Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-27 21:19 UTC

laravel / wayfinder

PHP · TypeScriptMIT★ 1,814 stars⑂ 110 forkssince Mar 2025View on GitHub ↗

laravel/wayfinder holds a health index of 89 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Vitality (86/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (52/100). It was last updated 5 days ago. A single contributor accounts 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
11,020 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/wayfinderv0.1.212,016,6982222 days agophprouteslaraveltypescript

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

86Excellent · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 5 days ago
13.8/36Commit cadence20/52 weeks with commits
15.8/18Commit volume56 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained12 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year56
human_commit_share0.95
days_since_last_push5
active_weeks_last_year20

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases22 releases published
36/36Release recencylatest release 22 days ago
27/27Release cadencea release every ~36.7 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count22
latest_release_tagv0.1.21
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release22
mean_days_between_releases36.7
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?

86Excellent · 17% of overall
How it's scored
52.9/60Stars1,814 stars
17/25Forks110 forks
7.5/15Watchers23 watchers
Inputs used
forks110
stars1,814
watchers23
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_badges0
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_services
has_pull_request_templateyes
How it's scored
80/80Monthly downloads2,016,698 downloads/month across packagist
14.3/20Registry dependents140 packages depend on it
Inputs used
packageslaravel/wayfinder
dependents140
ecosystemspackagist
total_downloads12,463,757
monthly_downloads2,016,698
unverified_packages_excluded

Sustainability & Governance

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

74Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
7.6/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 66% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth32 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 17 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled32
top_contributor_share0.66
How it's scored
29.2/42Issue resolution70% of issues closed
23.9/30PR acceptance141/177 decided PRs merged
9.8/13Newcomer PR acceptance3/4 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
4.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 8/24 approved changesets -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
merged_prs141
open_issues36
closed_issues82
prs_merged_7d2
prs_decided_7d2
prs_merged_30d16
prs_decided_30d17
issue_closed_ratio0.695
closed_unmerged_prs36
first_time_authors_30d4
first_time_prs_merged_30d3
first_time_prs_decided_30d4
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backingorganization-owned
20/20Verified domain
25/25Owner reach11,020 followers of laravel
25/25Track record141 public repos, account ~15 yr old
Inputs used
followers11,020
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 22 days ago
20/20Version history22 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packageslaravel/wayfinder
ecosystemspackagist
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish22

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

62Moderate · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows5 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter configeslint.config.mjs
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests22 out of 22 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

30At Risk
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
0/10Repository description
0/10Topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics
has_wikino
homepage
docs_site
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionno

Security

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

70Good · 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-Tests22 out of 22 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 8/24 approved changesets -- score normalized to 3
2.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 17 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
7.5/7.5Maintained12 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
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_aggregate7
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.

52Moderate · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
30.3/40Legible commit history54 of 95 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.568
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format configeslint.config.mjs
11/11Static type checkingtsconfig.json
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_configyes
typecheck_configstsconfig.json
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
27/45Type-checkable codePHP with type-check config (tsconfig.json)
55/55Manageable file sizes0/71 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePHP
largest_source_bytes19,343
source_files_sampled71
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

1,814GitHub stars
32contributors
56commits, last 12 months
5days since last push
22releases
1bus factor
36open issues
npm, 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 ★ / 110 ⇿
0Stars
110Forks
22Releases

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.

020406080100120110142025-042025-122026-08
Major 0Minor 1Patch 21

Each point covers 2 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 7.0 / 10
7.0aggregate

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 21:18 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
3Code-ReviewFound 8/24 approved changesets -- score normalized to 3
10Contributorsproject has 17 contributing companies or organizations
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained12 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
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 4
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Packagistilluminate/console^11.0|^12.0|^13.0composer.json
Packagistilluminate/filesystem^11.0|^12.0|^13.0composer.json
Packagistilluminate/routing^11.0|^12.0|^13.0composer.json
Packagistilluminate/support^11.0|^12.0|^13.0composer.json
All dependencies 15

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 4 direct and 11 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
Packagistilluminate/consoledirect
Packagistilluminate/filesystemdirect
Packagistilluminate/routingdirect
Packagistilluminate/supportdirect
npm@eslint/js^9.29.0indirect
npm@types/node^22.7.5indirect
npmeslint^9.29.0indirect
npmhappy-dom>=20.8.9indirect
npmtypescript-eslint^8.34.1indirect
npmvite^7.1.3indirect
npmvitest^3.2.3indirect
Packagistlaravel/pintindirect
Packagistorchestra/testbenchindirect
Packagistphpindirect
Packagistphpstan/phpdoc-parserindirect
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.