Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-15 15:14 UTC

ralphjsmit / laravel-filament-seo

A package to combine the power of Laravel SEO and Filament Admin.

PHPMIT★ 153 stars⑂ 29 forkssince Feb 2022View on GitHub ↗

ralphjsmit/laravel-filament-seo holds a health index of 62 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Vitality (69/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (33/100). It was last updated 4 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

62
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.

62
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 58 is calibrated to 62 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Ralph J. SmitPersonal account
376 followers73 public repossince Dec 2019

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
Packagistralphjsmit/laravel-filament-seo2.2.115,010264 days agolaravelralphjsmitlaravel-filament-seo

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

69Good · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 4 days ago
4.2/36Commit cadence — 6/52 weeks with commits
11.7/18Commit volume — 19 commits in the last year
1/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 2 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 1
Inputs used
commits_last_year19
human_commit_share0.71
days_since_last_push4
active_weeks_last_year6
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 26 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 4 days ago
19.8/27Release cadence — a release every ~97.5 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count26
latest_release_tag2.2.1
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release4
mean_days_between_releases97.5
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
35.4/60Stars — 153 stars
12.1/25Forks — 29 forks
0/15Watchers — 2 watchers
Inputs used
forks29
stars153
watchers2
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized 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_badges0
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services—
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
55.7/80Monthly downloads — 15,010 downloads/month across packagist
7.2/20Registry dependents — 11 packages depend on it
Inputs used
packagesralphjsmit/laravel-filament-seo
dependents11
ecosystemspackagist
total_downloads172,059
monthly_downloads15,010
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 factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
3/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 87% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 11 contributors
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled11
top_contributor_share0.866
How it's scored
30.5/42Issue resolution — 73% of issues closed
25.8/30PR acceptance — 37/43 decided PRs merged
13/13Newcomer PR acceptance — 1/1 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
6/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 8/19 approved changesets -- score normalized to 4
Inputs used
merged_prs37
open_issues3
closed_issues8
prs_merged_7d1
prs_decided_7d1
prs_merged_30d1
prs_decided_30d1
issue_closed_ratio0.727
closed_unmerged_prs6
first_time_authors_30d1
first_time_prs_merged_30d1
first_time_prs_decided_30d1
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
18.5/25Owner reach — 376 followers of ralphjsmit
25/25Track record — 73 public repos, account ~6 yr old
Inputs used
followers376
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginralphjsmit
public_repos73
account_age_days2,456
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on packagist
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 4 days ago
20/20Version history — 26 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesralphjsmit/laravel-filament-seo
ecosystemspackagist
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish4

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

66Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 4 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
6/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 6 out of 17 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
0/10Topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics—
has_wikiyes
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?

42Weak · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0.8/2.5CI-Tests — 6 out of 17 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 3
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
3/7.5Code-Review — Found 8/19 approved changesets -- score normalized to 4
0/2.5Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
0/10Dangerous-Workflow — no data
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
0.8/7.5Maintained — 2 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 1
0/5Packaging — no data
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — no data
0/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — no data
0/7.5Token-Permissions — no data
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated13
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive5
scorecard_aggregate4.2
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.

33At Risk · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
21.8/40Legible commit history — 29 of 71 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.408
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
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
8/8Automated maintenance — 18 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — no 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_share0.18
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — PHP without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/19 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePHP
largest_source_bytes4,667
source_files_sampled19
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

153GitHub stars
11contributors
19commits, last 12 months
4days since last push
26releases
1bus factor
3open 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 ★ / 29 ⇿
0Stars
29Forks
13Releases

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.

0510152025302922022-062024-072026-09
Major 1Minor 6Patch 6

Each point covers 4 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.2 / 10
4.2aggregate

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 · 2026-09-15 15:13 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
3CI-Tests6 out of 17 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 3
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
4Code-ReviewFound 8/19 approved changesets -- score normalized to 4
0Contributorsproject has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
1Maintained2 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 1
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 4
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Packagistfilament/filament^4.0|^5.0composer.json
Packagistilluminate/contracts^11.0|^12.0|^13.0composer.json
Packagistralphjsmit/laravel-seo^1.7composer.json
Packagistspatie/laravel-package-tools^1.9.2composer.json
All dependencies 13

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 4 direct and 9 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
Packagistfilament/filament—direct
Packagistilluminate/contracts—direct
Packagistralphjsmit/laravel-seo—direct
Packagistspatie/laravel-package-tools—direct
Packagistdoctrine/dbal—indirect
Packagistnesbot/carbon—indirect
Packagistnunomaduro/collision—indirect
Packagistorchestra/testbench—indirect
Packagistpestphp/pest—indirect
Packagistpestphp/pest-plugin-laravel—indirect
Packagistphp—indirect
Packagistphpunit/phpunit—indirect
Packagistspatie/laravel-ray—indirect
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 statistics — Packagist.