Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-27 18:42 UTC

laravel / boost

Laravel-focused MCP server for augmenting your AI powered local development experience.

PHP · BladeMIT★ 3,596 stars⑂ 365 forkssince Jul 2025View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryMCP serverhow this is determined

laravel/boost holds a health index of 95 out of 100, placing it in the Exceptional band. It scores highest on Vitality (99/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (42/100). It was last updated today. 2 contributors account for most of its recent work.

95
overall / 100
Exceptional

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.

95
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 82 is calibrated to 95 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

LaravelOrganization · verified domain
11,019 followers141 public repossince Aug 2011

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
Packagistlaravel/boostv2.7.05,027,9151010 days agolaraveldevai

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

99Exceptional · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 0 days ago
34.6/36Commit cadence50/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume514 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained30 commit(s) and 9 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year514
human_commit_share0.96
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year50

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases100 releases published
36/36Release recencylatest release 0 days ago
27/27Release cadencea release every ~5.5 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count100
latest_release_tagv2.7.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release0
mean_days_between_releases5.5
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?

92Excellent · 17% of overall
How it's scored
57.7/60Stars3,596 stars
21.3/25Forks365 forks
8.1/15Watchers30 watchers
Inputs used
forks365
stars3,596
watchers30
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

92Excellent
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (MIT)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
6.3/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges4
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_servicesgithub.com, shields.io
has_pull_request_templateyes
How it's scored
80/80Monthly downloads5,027,915 downloads/month across packagist
17.7/20Registry dependents455 packages depend on it
Inputs used
packageslaravel/boost
dependents455
ecosystemspackagist
total_downloads30,606,445
monthly_downloads5,027,915
unverified_packages_excluded

Sustainability & Governance

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

84Excellent · 23% of overall
How it's scored
25.2/54Bus factor2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
12.8/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 43% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth99 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 19 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor2
contributors_sampled99
top_contributor_share0.429
How it's scored
40/42Issue resolution95% of issues closed
21.5/30PR acceptance419/586 decided PRs merged
8.7/13Newcomer PR acceptance8/12 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
10.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 22/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 7
Inputs used
merged_prs419
open_issues18
closed_issues362
prs_merged_7d5
prs_decided_7d18
prs_merged_30d37
prs_decided_30d58
issue_closed_ratio0.953
closed_unmerged_prs167
first_time_authors_30d10
first_time_prs_merged_30d8
first_time_prs_decided_30d12
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backingorganization-owned
20/20Verified domain
25/25Owner reach11,019 followers of laravel
25/25Track record141 public repos, account ~15 yr old
Inputs used
followers11,019
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedyes
owner_loginlaravel
public_repos141
account_age_days5,502

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable1 package(s) on packagist
35/35Publish recencylatest publish 0 days ago
20/20Version history101 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packageslaravel/boost
ecosystemspackagist
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish0

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

69Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows7 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
18/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests21 out of 22 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
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage sitehttps://laravel.com/docs/13.x/boost
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics3 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsai, dev, laravel
has_wikino
homepagehttps://laravel.com/docs/13.x/boost
docs_sitehttps://laravel.com/docs/13.x/boost
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

71Good · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
2.2/7.5Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
2.2/2.5CI-Tests21 out of 22 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
5.2/7.5Code-ReviewFound 22/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 7
2.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 19 contributing companies or organizations
0/10Dangerous-Workflowno data
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5Licenselicense file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained30 commit(s) and 9 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
5/5Security-Policysecurity policy file 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_aggregate7.1
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.

42Weak · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
38.3/40Legible commit history69 of 96 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.719
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
0/10Reproducible environment
10/10Demonstrated agent practice6 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
8/8Automated maintenance4 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_share0.06
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share0.04
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 sizes0/281 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePHP
largest_source_bytes47,876
source_files_sampled281
oversized_source_files0
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto)not applicable to this kind of software
20/20MCP server
0/40Runnable examples
Inputs used
example_dirs
has_mcp_signalyes
api_schema_files
interfaces_expected_of
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto). Remaining weights renormalized.

Key facts

3,596GitHub stars
99contributors
514commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
100releases
2bus factor
18open issues
Packagistpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • First-time contributor figures cover 12 of 21 authors (cap 12)
  • No resolved dependencies carried a version and a supported ecosystem

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 365 ⇿
0Stars
365Forks
100Releases

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.

0125250375363312025-082026-022026-08
Major 1Minor 15Patch 84
OpenSSF Scorecard 7.1 / 10
7.1aggregate

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 · 2026-08-27 18:41 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
3Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
9CI-Tests21 out of 22 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
7Code-ReviewFound 22/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 7
10Contributorsproject has 19 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 9 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
10Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
n/aToken-PermissionsNo tokens found
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 8
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Packagistguzzlehttp/guzzle^7.9|^8.0composer.json
Packagistilluminate/console^11.45.3|^12.41.1|^13.0composer.json
Packagistilluminate/contracts^11.45.3|^12.41.1|^13.0composer.json
Packagistilluminate/routing^11.45.3|^12.41.1|^13.0composer.json
Packagistilluminate/support^11.45.3|^12.41.1|^13.0composer.json
Packagistlaravel/mcp^0.7.1|^0.8.0|^0.9.0composer.json
Packagistlaravel/prompts^0.3.10composer.json
Packagistlaravel/roster^1.0.0composer.json
All dependencies 15

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 8 direct and 7 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
Packagistguzzlehttp/guzzledirect
Packagistilluminate/consoledirect
Packagistilluminate/contractsdirect
Packagistilluminate/routingdirect
Packagistilluminate/supportdirect
Packagistlaravel/mcpdirect
Packagistlaravel/promptsdirect
Packagistlaravel/rosterdirect
Packagistlaravel/pintindirect
Packagistmockery/mockeryindirect
Packagistorchestra/testbenchindirect
Packagistpestphp/pestindirect
Packagistphpindirect
Packagistphpstan/phpstanindirect
Packagistrector/rectorindirect
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 statisticsPackagist.