Public record
Software health reportschema 0.26.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-22 09:22 UTC

marcelorodrigo / filament-barcode-scanner-field

A powerful barcode scanner input field for Filament applications

PHPMIT★ 12 stars⑂ 2 forkssince Dec 2025View on GitHub ↗

marcelorodrigo/filament-barcode-scanner-field holds a health index of 56 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Vitality (66/100) and lowest on Security (41/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

56
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.

56
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 54 is calibrated to 56 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Marcelo RodrigoPersonal account
67 followers43 public repossince Oct 2010

This repository is owned by a personal account. A single-owner project carries more continuity risk than an organization-backed one.

Package ecosystems

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

66Good · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 0 days ago
2.1/36Commit cadence3/52 weeks with commits
12.1/18Commit volume21 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained1 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
commits_last_year21
human_commit_share0.773
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year3
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases5 releases published
27/36Release recencylatest release 170 days ago
27/27Release cadencea release every ~9 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count5
latest_release_tagv1.1.3
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release170
mean_days_between_releases9
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?

42Weak · 17% of overall
How it's scored
16.9/60Stars12 stars
0/25Forks2 forks
0/15Watchers0 watchers
Inputs used
forks2
stars12
watchers0
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonbelow_threshold
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (MIT)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
44/80Monthly downloads2,009 downloads/month across packagist
0/20Registry dependents0 packages depend on it
Inputs used
packagesmarcelorodrigo/filament-barcode-scanner-field
dependents0
ecosystemspackagist
total_downloads8,615
monthly_downloads2,009
unverified_packages_excluded

Sustainability & Governance

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

51Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 100% of commits
1.4/13.5Contributor breadth1 contributors
6/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled1
top_contributor_share1
How it's scored
10.5/42Issue resolution25% of issues closed
28.1/30PR acceptance15/16 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 0/17 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs15
open_issues9
closed_issues3
prs_merged_7d
prs_decided_7d
prs_merged_30d
prs_decided_30d
issue_closed_ratio0.25
closed_unmerged_prs1
first_time_authors_30d
first_time_prs_merged_30d
first_time_prs_decided_30d
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backingpersonal (user) account
0/20Verified domainnot applicable to user accounts
13.2/25Owner reach67 followers of marcelorodrigo
24/25Track record43 public repos, account ~15 yr old
Inputs used
followers67
owner_typeUser
is_verified
owner_loginmarcelorodrigo
public_repos43
account_age_days5,755
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable1 package(s) on packagist
35/35Publish recencylatest publish 170 days ago
20/20Version history5 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesmarcelorodrigo/filament-barcode-scanner-field
ecosystemspackagist
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish170

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

64Moderate · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows5 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests15 out of 15 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

Documentation

50Moderate
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics7 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsbarcode, barcode-scanner, filament, filamentphp, laravel, qrcode, qrcode-scanner
has_wikino
homepage
docs_site
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
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
2.5/2.5CI-Tests15 out of 15 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
0/7.5Code-ReviewFound 0/17 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
1.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
0/10Dangerous-Workflowno data
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5Licenselicense file detected
0/7.5Maintained1 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
0/5Packagingno data
0/5Pinned-Dependenciesno data
0/5SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5Security-Policysecurity policy file not 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_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.

52Moderate · 4% of overall
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructionsAGENTS.md
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
0/40Legible commit historyno data
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share
agent_instruction_filesAGENTS.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes6,598
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Legible commit history. Remaining weights renormalized.
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 22
8/8Automated maintenance5 of the last 22 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_share0.227
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 sizes0/50 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePHP
largest_source_bytes8,925
source_files_sampled50
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

12GitHub stars
1contributors
21commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
5releases
1bus factor
9open issues
Packagistpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • No resolved dependencies carried a version and a supported ecosystem

More detail

Star and fork history 12 ★ / 2 ⇿
12Stars
2Forks
5Releases

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.

02468101212222025-122026-032026-05
Major 1Minor 1Patch 3
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 · 2026-07-22 09:22 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
10CI-Tests15 out of 15 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 0/17 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
6Contributorsproject has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
0Maintained1 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
n/aPinned-Dependenciesno dependencies found
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
n/aToken-PermissionsNo tokens found
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 2
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Packagistfilament/forms^4.0 || ^5.0composer.json
Packagistspatie/laravel-package-tools^1.92.7composer.json
All dependencies 15

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 2 direct and 13 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
Packagistfilament/formsdirect
Packagistspatie/laravel-package-toolsdirect
Packagistlarastan/larastanindirect
Packagistlaravel/pintindirect
Packagistnunomaduro/collisionindirect
Packagistorchestra/testbenchindirect
Packagistpestphp/pestindirect
Packagistpestphp/pest-plugin-archindirect
Packagistpestphp/pest-plugin-laravelindirect
Packagistpestphp/pest-plugin-livewireindirect
Packagistphpindirect
Packagistphpstan/extension-installerindirect
Packagistphpstan/phpstan-deprecation-rulesindirect
Packagistphpstan/phpstan-phpunitindirect
Packagistrector/rectorindirect
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 v0.26.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

How one result sits in the wider record: aggregate statisticsPackagist.