly_downloads21,031
unverified_packages_excluded—

Sustainability & Governance

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

72Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
7.5/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 66% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 57 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 19 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled57
top_contributor_share0.665
How it's scored
41.7/42Issue resolution — 99% of issues closed
25.5/30PR acceptance — 297/349 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — 0/1 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
7.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 7/12 approved changesets -- score normalized to 5
Inputs used
merged_prs297
open_issues2
closed_issues282
prs_merged_7d1
prs_decided_7d2
prs_merged_30d2
prs_decided_30d3
issue_closed_ratio0.993
closed_unmerged_prs52
first_time_authors_30d1
first_time_prs_merged_30d0
first_time_prs_decided_30d1
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
20/20Verified domain
11.7/25Owner reach — 41 followers of defstudio
24/25Track record — 53 public repos, account ~5 yr old
Inputs used
followers41
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedyes
owner_logindefstudio
public_repos53
account_age_days2,073

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on packagist
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 4 days ago
20/20Version history — 182 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesdefstudio/telegraph
ecosystemspackagist
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish4

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

86Excellent · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 5 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — .php-cs-fixer.dist.php, phpstan.neon
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
16/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 6 out of 7 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 8
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

85Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 7 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicslaravel, php, telegram-bot, api, bot, sdk, telegram
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?

34At Risk · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — no data
2/2.5CI-Tests — 6 out of 7 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
3.8/7.5Code-Review — Found 7/12 approved changesets -- score normalized to 5
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 19 contributing companies or organizations
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 — 26 commit(s) and 1 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_evaluated12
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive6
scorecard_aggregate6.5
high_risk_jurisdiction_cap34
high_risk_jurisdiction_multiplier75
security_posture_after_multiplier49
security_posture_before_jurisdiction65
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, Dangerous-Workflow, Packaging, Pinned-Dependencies, Signed-Releases, Token-Permissions. Remaining weights renormalized. High-Risk Jurisdiction Policy applies a 75% multiplier and gives Security posture an At risk ceiling of 34.

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.

53Moderate · 4% of overall
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructions — .github/copilot-instructions.md
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
22.9/40Legible commit history — 43 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.43
agent_instruction_files.github/copilot-instructions.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes7,650
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — .php-cs-fixer.dist.php, phpstan.neon
0/11Static type checking
0/10Reproducible environment
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
5/8Automated maintenance — dependency automation configured, none observed in the sampled commits
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
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0
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 — 0/375 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePHP
largest_source_bytes27,243
source_files_sampled375
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

822GitHub stars
57contributors
194commits, last 12 months
1days since last push
100releases
1bus factor
2open issues
Packagistpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • No resolved dependencies carried a version and a supported ecosystem

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 141 ⇿
0Stars
141Forks
94Releases

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.

025507510012515013962022-022024-042026-05
Major 0Minor 38Patch 56

Each point covers 4 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 6.5 / 10
6.5aggregate

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 · 2026-09-12 01:37 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
n/aBranch-Protectioninternal error: error during branchesHandler.setup: internal error: some github tokens can't read classic branch protection rules: https://github.com/ossf/scorecard-action/blob/main/docs/authentication/fine-grained-auth-token.md
8CI-Tests6 out of 7 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 8
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
5Code-ReviewFound 7/12 approved changesets -- score normalized to 5
10Contributorsproject has 19 contributing companies or organizations
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained26 commit(s) and 1 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 5
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Packagistilluminate/contracts^10.0 | ^11.0 | ^12.0 | ^13.0composer.json
Packagistilluminate/http^10.0 | ^11.0 | ^12.0 | ^13.0composer.json
Packagistilluminate/notifications^10.0 | ^11.0 | ^12.0 | ^13.0composer.json
Packagistilluminate/support^10.0 | ^11.0 | ^12.0 | ^13.0composer.json
Packagistspatie/laravel-package-tools^1.12.1composer.json
All dependencies 22

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 5 direct and 17 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
Packagistilluminate/contracts—direct
Packagistilluminate/http—direct
Packagistilluminate/notifications—direct
Packagistilluminate/support—direct
Packagistspatie/laravel-package-tools—direct
Packagistdefstudio/pest-plugin-laravel-expectations—indirect
Packagistext-sqlite3—indirect
Packagistfriendsofphp/php-cs-fixer—indirect
Packagistguzzlehttp/guzzle—indirect
Packagistlarastan/larastan—indirect
Packagistnunomaduro/collision—indirect
Packagistorchestra/testbench—indirect
Packagistpestphp/pest—indirect
Packagistpestphp/pest-plugin-laravel—indirect
Packagistphp—indirect
Packagistphpstan/extension-installer—indirect
Packagistphpstan/phpstan-deprecation-rules—indirect
Packagistphpstan/phpstan-phpunit—indirect
Packagistspatie/laravel-ray—indirect
Packagistspatie/pest-plugin-snapshots—indirect
Packagistspatie/pest-plugin-test-time—indirect
Packagistspatie/x-ray—indirect
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 v0.34.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

How one result sits in the wider record: aggregate statistics — Packagist.