Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-27 15:26 UTC

laravel / tinker

Powerful REPL for the Laravel framework.

PHPMIT★ 7,441 stars⑂ 138 forkssince Dec 2016View on GitHub ↗

laravel/tinker holds a health index of 89 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Community & Adoption (92/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (33/100). It was last updated 6 days ago. 2 contributors account for most of its recent work.

89
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.

89
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 75 is calibrated to 89 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

LaravelOrganization · verified domain
11,017 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/tinkerv3.0.212,618,28339163 days agolaravelreplpsyshtinker

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

71Good · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 6 days ago
11.8/36Commit cadence17/52 weeks with commits
12.9/18Commit volume26 commits in the last year
8/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained10 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 8
Inputs used
commits_last_year26
human_commit_share0.95
days_since_last_push6
active_weeks_last_year17
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases34 releases published
27/36Release recencylatest release 134 days ago
12.6/27Release cadencea release every ~127.6 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count34
latest_release_tagv3.0.2
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release134
mean_days_between_releases127.6
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
60/60Stars7,441 stars
17.8/25Forks138 forks
8.4/15Watchers33 watchers
Inputs used
forks138
stars7,441
watchers33
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 downloads12,618,283 downloads/month across packagist
20/20Registry dependents2,652 packages depend on it
Inputs used
packageslaravel/tinker
dependents2,652
ecosystemspackagist
total_downloads479,003,444
monthly_downloads12,618,283
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 breadth40 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 41 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor2
contributors_sampled40
top_contributor_share0.433
How it's scored
41.4/42Issue resolution99% of issues closed
23/30PR acceptance108/141 decided PRs merged
13/13Newcomer PR acceptance2/2 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
4.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 8/22 approved changesets -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
merged_prs108
open_issues1
closed_issues70
prs_merged_7d2
prs_decided_7d2
prs_merged_30d2
prs_decided_30d2
issue_closed_ratio0.986
closed_unmerged_prs33
first_time_authors_30d1
first_time_prs_merged_30d2
first_time_prs_decided_30d2
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backingorganization-owned
20/20Verified domain
25/25Owner reach11,017 followers of laravel
25/25Track record141 public repos, account ~15 yr old
Inputs used
followers11,017
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 163 days ago
20/20Version history39 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packageslaravel/tinker
ecosystemspackagist
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish163

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

68Good · 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
16/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests15 out of 17 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 8
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/artisan#tinker
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics4 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicslaravel, tinker, psysh, repl
has_wikino
homepagehttps://laravel.com/docs/artisan#tinker
docs_sitehttps://laravel.com/docs/artisan#tinker
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

66Good · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
1.5/7.5Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
2/2.5CI-Tests15 out of 17 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 8
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 41 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
6/7.5Maintained10 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 8
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_aggregate6.6
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.

33At Risk · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
20.8/40Legible commit history37 of 95 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.389
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 sizes0/9 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePHP
largest_source_bytes4,753
source_files_sampled9
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

7,441GitHub stars
40contributors
26commits, last 12 months
6days since last push
34releases
2bus factor
1open 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

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 138 ⇿
0Stars
138Forks
34Releases

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.

025507510012515013842017-012021-092026-04
Major 3Minor 11Patch 20

Each point covers 9 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 6.6 / 10
6.6aggregate

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 15:26 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
2Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
8CI-Tests15 out of 17 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 8
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
3Code-ReviewFound 8/22 approved changesets -- score normalized to 3
10Contributorsproject has 41 contributing companies or organizations
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
8Maintained10 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 8
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^8.0|^9.0|^10.0|^11.0|^12.0|^13.0composer.json
Packagistilluminate/contracts^8.0|^9.0|^10.0|^11.0|^12.0|^13.0composer.json
Packagistilluminate/support^8.0|^9.0|^10.0|^11.0|^12.0|^13.0composer.json
Packagistpsy/psysh^0.12.19composer.json
Packagistsymfony/var-dumper^5.4|^6.0|^7.0|^8.0composer.json
All dependencies 9

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 5 direct and 4 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
Packagistilluminate/consoledirect
Packagistilluminate/contractsdirect
Packagistilluminate/supportdirect
Packagistpsy/psyshdirect
Packagistsymfony/var-dumperdirect
Packagistmockery/mockeryindirect
Packagistphpindirect
Packagistphpstan/phpstanindirect
Packagistphpunit/phpunitindirect
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.