Public record
Software health reportschema 0.30.0 · metrics 2.5.0 · 2026-08-03 19:36 UTC

laravel / head

Head and metadata management for Laravel applications

PHPMIT★ 64 stars⑂ 0 forkssince Jun 2026View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryhow this is determined

laravel/head holds a health index of 57 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Vitality (70/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (22/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

57
overall / 100
Moderate

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.

57
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 55 is calibrated to 57 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

LaravelOrganization
10,935 followers139 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/headv0.1.02,767113 days agometadataseotagslaravelhead

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

70Good · 21% of overall

Development activity

60Moderate
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
7.6/36Commit cadence — 11/52 weeks with commits
16.3/18Commit volume — 65 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — project was created within the last 90 days. Please review its contents carefully
Inputs used
commits_last_year65
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year11

Release discipline

84Excellent
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 1 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 6 days ago
12.6/27Release cadence — cadence unknown (single release)
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count1
latest_release_tagv0.1.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release6
mean_days_between_releases—
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?

56Moderate · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

29At Risk
How it's scored
29.2/60Stars — 64 stars
0/25Forks — 0 forks
0/15Watchers — 0 watchers
Inputs used
forks0
stars64
watchers0
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

Ecosystem adoption (downloads)

49Weak
How it's scored
45.9/80Monthly downloads — 2,767 downloads/month across packagist
3.2/20Registry dependents — 2 packages depend on it
Inputs used
packageslaravel/head
dependents2
ecosystemspackagist
total_downloads2,767
monthly_downloads2,767

Sustainability & Governance

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

51Moderate · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

18Critical
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0.7/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 97% of commits
2.7/13.5Contributor breadth — 2 contributors
6/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled2
top_contributor_share0.969

Issue & PR responsiveness

34At Risk
How it's scored
0/42Issue resolution — 0% of issues closed
30/30PR acceptance — 5/5 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs5
open_issues2
closed_issues0
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d3
prs_decided_30d3
issue_closed_ratio0
closed_unmerged_prs0
first_time_authors_30d0
first_time_prs_merged_30d0
first_time_prs_decided_30d0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): newcomer_pr_acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.

Ownership & stewardship

80Excellent
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain
25/25Owner reach — 10,935 followers of laravel
25/25Track record — 139 public repos, account ~15 yr old
Inputs used
followers10,935
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified—
owner_loginlaravel
public_repos139
account_age_days5,478

Package maintenance

84Excellent
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on packagist
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 13 days ago
4/20Version history — 1 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packageslaravel/head
ecosystemspackagist
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish13

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

61Moderate · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

68Good
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 4 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 4 out of 4 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

50Moderate
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
0/10Topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics—
has_wikiyes
homepage—
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

41Weak · 16% of overall

Security posture

41Weak
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 — 4 out of 4 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 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
1.5/2.5Contributors — project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
0/10Dangerous-Workflow — no data
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
0/7.5Maintained — project was created within the last 90 days. Please review its contents carefully
0/5Packaging — no data
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — no data
0/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
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_aggregate4.1
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.

22At Risk · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

4Critical
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
4.1/40Legible commit history — 5 of 65 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
legible_history_share0.077
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

24At Risk
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
0/11Static type checking
0/10Reproducible environment
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 65
0/8Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — no data
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles—
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
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.

Code legibility for models

55Moderate
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — PHP without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/93 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePHP
largest_source_bytes20,854
source_files_sampled93
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

64GitHub stars
2contributors
65commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
1releases
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

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.1 / 10
4.1aggregate

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 · 2026-08-03 19:36 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
3Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
10CI-Tests4 out of 4 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 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
6Contributorsproject has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
0Maintainedproject was created within the last 90 days. Please review its contents carefully
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 4
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Packagistilluminate/contracts^13.17.0composer.json
Packagistilluminate/routing^13.17.0composer.json
Packagistilluminate/support^13.17.0composer.json
Packagistilluminate/view^13.17.0composer.json
All dependencies 12

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 4 direct and 8 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
Packagistilluminate/contracts—direct
Packagistilluminate/routing—direct
Packagistilluminate/support—direct
Packagistilluminate/view—direct
Packagistinertiajs/inertia-laravel—indirect
Packagistlaravel/pint—indirect
Packagistlivewire/livewire—indirect
Packagistorchestra/testbench—indirect
Packagistpestphp/pest—indirect
Packagistphp—indirect
Packagistphpstan/phpstan—indirect
Packagistrector/rector—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

Related records

Inspected repositories sharing catalogue tags or ecosystems with laravel/head. Read them side by side →

84Yoast/Yoast-SEO-for-TYPO3Yoast SEO plugin for TYPO3Excellent81nystudio107/craft-seomaticSEOmatic facilitates modern SEO best practices & implementation for Craft CMS 3. It is a turnkey SEO system that is comprehensive, powerful, and flexible.Excellent78spatie/laravel-sitemapCreate and generate sitemaps with easeGood92oekazuma/svelte-meta-tagsSvelte Meta Tags provides components designed to help you manage SEO for Svelte projects.Excellent89Borewit/music-metadataMetadata parser for audio and video media files. Supports file and stream inputs in Node.js and browser environments, extracting format, tag, and duration information.Excellent87TagStudioDev/TagStudioA User-Focused Photo & File Management SystemExcellent

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 v2.5.0, schema v0.30.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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