Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-27 16:58 UTC

laravel / sanctum

Laravel Sanctum provides a featherweight authentication system for SPAs and simple APIs.

PHPMIT★ 2,978 stars⑂ 329 forkssince Jan 2020View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryCommand-line toolhow this is determined

laravel/sanctum holds a health index of 88 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Community & Adoption (92/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (34/100). It was last updated 23 days ago. 2 contributors account for most of its recent work.

88
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.

88
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 74 is calibrated to 88 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/sanctumv4.3.38,311,8067964 days agoauthlaravelsanctum

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

77Good · 21% of overall
How it's scored
28.8/36Push recencylast push 23 days ago
10.4/36Commit cadence15/52 weeks with commits
13.9/18Commit volume34 commits in the last year
9/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained11 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 9
Inputs used
commits_last_year34
human_commit_share0.95
days_since_last_push23
active_weeks_last_year15

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases79 releases published
36/36Release recencylatest release 37 days ago
27/27Release cadencea release every ~42 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count79
latest_release_tagv4.3.3
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release37
mean_days_between_releases42
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
56.3/60Stars2,978 stars
21/25Forks329 forks
9.2/15Watchers47 watchers
Inputs used
forks329
stars2,978
watchers47
growth_stateorganic
growth_factor_pct100

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 downloads8,311,806 downloads/month across packagist
20/20Registry dependents1,298 packages depend on it
Inputs used
packageslaravel/sanctum
dependents1,298
ecosystemspackagist
total_downloads208,802,957
monthly_downloads8,311,806
unverified_packages_excluded

Sustainability & Governance

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

72Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
25.2/54Bus factor2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
14.3/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 36% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth79 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 25 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor2
contributors_sampled79
top_contributor_share0.365
How it's scored
0/42Issue resolutionno issues or no data
15.4/30PR acceptance156/303 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance0/1 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
4.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 8/22 approved changesets -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
merged_prs156
open_issues0
closed_issues0
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d1
issue_closed_ratio
closed_unmerged_prs147
first_time_authors_30d1
first_time_prs_merged_30d0
first_time_prs_decided_30d1
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Issue resolution. Remaining weights renormalized.
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 64 days ago
20/20Version history79 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packageslaravel/sanctum
ecosystemspackagist
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish64

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

70Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows6 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests17 out of 17 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 sitehttps://laravel.com/docs/sanctum
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics3 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicslaravel, sanctum, auth
has_wikino
homepagehttps://laravel.com/docs/sanctum
docs_sitehttps://laravel.com/docs/sanctum
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

69Good · 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
2.5/2.5CI-Tests17 out of 17 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
2.2/7.5Code-ReviewFound 8/22 approved changesets -- score normalized to 3
2.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 25 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
6.8/7.5Maintained11 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 9
0/5Packagingno data
0/5Pinned-Dependenciesno data
2/5SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 4
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_aggregate6.9
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.

34At Risk · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
23.6/40Legible commit history42 of 95 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.442
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
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno agent-authored commits among the last 100
8/8Automated maintenance5 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
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share0.05
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 sizes0/39 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePHP
largest_source_bytes15,154
source_files_sampled39
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

2,978GitHub stars
79contributors
34commits, last 12 months
23days since last push
79releases
2bus factor
0open issues
Packagistpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • Star history carried forward from 2026-07-06: GitHub restricted the stargazers API to repository admins, so it can no longer be collected. The repository has 2978 stars today.
  • No resolved dependencies carried a version and a supported ecosystem

More detail

Star and fork history 2,969 ★ / 329 ⇿
2,969Stars
329Forks
79Releases

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.

Only the most recent history is shown — this repository exceeds the collection window, so the earliest history is not captured.

Star history is shown as collected on 2026-07-06. GitHub restricted the stargazers API to repository administrators in July 2026, so this series can no longer be extended; the current star total above remains live.

05001,0001,5002,0002,5003,0002,969327392020-012023-042026-08
Major 4Minor 23Patch 52

Each point covers 7 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 6.9 / 10
6.9aggregate

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 16:58 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
3Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
10CI-Tests17 out of 17 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
3Code-ReviewFound 8/22 approved changesets -- score normalized to 3
10Contributorsproject has 25 contributing companies or organizations
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
9Maintained11 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 9
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 5
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Packagistilluminate/console^11.0|^12.0|^13.0composer.json
Packagistilluminate/contracts^11.0|^12.0|^13.0composer.json
Packagistilluminate/database^11.0|^12.0|^13.0composer.json
Packagistilluminate/support^11.0|^12.0|^13.0composer.json
Packagistsymfony/console^7.0|^8.0composer.json
All dependencies 10

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 5 direct and 5 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
Packagistilluminate/consoledirect
Packagistilluminate/contractsdirect
Packagistilluminate/databasedirect
Packagistilluminate/supportdirect
Packagistsymfony/consoledirect
Packagistext-jsonindirect
Packagistmockery/mockeryindirect
Packagistorchestra/testbenchindirect
Packagistphpindirect
Packagistphpstan/phpstanindirect
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.