Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-05 18:17 UTC

psalm / psalm-plugin-laravel

Security-focused Laravel static analyser

PHPMIT★ 337 stars⑂ 80 forkssince Feb 2019View on GitHub ↗
KindCommand-line toolLibraryhow this is determined

psalm/psalm-plugin-laravel holds a health index of 89 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Vitality (90/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (61/100). It was last updated 1 day 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

PsalmOrganization
23 followers27 public repossince Jul 2018

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
Packagistpsalm/plugin-laravelv4.16.1127,5461823 days agolaraveldevpsalmpsalm-plugin

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

90Excellent · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 1 days ago
19.4/36Commit cadence28/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume1,558 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained30 commit(s) and 28 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year1,558
human_commit_share0.9
days_since_last_push1
active_weeks_last_year28

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases100 releases published
36/36Release recencylatest release 3 days ago
27/27Release cadencea release every ~1.8 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count100
latest_release_tagv4.16.1
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release3
mean_days_between_releases1.8
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?

73Good · 17% of overall
How it's scored
41/60Stars337 stars
15.8/25Forks80 forks
4.7/15Watchers8 watchers
Inputs used
forks80
stars337
watchers8
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
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
6.3/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges3
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesgithub.com, shields.io
has_pull_request_templateyes
How it's scored
68.1/80Monthly downloads127,546 downloads/month across packagist
16.8/20Registry dependents330 packages depend on it
Inputs used
packagespsalm/plugin-laravel
dependents330
ecosystemspackagist
total_downloads5,536,329
monthly_downloads127,546
unverified_packages_excluded

Sustainability & Governance

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

66Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
5.9/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 74% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth37 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 20 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled37
top_contributor_share0.736
How it's scored
41.4/42Issue resolution99% of issues closed
26.4/30PR acceptance776/882 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 0/23 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs776
open_issues8
closed_issues556
prs_merged_7d22
prs_decided_7d22
prs_merged_30d55
prs_decided_30d55
issue_closed_ratio0.986
closed_unmerged_prs106
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
0/20Verified domain
9.9/25Owner reach23 followers of psalm
22.5/25Track record27 public repos, account ~8 yr old
Inputs used
followers23
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_loginpsalm
public_repos27
account_age_days2,985

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable1 package(s) on packagist
35/35Publish recencylatest publish 3 days ago
20/20Version history182 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagespsalm/plugin-laravel
ecosystemspackagist
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish3

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

84Excellent · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows10 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config.php-cs-fixer.php
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests24 out of 24 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics8 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicspsalm, psalm-plugin, laravel, static-analysis, php, php-static-analysis, security, security-audit
has_wikino
homepage
docs_site
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

62Moderate · 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-Tests24 out of 24 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 0/23 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
2.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 20 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 28 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packagingno data
0/5Pinned-Dependenciesno data
1/5SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 2
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_aggregate6.2
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.

61Moderate · 4% of overall
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructionsCLAUDE.md
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history84 of 90 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.933
agent_instruction_filesCLAUDE.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes11,919
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config.php-cs-fixer.php
0/11Static type checking
0/10Reproducible environment
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno agent-authored commits among the last 100
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_configyes
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share0
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
54.7/55Manageable file sizes3/521 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePHP
largest_source_bytes94,983
source_files_sampled521
oversized_source_files3

Key facts

337GitHub stars
37contributors
1,558commits, last 12 months
1days since last push
100releases
1bus factor
8open 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 ★ / 80 ⇿
0Stars
80Forks
89Releases

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.

0204060808032019-032022-112026-08
Major 1Minor 26Patch 60

Each point covers 7 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 6.2 / 10
6.2aggregate

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 · 2026-09-05 18:17 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
10CI-Tests24 out of 24 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 0/23 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
10Contributorsproject has 20 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 28 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
n/aPinned-Dependenciesno dependencies found
2SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 2
10Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
n/aToken-PermissionsNo tokens found
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 14
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Packagistilluminate/config^12.14 || ^13.3composer.json
Packagistilluminate/container^12.14 || ^13.3composer.json
Packagistilluminate/contracts^12.14 || ^13.3composer.json
Packagistilluminate/database^12.14 || ^13.3composer.json
Packagistilluminate/events^12.14 || ^13.3composer.json
Packagistilluminate/http^12.14 || ^13.3composer.json
Packagistilluminate/routing^12.14 || ^13.3composer.json
Packagistilluminate/support^12.14 || ^13.3composer.json
Packagistilluminate/view^12.14 || ^13.3composer.json
Packagistnikic/php-parser^5.0composer.json
Packagistorchestra/testbench-core^10.0 || ^11.0composer.json
Packagistpsalm/psalm-plugin-api^0.1.0composer.json
Packagistsymfony/console^7.2 || ^8.0composer.json
Packagistvimeo/psalm^7.0.0-beta19 || dev-mastercomposer.json
All dependencies 24

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 14 direct and 10 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
Packagistilluminate/configdirect
Packagistilluminate/containerdirect
Packagistilluminate/contractsdirect
Packagistilluminate/databasedirect
Packagistilluminate/eventsdirect
Packagistilluminate/httpdirect
Packagistilluminate/routingdirect
Packagistilluminate/supportdirect
Packagistilluminate/viewdirect
Packagistnikic/php-parserdirect
Packagistorchestra/testbench-coredirect
Packagistpsalm/psalm-plugin-apidirect
Packagistsymfony/consoledirect
Packagistvimeo/psalmdirect
Packagistalies-dev/psalm-testerindirect
Packagistext-simplexmlindirect
Packagistfriendsofphp/php-cs-fixerindirect
Packagistlaravel/frameworkindirect
Packagistphpindirect
Packagistphpunit/phpunitindirect
Packagistramsey/collectionindirect
Packagistrector/rectorindirect
Packagistsymfony/http-foundationindirect
Packagistsymfony/processindirect
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.