Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-28 07:06 UTC

orchidsoftware / platform

Orchid is a @laravel package that allows for rapid application development of back-office applications, admin/user panels, and dashboards.

PHPMIT★ 4,793 stars⑂ 663 forkssince Nov 2016View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryNetwork servicehow this is determined

orchidsoftware/platform holds a health index of 34 out of 100, placing it in the At Risk band. It scores highest on Vitality (88/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (37/100). It was last updated 1 day ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

34
overall / 100
At Risk

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.

34
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 69 is calibrated to 81 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02). High-Risk Jurisdiction Policy applies a 50% multiplier to weighted overall health and gives it an At Risk ceiling of 34.

Ownership

OrchidOrganization · verified domain
540 followers10 public repossince Dec 2015

This repository is backed by an organization — shared, accountable stewardship that can outlive any single maintainer.

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
Packagistorchid/platform14.53.024,986545159 days agoframeworkadmincmsradcmflaravelplatformorchidextranet

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

88Excellent · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 1 days ago
21.5/36Commit cadence31/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume165 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year165
human_commit_share0.9
days_since_last_push1
active_weeks_last_year31
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases100 releases published
27/36Release recencylatest release 159 days ago
27/27Release cadencea release every ~36.3 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count100
latest_release_tag14.53.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release159
mean_days_between_releases36.3
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?

75Good · 17% of overall
How it's scored
59.7/60Stars4,793 stars
23.5/25Forks663 forks
10.8/15Watchers90 watchers
Inputs used
forks663
stars4,793
watchers90
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (MIT)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
6.3/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges5
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesgithub.com, opencollective.com, shields.io
has_pull_request_templateyes
How it's scored
58.6/80Monthly downloads24,986 downloads/month across packagist
12.3/20Registry dependents70 packages depend on it
Inputs used
packagesorchid/platform
dependents70
ecosystemspackagist
total_downloads2,593,127
monthly_downloads24,986
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
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
3.3/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 85% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth99 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 22 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled99
top_contributor_share0.852
How it's scored
36.4/42Issue resolution87% of issues closed
26.6/30PR acceptance1,260/1,422 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
1.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 3/20 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
Inputs used
merged_prs1,260
open_issues131
closed_issues845
prs_merged_7d2
prs_decided_7d2
prs_merged_30d11
prs_decided_30d11
issue_closed_ratio0.866
closed_unmerged_prs162
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.
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backingorganization-owned
20/20Verified domain
19.7/25Owner reach540 followers of orchidsoftware
19.6/25Track record10 public repos, account ~10 yr old
Inputs used
followers540
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedyes
owner_loginorchidsoftware
public_repos10
account_age_days3,921

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable1 package(s) on packagist
35/35Publish recencylatest publish 159 days ago
20/20Version history545 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesorchid/platform
ecosystemspackagist
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish159

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

66Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows6 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
18/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests22 out of 24 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage sitehttps://orchid.software
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics8 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicslaravel, platform, admin, dashboard, laravel-admin, extranet, laravel-admin-panel, hacktoberfest
has_wikino
homepagehttps://orchid.software
docs_sitehttps://orchid.software
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

47Weak · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protectionno data
2.2/2.5CI-Tests22 out of 24 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0.8/7.5Code-ReviewFound 3/20 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
2.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 22 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
7.5/7.5Maintained30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packagingno data
0/5Pinned-Dependenciesno data
0/5SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
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_evaluated12
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive6
scorecard_aggregate6.8
high_risk_jurisdiction_cap34
high_risk_jurisdiction_multiplier50
security_posture_after_multiplier34
security_posture_before_jurisdiction68
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, Dangerous-Workflow, Packaging, Pinned-Dependencies, Signed-Releases, Token-Permissions. Remaining weights renormalized. High-Risk Jurisdiction Policy applies a 50% multiplier and gives Security posture an At risk ceiling of 34.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisoriesno direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisoriestransitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40No advisories left outstandingno advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories0
affected_packages0
assessed_packages1
unassessed_packages52
affected_by_severitynone
direct_affected_packages0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories, No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 1 resolved dependencies against OSV. 52 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list. This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so the repository dependency graph was assessed instead. That graph mixes development and test pins with shipped dependencies, so only the declared runtime dependencies are scored; transitive findings are reported as context and excluded from the score. Reachability is not analyzed.

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.

37Weak · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
15/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)llms.txt served by the project website (https://orchid.software/llms.txt)
11.9/40Legible commit history20 of 90 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtyes
llms_txt_urlhttps://orchid.software/llms.txt
legible_history_share0.222
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
2/10Demonstrated agent practice1 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
8/8Automated maintenance10 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_share0.01
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share0.1
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
54.9/55Manageable file sizes1/580 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePHP
largest_source_bytes1,642,040
source_files_sampled580
oversized_source_files1
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto)
0/20MCP server
40/40Runnable examplesexample, examples
Inputs used
example_dirsexample, examples
has_mcp_signalno
api_schema_files
interfaces_expected_ofnetwork-service

Key facts

4,793GitHub stars
99contributors
165commits, last 12 months
1days since last push
100releases
1bus factor
131open issues
npm, Packagistpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 663 ⇿
0Stars
663Forks
100Releases

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.

012525037550062575065982017-022021-112026-08
Major 1Minor 50Patch 45

Each point covers 9 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 6.8 / 10
6.8aggregate

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 · 2026-08-28 07:06 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
n/aBranch-Protectioninternal error: error during branchesHandler.setup: internal error: some github tokens can't read classic branch protection rules: https://github.com/ossf/scorecard-action/blob/main/docs/authentication/fine-grained-auth-token.md
9CI-Tests22 out of 24 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
1Code-ReviewFound 3/20 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
10Contributorsproject has 22 contributing companies or organizations
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 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
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
9Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
n/aToken-PermissionsNo tokens found
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 45
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Packagistlaravel/framework^10.0 || ^11.0 || ^12.0 || ^13.0composer.json
Packagistlaravel/scout^9.0 || ^10.0 || ^11.0composer.json
Packagistorchid/blade-icons^4.0composer.json
Packagisttabuna/breadcrumbs^4.0 || ^5.0 || ^6.0composer.json
Packagisttwbs/bootstrap-icons^1.10composer.json
Packagistwatson/active^7.0composer.json
npm@babel/plugin-proposal-class-properties^7.13.0package.json
npm@babel/plugin-transform-block-scoping^7.12.1package.json
npm@babel/preset-env^7.13.15package.json
npm@codemirror/commands^6.10.3package.json
npm@codemirror/lang-cpp^6.0.3package.json
npm@codemirror/lang-css^6.3.1package.json
npm@codemirror/lang-html^6.4.11package.json
npm@codemirror/lang-javascript^6.2.5package.json
npm@codemirror/lang-markdown^6.5.0package.json
npm@codemirror/language^6.12.3package.json
npm@codemirror/search^6.7.0package.json
npm@codemirror/state^6.6.0package.json
npm@codemirror/view^6.43.0package.json
npm@hotwired/stimulus^3.1.0package.json
npm@hotwired/turbo^8.0.2package.json
npm@popperjs/core^2.9.2package.json
npmaxios^1.1.3package.json
npmbootstrap^5.3.8package.json
npmcropperjs^1.5.11package.json
npmcross-env^10.1.0package.json
npmdropzone^5.9.2package.json
npmflatpickr^4.6.3package.json
npmfrappe-charts^1.6.1package.json
npminputmask^5.0.6package.json
npmlaravel-vite-plugin^3.0.0package.json
npmleaflet^1.7.1package.json
npmpostcss^8.2.10package.json
npmprettier3.9.6package.json
npmqs^6.14.0package.json
npmquill^2.0.0package.json
npmrtlcss^4.0.0package.json
npmsass^1.69.7package.json
npmsass-loader^17.0.0package.json
npmsortablejs^1.13.0package.json
npmstimulus-vite-helpers^3.0.1package.json
npmtom-select^2.3.1package.json
npmvite^8.0.0package.json
npmvite-plugin-manifest-sri^0.2.0package.json
npmvite-plugin-rtl-css^1.0.6package.json
All dependencies 53

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 45 direct and 8 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
npm@babel/plugin-proposal-class-properties^7.13.0direct
npm@babel/plugin-transform-block-scoping^7.12.1direct
npm@babel/preset-env^7.13.15direct
npm@codemirror/commands^6.10.3direct
npm@codemirror/lang-cpp^6.0.3direct
npm@codemirror/lang-css^6.3.1direct
npm@codemirror/lang-html^6.4.11direct
npm@codemirror/lang-javascript^6.2.5direct
npm@codemirror/lang-markdown^6.5.0direct
npm@codemirror/language^6.12.3direct
npm@codemirror/search^6.7.0direct
npm@codemirror/state^6.6.0direct
npm@codemirror/view^6.43.0direct
npm@hotwired/stimulus^3.1.0direct
npm@hotwired/turbo^8.0.2direct
npm@popperjs/core^2.9.2direct
npmaxios^1.1.3direct
npmbootstrap^5.3.8direct
npmcropperjs^1.5.11direct
npmcross-env^10.1.0direct
npmdropzone^5.9.2direct
npmflatpickr^4.6.3direct
npmfrappe-charts^1.6.1direct
npminputmask^5.0.6direct
npmlaravel-vite-plugin^3.0.0direct
npmleaflet^1.7.1direct
npmpostcss^8.2.10direct
npmprettier3.9.6direct
npmqs^6.14.0direct
npmquill^2.0.0direct
npmrtlcss^4.0.0direct
npmsass^1.69.7direct
npmsass-loader^17.0.0direct
npmsortablejs^1.13.0direct
npmstimulus-vite-helpers^3.0.1direct
npmtom-select^2.3.1direct
npmvite^8.0.0direct
npmvite-plugin-manifest-sri^0.2.0direct
npmvite-plugin-rtl-css^1.0.6direct
Packagistlaravel/frameworkdirect
Packagistlaravel/scoutdirect
Packagistorchid/blade-iconsdirect
Packagisttabuna/breadcrumbsdirect
Packagisttwbs/bootstrap-iconsdirect
Packagistwatson/activedirect
Packagistcomposer-runtime-apiindirect
Packagistcomposer/semverindirect
Packagistfakerphp/fakerindirect
Packagistlaravel/pintindirect
Packagistorchestra/testbenchindirect
Packagistorchestra/testbench-coreindirect
Packagistorchestra/testbench-duskindirect
Packagistphpunit/phpunitindirect
Dependency advisories 0

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 1 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct. 52 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list.

No known advisories affect the assessed dependencies.

An advisory means the version recorded in the dependency graph falls inside an advisory’s affected range. Reachability is not analysed, and the graph includes development and test pins — a finding may concern tooling rather than shipped software.

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.