Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-29 19:51 UTC

relaticle / ink

Headless blog package for Filament with SEO, MCP tools, and publishable components

PHPNo license detected★ 13 stars⑂ 3 forkssince Mar 2026View on GitHub ↗

relaticle/ink holds a health index of 57 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Vitality (79/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (28/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

57
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.

57
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 55 is calibrated to 57 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

RelaticleOrganization
40 followers7 public repossince Sep 2024

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
Packagistrelaticle/inkv2.5.12,1991610 days agoblogcmsmarkdownseoheadlesscontentlaravelinkmcpfilament

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

79Good · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 0 days ago
4.8/36Commit cadence7/52 weeks with commits
14/18Commit volume35 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained17 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year35
human_commit_share0.949
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year7

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases9 releases published
36/36Release recencylatest release 10 days ago
27/27Release cadencea release every ~13.9 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count9
latest_release_tagv2.5.1
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release10
mean_days_between_releases13.9
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?

28At Risk · 17% of overall
How it's scored
17.5/60Stars13 stars
2.5/25Forks3 forks
0/15Watchers1 watchers
Inputs used
forks3
stars13
watchers1
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
0/22.5Licenseno license file detected
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseno
readme_badges5
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesshields.io
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
44.6/80Monthly downloads2,199 downloads/month across packagist
0/20Registry dependents0 packages depend on it
Inputs used
packagesrelaticle/ink
dependents0
ecosystemspackagist
total_downloads3,253
monthly_downloads2,199
unverified_packages_excluded

Sustainability & Governance

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

45Weak · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 100% of commits
1.4/13.5Contributor breadth1 contributors
3/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled1
top_contributor_share1
How it's scored
0/42Issue resolution0% of issues closed
28.6/30PR acceptance21/22 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 0/24 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs21
open_issues1
closed_issues0
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d1
prs_merged_30d6
prs_decided_30d7
issue_closed_ratio0
closed_unmerged_prs1
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
11.6/25Owner reach40 followers of relaticle
10.4/25Track record7 public repos, account ~1 yr old
Inputs used
followers40
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_loginrelaticle
public_repos7
account_age_days705

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable1 package(s) on packagist
35/35Publish recencylatest publish 10 days ago
20/20Version history16 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesrelaticle/ink
ecosystemspackagist
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish10

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

72Good · 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
18/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests20 out of 21 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

Documentation

80Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage sitehttps://relaticle.github.io/ink/
10/10Repository description
0/10Topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics
has_wikino
homepagehttps://relaticle.github.io/ink/
docs_sitehttps://relaticle.github.io/ink/
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

49Weak · 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
2.2/2.5CI-Tests20 out of 21 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
0/7.5Code-ReviewFound 0/24 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
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
0/2.5Licenselicense file not detected
7.5/7.5Maintained17 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packagingno data
5/5Pinned-Dependenciesall dependencies are pinned
0.5/5SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 1
4.5/5Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
0/7.5Signed-Releasesno data
0/7.5Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0/7.5Vulnerabilities34 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate4.9
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.

55Moderate · 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://relaticle.github.io/ink/llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history37 of 37 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtyes
llms_txt_urlhttps://relaticle.github.io/ink/llms.txt
legible_history_share1
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
10/10Reproducible environmentlockfile
5.1/10Demonstrated agent practice1 of the last 39 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
8/8Automated maintenance2 of the last 39 commits are automated dependency updates
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesall dependencies are pinned
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilespackage-lock.json
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share0.026
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share0.051
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable codePHP without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes0/128 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePHP
largest_source_bytes13,644
source_files_sampled128
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

13GitHub stars
1contributors
35commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
9releases
1bus factor
1open issues
npm, Packagistpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • GitHub dependency-graph SBOM unavailable (404); the dependency graph may be disabled for this repository

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 3 ⇿
0Stars
3Forks
2Releases

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.

12233312026-052026-052026-06
Major 1Minor 1Patch 0
OpenSSF Scorecard 4.9 / 10
4.9aggregate

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 · 2026-08-29 19:51 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
9CI-Tests20 out of 21 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 0/24 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
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
0Licenselicense file not detected
10Maintained17 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
10Pinned-Dependenciesall dependencies are pinned
1SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 1
9Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0Vulnerabilities34 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 9
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Packagistfilament/filament^5.0composer.json
Packagistilluminate/contracts^13.0composer.json
Packagistleague/html-to-markdown^5.1composer.json
Packagistralphjsmit/laravel-filament-seo^2.2composer.json
Packagistralphjsmit/laravel-seo^1.8composer.json
Packagistspatie/laravel-markdown^2.8composer.json
Packagistspatie/laravel-package-tools^1.93composer.json
Packagistspatie/laravel-sitemap^8.2composer.json
Packagistspatie/laravel-sluggable^4.0composer.json
All dependencies not collected

The resolved dependency set could not be collected for this report: GitHub dependency-graph SBOM unavailable (404); the dependency graph may be disabled for this repository

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.