Public record
Software health reportschema 0.23.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-21 20:57 UTC

ovac / idoc

📒📚Generate beautiful interactive documentation and Open-API 3.0 spec file from your existing Laravel app.

PHP · BladeMIT★ 185 stars⑂ 43 forkssince Mar 2019View on GitHub ↗

ovac/idoc holds a health index of 59 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (79/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (17/100). It was last updated 4 days ago. 3 contributors account for most of its recent work.

59
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.

59
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 56 is calibrated to 59 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

90 followers96 public repossince Jul 2013@Rescopenet @ovac4u @jobaexpress @Paymiumm @Omnile @QodeHub @Gidipex @Bitnormous @Ovadesk

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
Packagistovac/idocv2.1.52,483224 days agodocumentationapilaravel

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

70Good · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 4 days ago
4.8/36Commit cadence7/52 weeks with commits
13/18Commit volume27 commits in the last year
2/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained2 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 2
Inputs used
commits_last_year27
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push4
active_weeks_last_year7
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases21 releases published
36/36Release recencylatest release 4 days ago
19.8/27Release cadencea release every ~80.3 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count21
latest_release_tagv2.1.5
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release4
mean_days_between_releases80.3
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?

57Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
36.7/60Stars185 stars
13.5/25Forks43 forks
0/15Watchers2 watchers
Inputs used
forks43
stars185
watchers2
growth_stateorganic
growth_factor_pct100
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
45.3/80Monthly downloads2,483 downloads/month across packagist
4/20Registry dependents3 packages depend on it
Inputs used
packagesovac/idoc
dependents3
ecosystemspackagist
total_downloads486,413
monthly_downloads2,483
unverified_packages_excluded

Sustainability & Governance

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

79Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
36/54Bus factor3 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
15.7/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 30% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth13 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 6 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor3
contributors_sampled13
top_contributor_share0.304
How it's scored
42/42Issue resolution100% of issues closed
26.7/30PR acceptance24/27 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
6/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 8/18 approved changesets -- score normalized to 4
Inputs used
merged_prs24
open_issues0
closed_issues32
prs_merged_7d
prs_decided_7d
prs_merged_30d
prs_decided_30d
issue_closed_ratio1
closed_unmerged_prs3
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
14.1/25Owner reach90 followers of ovac
25/25Track record96 public repos, account ~13 yr old
Inputs used
followers90
owner_typeUser
is_verified
owner_loginovac
public_repos96
account_age_days4,751
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 4 days ago
20/20Version history22 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesovac/idoc
ecosystemspackagist
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish4

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

34At Risk · 19% of overall
How it's scored
0/24CI workflows
0/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests0 out of 9 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_cino
has_testsno
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage sitehttps://www.ovac4u.com/idoc
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics14 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicslaravel, open, api, openapi, ovac4u, ovac, laravel-api-documentation, api-documentation, open-api-v3, open-api-specification, laravel-documentation-generator, documentation, generator, docs
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://www.ovac4u.com/idoc
docs_sitehttps://www.ovac4u.com/idoc
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

39Weak · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protectionno data
0/2.5CI-Tests0 out of 9 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
3/7.5Code-ReviewFound 8/18 approved changesets -- score normalized to 4
2.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 6 contributing companies or organizations
0/10Dangerous-Workflowno data
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5Licenselicense file detected
1.5/7.5Maintained2 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 2
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_evaluated12
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive6
scorecard_aggregate3.9
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, 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.

17Critical · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
19.2/40Legible commit history36 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.36
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
0/22Automated 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
0/8Automated maintenanceno automated dependency updates observed
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesno data
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsno
lockfiles
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share0.01
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share0
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
52.9/55Manageable file sizes1/26 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePHP
largest_source_bytes98,969
source_files_sampled26
oversized_source_files1

Key facts

185GitHub stars
13contributors
27commits, last 12 months
4days since last push
21releases
3bus factor
0open issues
Packagistpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • No resolved dependencies carried a version and a supported ecosystem

More detail

Star and fork history 185 ★ / 43 ⇿
185Stars
43Forks
18Releases

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.

040801201602001854382019-032022-092026-03
Major 2Minor 8Patch 5

Each point covers 7 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 3.9 / 10
3.9aggregate

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 · 2026-07-21 20:57 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
0CI-Tests0 out of 9 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
4Code-ReviewFound 8/18 approved changesets -- score normalized to 4
10Contributorsproject has 6 contributing companies or organizations
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
2Maintained2 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 2
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 6
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Packagistfakerphp/faker^1.12composer.json
Packagistilluminate/routing5.5.* || 5.6.* || 5.7.* || 5.8.* || ^6.0 || ^7.0 || ^8.0 || ^9.0 || ^10.0 || ^11.0 || ^12.0 || ^13.0composer.json
Packagistilluminate/support5.5.* || 5.6.* || 5.7.* || 5.8.* || ^6.0 || ^7.0 || ^8.0 || ^9.0 || ^10.0 || ^11.0 || ^12.0 || ^13.0composer.json
Packagistilluminate/console5.5.* || 5.6.* || 5.7.* || 5.8.* || ^6.0 || ^7.0 || ^8.0 || ^9.0 || ^10.0 || ^11.0 || ^12.0 || ^13.0composer.json
Packagistmpociot/reflection-docblock^1.0.1composer.json
Packagistramsey/uuid^3.8 || ^4.0composer.json
All dependencies 12

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 6 direct and 6 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
Packagistfakerphp/fakerdirect
Packagistilluminate/consoledirect
Packagistilluminate/routingdirect
Packagistilluminate/supportdirect
Packagistmpociot/reflection-docblockdirect
Packagistramsey/uuiddirect
Packagistdingo/apiindirect
Packagistleague/fractalindirect
Packagistmockery/mockeryindirect
Packagistorchestra/testbenchindirect
Packagistphpindirect
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 v0.23.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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