Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-10-23 19:21 UTC

folkloreinc / laravel-image

PHPMIT★ 4 stars⑂ 1 forksince Apr 2021View on GitHub ↗

folkloreinc/laravel-image 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 Community & Adoption (39/100). 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

Folklore Inc.Organization · verified domain
1 follower61 public repossince Nov 2012

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
npmlaravel-imagepoints to another repo — not scored1.0.32142969 days ago—
Packagistfolklore/laravel-imagev2.0.0-alpha.12,33926 days agoimagethumbnailresizecdnlaravelcroppresetsresponsive-images

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 0 days ago
2.8/36Commit cadence — 4/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 117 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 30 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year117
human_commit_share0.93
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year4

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 2 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 6 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~9.2 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count2
latest_release_tagv2.0.0-alpha.1
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release6
mean_days_between_releases9.2
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?

39Weak · 17% of overall
How it's scored
7.7/60Stars — 4 stars
0/25Forks — 1 forks
0/15Watchers — 2 watchers
Inputs used
forks1
stars4
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_badges3
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesgithub.com, poser.pugx.org
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
44.9/80Monthly downloads — 2,339 downloads/month across packagist
2/20Registry dependents — 1 packages depend on it
Inputs used
packagesfolklore/laravel-image
dependents1
ecosystemspackagist
total_downloads3,413
monthly_downloads2,339
unverified_packages_excluded—

Sustainability & Governance

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

68Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
11.2/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 50% of commits
5.4/13.5Contributor breadth — 4 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 7 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled4
top_contributor_share0.5
How it's scored
38.9/42Issue resolution — 93% of issues closed
28.2/30PR acceptance — 48/51 decided PRs merged
12.7/13Newcomer PR acceptance — 41/42 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/10 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs48
open_issues3
closed_issues38
prs_merged_7d6
prs_decided_7d6
prs_merged_30d41
prs_decided_30d42
issue_closed_ratio0.927
closed_unmerged_prs3
first_time_authors_30d2
first_time_prs_merged_30d41
first_time_prs_decided_30d42
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
20/20Verified domain
2.2/25Owner reach — 1 followers of folkloreinc
25/25Track record — 61 public repos, account ~13 yr old
Inputs used
followers1
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedyes
owner_loginfolkloreinc
public_repos61
account_age_days5,082
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on packagist
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 6 days ago
12/20Version history — 2 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesfolklore/laravel-image
ecosystemspackagist
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish6

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

70Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 4 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — eslint.config.mjs
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 10 out of 10 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
0/10Repository description
0/10Topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics—
has_wikiyes
homepage—
docs_site—
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionno

Security

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

65Good · 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
2.5/2.5CI-Tests — 10 out of 10 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-Review — Found 0/10 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 7 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 — 30 commit(s) and 30 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
2/5Security-Policy — security policy file 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_aggregate5.6
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
25/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — no indirect dependency carries a known advisory
0/40No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories0
affected_packages0
assessed_packages13
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severitynone
direct_affected_packages0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched the npm:laravel-image@1.0.3 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 13 packages. 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.

66Good · 4% of overall
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructions — AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
38.4/40Legible commit history — 67 of 93 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.72
agent_instruction_filesAGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes6,699
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — eslint.config.mjs
0/11Static type checking
0/10Reproducible environment
10/10Demonstrated agent practice — 33 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
8/8Automated maintenance — 7 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
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_share0.33
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0.07
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 — 0/103 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePHP
largest_source_bytes19,216
source_files_sampled103
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

4GitHub stars
4contributors
117commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
2releases
1bus factor
3open issues
npm, Packagistpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • npm package 'laravel-image' points at a different repository (https://github.com/Folkloreatelier/laravel-image); excluded from ecosystem scoring

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.6 / 10
5.6aggregate

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 · 2026-10-23 19:20 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
0Code-ReviewFound 0/10 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
10Contributorsproject has 7 contributing companies or organizations
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 30 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
4Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
n/aToken-PermissionsNo tokens found
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 7
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Packagistilluminate/support^9.0|^10.0|^11.0|^12.0|^13.0composer.json
Packagistguzzlehttp/guzzle^6.3.1|^7.0.1|^8.0.0composer.json
Packagistimagine/imagine^1.2.4composer.json
Packagistcontao/imagine-svg^1.0composer.json
npmlodash^4.17.4package.json
npmparse-filepath^1.0.2package.json
npmurl-parse^1.2.0package.json
All dependencies 28

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 7 direct and 21 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
npmlodash^4.17.4direct
npmparse-filepath^1.0.2direct
npmurl-parse^1.2.0direct
Packagistcontao/imagine-svg—direct
Packagistguzzlehttp/guzzle—direct
Packagistilluminate/support—direct
Packagistimagine/imagine—direct
npm@babel/core^7.26.0indirect
npm@babel/preset-env^7.26.0indirect
npm@eslint/js^10.0.0indirect
npm@rollup/plugin-babel^7.1.0indirect
npm@rollup/plugin-commonjs^29.0.3indirect
npm@rollup/plugin-node-resolve^16.0.0indirect
npmbabel-jest^30.0.0indirect
npmeslint^10.0.0indirect
npmeslint-config-prettier^10.0.0indirect
npmglobals^17.13.0indirect
npmjest^30.0.0indirect
npmprettier^3.0.0indirect
npmrollup^4.9.6indirect
Packagistfakerphp/faker—indirect
Packagistlarastan/larastan—indirect
Packagistlaravel/pint—indirect
Packagistleague/flysystem-aws-s3-v3—indirect
Packagistmockery/mockery—indirect
Packagistorchestra/testbench—indirect
Packagistphp—indirect
Packagistphpunit/phpunit—indirect
Dependency advisories 0

Installing npm:laravel-image@1.0.3 pulls in 13 packages, direct and transitive: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct dependencies.

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 — npm, Packagist.