Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-12 03:12 UTC

laravel / dusk

Laravel Dusk provides simple end-to-end testing and browser automation.

PHPMIT★ 1,945 stars⑂ 332 forkssince Dec 2016View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryCommand-line toolhow this is determined

laravel/dusk holds a health index of 90 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Community & Adoption (90/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (45/100). It was last updated 16 days ago. 2 contributors account for most of its recent work.

90
overall / 100
Excellent

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.

90
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 76 is calibrated to 90 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

LaravelOrganization · verified domain
11,056 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/duskv8.6.01,158,635184149 days agotestingwebdriverlaravel

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

70Good · 21% of overall
How it's scored
28.8/36Push recency — last push 16 days ago
13.2/36Commit cadence — 19/52 weeks with commits
14.1/18Commit volume — 36 commits in the last year
6/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 8 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
commits_last_year36
human_commit_share0.94
days_since_last_push16
active_weeks_last_year19
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 100 releases published
27/36Release recency — latest release 143 days ago
19.8/27Release cadence — a release every ~47.4 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count100
latest_release_tagv8.6.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release143
mean_days_between_releases47.4
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?

90Excellent · 17% of overall
How it's scored
53.3/60Stars — 1,945 stars
21/25Forks — 332 forks
9.2/15Watchers — 46 watchers
Inputs used
forks332
stars1,945
watchers46
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

92Excellent
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized 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 downloads — 1,158,635 downloads/month across packagist
16.5/20Registry dependents — 294 packages depend on it
Inputs used
packageslaravel/dusk
dependents294
ecosystemspackagist
total_downloads42,257,610
monthly_downloads1,158,635
unverified_packages_excluded—

Sustainability & Governance

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

83Excellent · 23% of overall
How it's scored
25.2/54Bus factor — 2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
15.3/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 32% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 99 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 40 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor2
contributors_sampled99
top_contributor_share0.322
How it's scored
0/42Issue resolution — no issues or no data
22.3/30PR acceptance — 514/693 decided PRs merged
13/13Newcomer PR acceptance — 1/1 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
7.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 12/21 approved changesets -- score normalized to 5
Inputs used
merged_prs514
open_issues0
closed_issues0
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d2
prs_decided_30d2
issue_closed_ratio—
closed_unmerged_prs179
first_time_authors_30d1
first_time_prs_merged_30d1
first_time_prs_decided_30d1
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Issue resolution. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
20/20Verified domain
25/25Owner reach — 11,056 followers of laravel
25/25Track record — 141 public repos, account ~15 yr old
Inputs used
followers11,056
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedyes
owner_loginlaravel
public_repos141
account_age_days5,517

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on packagist
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 149 days ago
20/20Version history — 184 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packageslaravel/dusk
ecosystemspackagist
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish149

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

70Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 8 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 22 out of 22 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
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://laravel.com/docs/dusk
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 3 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicslaravel, testing, webdriver
has_wikino
homepagehttps://laravel.com/docs/dusk
docs_sitehttps://laravel.com/docs/dusk
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

74Good · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
2.2/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
2.5/2.5CI-Tests — 22 out of 22 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
3.8/7.5Code-Review — Found 12/21 approved changesets -- score normalized to 5
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 40 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
4.5/7.5Maintained — 8 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 6
0/5Packaging — no data
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — no data
2/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 4
5/5Security-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_aggregate6.8
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
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories0
affected_packages0
assessed_packages1
unassessed_packages18
affected_by_severitynone
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 1 resolved dependencies against OSV. 18 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.

45Weak · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
32.3/40Legible commit history — 57 of 94 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.606
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 environment — lockfile
6/10Demonstrated agent practice — 3 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
8/8Automated maintenance — 6 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — no 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_share0.03
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0.06
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
53.9/55Manageable file sizes — 1/48 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePHP
largest_source_bytes87,533
source_files_sampled48
oversized_source_files1

Key facts

1,945GitHub stars
99contributors
36commits, last 12 months
16days since last push
100releases
2bus factor
0open 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 ★ / 332 ⇿
0Stars
332Forks
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.

0125250375312222017-012021-102026-08
Major 2Minor 40Patch 58

Each point covers 9 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 6.8 / 10
6.8aggregate

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 03:11 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
3Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
10CI-Tests22 out of 22 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
5Code-ReviewFound 12/21 approved changesets -- score normalized to 5
10Contributorsproject has 40 contributing companies or organizations
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
6Maintained8 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 6
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
n/aPinned-Dependenciesno dependencies found
4SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 4
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^7.5|^8.0composer.json
Packagistilluminate/console^10.0|^11.0|^12.0|^13.0composer.json
Packagistilluminate/support^10.0|^11.0|^12.0|^13.0composer.json
Packagistsymfony/console^6.2|^7.0|^8.0composer.json
Packagistsymfony/finder^6.2|^7.0|^8.0composer.json
Packagistsymfony/process^6.2|^7.0|^8.0composer.json
Packagistvlucas/phpdotenv^5.2composer.json
npmjquery^3.7.1package.json
All dependencies 19

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 8 direct and 11 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
npmjquery3.7.1direct
Packagistguzzlehttp/guzzle—direct
Packagistilluminate/console—direct
Packagistilluminate/support—direct
Packagistsymfony/console—direct
Packagistsymfony/finder—direct
Packagistsymfony/process—direct
Packagistvlucas/phpdotenv—direct
Packagistext-json—indirect
Packagistext-zip—indirect
Packagistlaravel/framework—indirect
Packagistmockery/mockery—indirect
Packagistorchestra/testbench-core—indirect
Packagistphp—indirect
Packagistphp-webdriver/webdriver—indirect
Packagistphpstan/phpstan—indirect
Packagistphpunit/phpunit—indirect
Packagistpsy/psysh—indirect
Packagistsymfony/yaml—indirect
Dependency advisories 0

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 1 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct. 18 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list.

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 — Packagist.