Public record
Software health reportschema 0.26.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-22 13:18 UTC

pulkitjalan / ip-geolocation

IP Geolocation Wrapper with Laravel Support

PHPMIT★ 90 stars⑂ 41 forkssince Jan 2015View on GitHub ↗

pulkitjalan/ip-geolocation holds a health index of 53 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (63/100) and lowest on Security (46/100). It was last updated 30 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

53
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.

53
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 52 is calibrated to 53 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Pulkit JalanPersonal account
35 followers18 public repossince Apr 2013Maple

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
Packagistpulkitjalan/ip-geolocation9.0.012,87636128 days agogeolocationmaxmindip-apiipstackip-geolocation

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

52Moderate · 21% of overall
How it's scored
28.8/36Push recencylast push 30 days ago
2.1/36Commit cadence3/52 weeks with commits
7.6/18Commit volume6 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
commits_last_year6
human_commit_share0.9
days_since_last_push30
active_weeks_last_year3
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases36 releases published
27/36Release recencylatest release 128 days ago
12.6/27Release cadencea release every ~220.6 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count36
latest_release_tag9.0.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release128
mean_days_between_releases220.6
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?

52Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
31.6/60Stars90 stars
13.4/25Forks41 forks
4.7/15Watchers8 watchers
Inputs used
forks41
stars90
watchers8
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
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
54.8/80Monthly downloads12,876 downloads/month across packagist
2/20Registry dependents1 packages depend on it
Inputs used
packagespulkitjalan/ip-geolocation
dependents1
ecosystemspackagist
total_downloads218,123
monthly_downloads12,876
unverified_packages_excluded

Sustainability & Governance

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

63Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
4.4/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 81% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth19 contributors
3/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled19
top_contributor_share0.806
How it's scored
42/42Issue resolution100% of issues closed
27.1/30PR acceptance46/51 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
3/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 5/19 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
Inputs used
merged_prs46
open_issues0
closed_issues30
prs_merged_7d
prs_decided_7d
prs_merged_30d
prs_decided_30d
issue_closed_ratio1
closed_unmerged_prs5
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
11.2/25Owner reach35 followers of pulkitjalan
21.3/25Track record18 public repos, account ~13 yr old
Inputs used
followers35
owner_typeUser
is_verified
owner_loginpulkitjalan
public_repos18
account_age_days4,850
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 128 days ago
20/20Version history36 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagespulkitjalan/ip-geolocation
ecosystemspackagist
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish128

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

47Weak · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows3 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
4/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests5 out of 25 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 2
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
0/10Topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics
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?

46Weak · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
4.5/7.5Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
0.5/2.5CI-Tests5 out of 25 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 2
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
1.5/7.5Code-ReviewFound 5/19 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
0.8/2.5Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
10/10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5Licenselicense file detected
0/7.5Maintained0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
0/5Packagingno data
0/5Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
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-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate4.6
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging, Signed-Releases. 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.

49Weak · 4% of overall
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructionsAGENTS.md
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
25.5/40Legible commit history43 of 90 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.478
agent_instruction_filesAGENTS.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes2,605
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-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
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
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable codePHP without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes0/34 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePHP
largest_source_bytes5,388
source_files_sampled34
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

90GitHub stars
19contributors
6commits, last 12 months
30days since last push
36releases
1bus factor
0open 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 ★ / 41 ⇿
0Stars
41Forks
29Releases

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.

010203040504122015-062020-112026-04
Major 8Minor 10Patch 11

Each point covers 10 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.6 / 10
4.6aggregate

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 13:17 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
6Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
2CI-Tests5 out of 25 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 2
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
2Code-ReviewFound 5/19 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
3Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
0Maintained0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
0Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 4
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Packagistgeoip2/geoip2^3.0composer.json
Packagistguzzlehttp/guzzle^7.8composer.json
Packagistilluminate/console^11.0|^12.0|^13.0composer.json
Packagistilluminate/support^11.0|^12.0|^13.0composer.json
All dependencies 7

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 4 direct and 3 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
Packagistgeoip2/geoip2direct
Packagistguzzlehttp/guzzledirect
Packagistilluminate/consoledirect
Packagistilluminate/supportdirect
Packagistmockery/mockeryindirect
Packagistpestphp/pestindirect
Packagistphpindirect
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.