# ip2location/ip2location-laravel — health index 48/100 (Weak)

> Inspection of the public repository ip2location/ip2location-laravel by inspect.software. It holds a health index of 48 out of 100, placing it in the Weak band. The index is a signal derived from publicly visible practice, not a warranty, a security audit, or an endorsement, and it is independent of payment.

- Repository: https://github.com/ip2location/ip2location-laravel
- Report page: https://inspect.software/software/ip2location/ip2location-laravel
- Full JSON report: https://inspect.software/api/repositories/ip2location/ip2location-laravel/report
- Badge: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/inspect-software/badges/main/v1/i/ip2location/ip2location-laravel.svg
- Inspected: 2026-08-21
- Methodology: metrics 2.10.0, report schema 0.34.0 (https://inspect.software/methodology.md)

## Category summary

| Category | Weight | Index | Band |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vitality | 21% | 56/100 | Moderate |
| Community & Adoption | 17% | 50/100 | Moderate |
| Sustainability & Governance | 23% | 64/100 | Moderate |
| Engineering Quality | 19% | 44/100 | Weak |
| Security | 16% | 27/100 | At Risk |
| AI Readiness | 4% | 29/100 | At Risk |

The weighted overall 49 is calibrated to 48 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

## Repository facts

| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Description | The IP2Location Laravel extension allows users to retrieve geolocation data from an IP address using the IP2Location database, including country, region, city, coordinates, ZIP code, time zone, ISP, domain name, connection type, area code, weather information, mobile country code (MCC), mobile network code (MNC), mobile brand, elevation, usage type |
| Classification | library |
| Homepage | http://www.ip2location.com |
| Primary language | PHP |
| License | MIT |
| Stars | 79 |
| Forks | 15 |
| Created | 2017-01-25 |
| Last push | 2026-08-21 |
| Latest release | 1.3.4 |
| Commits (last year) | 2 |
| Bus factor | 1 |
| Topics | geolocation, ip-database, ip-lookup, ip2location, laravel, ip-geolocation |

## Published packages

| Registry | Package | Latest | Monthly downloads |
|---|---|---|---|
| packagist | ip2location/ip2location-laravel | 1.3.3 | 14,561 |

## Vitality — 56/100 (Moderate)

Is the project alive — is code being written and are releases shipping? Weight: 21% of the overall index.

### Development activity — 42/100 (Weak)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Push recency | met | 36 / 36 | last push 0 days ago |
| Commit cadence | partial | 1.4 / 36 | 2/52 weeks with commits |
| Commit volume | partial | 4.3 / 18 | 2 commits in the last year |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained | not met | 0 / 10 | 1 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0 |

### Release discipline — 76/100 (Good)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ships releases | met | 27 / 27 | 11 releases published |
| Release recency | met | 36 / 36 | latest release 0 days ago |
| Release cadence | partial | 5.4 / 27 | a release every ~388.3 days |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases | excluded | 0 / 10 | no releases found |

### Abandonment — 100/100 (Exceptional)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Project is still maintained | met | 100 / 100 | last human commit 1 days ago |

## Community & Adoption — 50/100 (Moderate)

Does the project have users, downloads, attention, and a welcoming setup for contributors? Weight: 17% of the overall index.

### Popularity & adoption — 45/100 (Weak)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stars | partial | 30.7 / 60 | 79 stars |
| Forks | partial | 9.6 / 25 | 15 forks |
| Watchers | partial | 4.3 / 15 | 7 watchers |

### Community health — 50/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| README | met | 22.5 / 22.5 | — |
| License | met | 22.5 / 22.5 | recognized license (MIT) |
| CONTRIBUTING guide | not met | 0 / 18 | — |
| Code of conduct | not met | 0 / 13.5 | — |
| Issue template | not met | 0 / 7.2 | — |
| PR template | not met | 0 / 6.3 | — |

### Ecosystem adoption (downloads) — 60/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Monthly downloads | partial | 55.5 / 80 | 14,561 downloads/month across packagist |
| Registry dependents | partial | 4 / 20 | 3 packages depend on it |

## Sustainability & Governance — 64/100 (Moderate)

Will the project survive its people — bus factor, responsiveness, who backs it, and package upkeep? Weight: 23% of the overall index.

### Maintainer resilience (bus factor) — 25/100 (At Risk)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bus factor | partial | 9 / 54 | 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits |
| Commit distribution | partial | 4.9 / 22.5 | top contributor authored 78% of commits |
| Contributor breadth | partial | 8.1 / 13.5 | 6 contributors |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors | partial | 3 / 10 | project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3 |

### Issue & PR responsiveness — 84/100 (Excellent)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue resolution | met | 42 / 42 | 100% of issues closed |
| PR acceptance | met | 30 / 30 | 3/3 decided PRs merged |
| Newcomer PR acceptance | excluded | 0 / 13 | no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review | partial | 1.5 / 15 | Found 3/27 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1 |

### Ownership & stewardship — 68/100 (Good)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership backing | met | 30 / 30 | organization-owned |
| Verified domain | excluded | 0 / 20 | verified-domain status not read for this organization |
| Owner reach | partial | 10.9 / 25 | 32 followers of ip2location |
| Track record | partial | 13.9 / 25 | 130 public repos, account ~0 yr old |

### Package maintenance — 91/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Published & resolvable | met | 25 / 25 | 1 package(s) on packagist |
| Publish recency | partial | 26 / 35 | latest publish 259 days ago |
| Version history | met | 20 / 20 | 10 published versions |
| Not deprecated | met | 20 / 20 | active, not deprecated or yanked |

## Engineering Quality — 44/100 (Weak)

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place? Weight: 19% of the overall index.

### Engineering practices — 24/100 (At Risk)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| CI workflows | not met | 0 / 24 | — |
| Tests present | met | 24 / 24 | — |
| Linter config | not met | 0 / 16 | — |
| Pre-commit hooks | not met | 0 / 9.6 | — |
| .editorconfig | not met | 0 / 6.4 | — |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests | not met | 0 / 20 | 0 out of 3 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0 |

### Documentation — 75/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| README | met | 30 / 30 | — |
| Documentation directory | not met | 0 / 25 | — |
| Documentation / homepage site | met | 15 / 15 | http://www.ip2location.com |
| Repository description | met | 10 / 10 | — |
| Topics | met | 10 / 10 | 6 topics |
| Wiki | met | 10 / 10 | — |

## Security — 27/100 (At Risk)

Are visible security and supply-chain practices strong, with no malicious dependency and no unresolved high-risk jurisdiction exposure? Weight: 16% of the overall index.

### Security posture — 27/100 (At Risk)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Dangerous-Workflow, Packaging, Pinned-Dependencies, Signed-Releases, Token-Permissions. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Binary-Artifacts | met | 7.5 / 7.5 | no binaries found in the repo |
| Branch-Protection | not met | 0 / 7.5 | branch protection not enabled on development/release branches |
| CI-Tests | not met | 0 / 2.5 | 0 out of 3 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0 |
| CII-Best-Practices | not met | 0 / 2.5 | no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected |
| Code-Review | partial | 0.8 / 7.5 | Found 3/27 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1 |
| Contributors | partial | 0.8 / 2.5 | project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3 |
| Dangerous-Workflow | excluded | 0 / 10 | no workflows found |
| Dependency-Update-Tool | not met | 0 / 7.5 | no update tool detected |
| Fuzzing | not met | 0 / 5 | project is not fuzzed |
| License | met | 2.5 / 2.5 | license file detected |
| Maintained | not met | 0 / 7.5 | 1 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0 |
| Packaging | excluded | 0 / 5 | packaging workflow not detected |
| Pinned-Dependencies | excluded | 0 / 5 | no dependencies found |
| SAST | not met | 0 / 5 | SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0 |
| Security-Policy | not met | 0 / 5 | security policy file not detected |
| Signed-Releases | excluded | 0 / 7.5 | no releases found |
| Token-Permissions | excluded | 0 / 7.5 | No tokens found |
| Vulnerabilities | met | 7.5 / 7.5 | 0 existing vulnerabilities detected |

### High-Risk Jurisdiction Exposure — 100/100 (Exceptional)

Only high-confidence self-published location evidence affects this multiplier. Ambiguous matches are review-only; country evidence is not proof of nationality, citizenship, legal registration, malicious intent, or sanctions status.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Policy exposure multiplier | met | 100 / 100 | no confirmed policy-scope location match |

## AI Readiness — 29/100 (At Risk)

How well is the repo equipped to be developed and maintained with AI coding agents? Carries a deliberately small weight: agent tooling is a real maintenance signal, but its absence must never gate the top of the scale (calibration saturates at raw 91, so 100/100 remains reachable with AI Readiness at zero).

### Agent context & guidance — 22/100 (At Risk)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agent instructions | not met | 0 / 45 | no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules |
| Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) | met | 15 / 15 | llms.txt served by the project website (https://www.ip2location.com/llms.txt) |
| Legible commit history | partial | 6.5 / 40 | 5 of 41 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body) |

### Verify loop (build / test / typecheck) — 24/100 (At Risk)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| One-command bootstrap | not met | 0 / 18 | — |
| Automated tests | met | 22 / 22 | — |
| Lint / format config | not met | 0 / 11 | — |
| Static type checking | not met | 0 / 11 | — |
| Reproducible environment | not met | 0 / 10 | — |
| Demonstrated agent practice | not met | 0 / 10 | no agent-authored commits among the last 41 |
| Automated maintenance | not met | 0 / 8 | no automated dependency updates observed |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies | excluded | 0 / 10 | no dependencies found |

### Code legibility for models — 55/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Type-checkable code | not met | 0 / 45 | PHP without a type-check config |
| Manageable file sizes | met | 55 / 55 | 0/5 source files over 60KB |

## 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

## What this report is

inspect.software measures public repositories against a single published, versioned methodology and reports the result as a 1–100 health index. Findings are signals derived from what is visible in public repository data — they are not a security audit, a warranty, or an endorsement, and no result depends on payment.

- Methodology, formulas and weights: https://inspect.software/methodology.md
- What a result does and does not claim: https://inspect.software/wiki/signals-not-warranties.md
- Rating bands: https://inspect.software/wiki/scoring-bands.md
- Corrections: https://inspect.software/contact.md
- Index of all documents: https://inspect.software/llms.txt