Public record
Software health reportschema 0.31.0 · metrics 2.5.0 · 2026-08-06 00:14 UTC

ryangjchandler / filament-progress-column

Add a progress bar column to your Filament tables.

PHPMIT★ 68 stars⑂ 9 forkssince May 2022View on GitHub ↗

ryangjchandler/filament-progress-column holds a health index of 53 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (64/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (41/100). It was last updated 92 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

Ryan ChandlerPersonal account
1,180 followers53 public repossince Jul 2018

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
Packagistryangjchandler/filament-progress-columnv2.1.05,9681192 days agolaravelryangjchandlerfilament-progress-column

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

42Weak · 21% of overall
How it's scored
9.9/36Push recency — last push 92 days ago
1.4/36Commit cadence — 2/52 weeks with commits
8.6/18Commit volume — 8 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
commits_last_year8
human_commit_share0.745
days_since_last_push92
active_weeks_last_year2
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 11 releases published
27/36Release recency — latest release 92 days ago
12.6/27Release cadence — a release every ~159.7 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count11
latest_release_tagv2.1.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release92
mean_days_between_releases159.7
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?

53Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
29.6/60Stars — 68 stars
7.5/25Forks — 9 forks
1.7/15Watchers — 3 watchers
Inputs used
forks9
stars68
watchers3
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized 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_badges4
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesshields.io
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
50.3/80Monthly downloads — 5,968 downloads/month across packagist
2/20Registry dependents — 1 packages depend on it
Inputs used
packagesryangjchandler/filament-progress-column
dependents1
ecosystemspackagist
total_downloads143,522
monthly_downloads5,968

Sustainability & Governance

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

64Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
7.1/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 68% of commits
9.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 7 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled7
top_contributor_share0.683
How it's scored
31.5/42Issue resolution — 75% of issues closed
18.4/30PR acceptance — 19/31 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
3/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 6/23 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
Inputs used
merged_prs19
open_issues1
closed_issues3
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio0.75
closed_unmerged_prs12
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
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
22.1/25Owner reach — 1,180 followers of ryangjchandler
24.6/25Track record — 53 public repos, account ~8 yr old
Inputs used
followers1,180
owner_typeUser
is_verified
owner_loginryangjchandler
public_repos53
account_age_days2,930
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 92 days ago
20/20Version history — 11 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesryangjchandler/filament-progress-column
ecosystemspackagist
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish92

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

57Moderate · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 5 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
8/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 5 out of 12 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 4
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

50Moderate
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
0/10Topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics
has_wikiyes
homepage
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-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
1/2.5CI-Tests — 5 out of 12 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 4
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
1.5/7.5Code-Review — Found 6/23 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
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
0/7.5Maintained — 0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
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
0/7.5Vulnerabilities — 14 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated13
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive5
scorecard_aggregate3.2
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): dangerous_workflow, packaging, pinned_dependencies, signed_releases, token_permissions. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories14
affected_packages2
assessed_packages72
unassessed_packages14
affected_by_severityhigh 2
direct_affected_packages0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories, No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 72 resolved dependencies against OSV. 14 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list. This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so the repository dependency graph was assessed instead. That graph mixes development and test pins with shipped dependencies, so only the declared runtime dependencies are scored; transitive findings are reported as context and excluded from the score. Reachability is not analyzed.

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.

41Weak · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
29.9/40Legible commit history — 23 of 41 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
legible_history_share0.561
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 environment — lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 55
8/8Automated maintenance — 7 of the last 55 commits are automated dependency updates
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — no data
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
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share0.127
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 — 0/7 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePHP
largest_source_bytes1,282
source_files_sampled7
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

68GitHub stars
7contributors
8commits, last 12 months
92days since last push
11releases
1bus factor
1open issues
npm, Packagistpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 9 ⇿
0Stars
9Forks
8Releases

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.

0246810912022-062024-052026-05
Major 2Minor 2Patch 4

Each point covers 4 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 3.2 / 10
3.2aggregate

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 · 2026-08-06 00:14 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
4CI-Tests5 out of 12 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 4
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
2Code-ReviewFound 6/23 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
10Contributorsproject has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
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
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
0Vulnerabilities14 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 5
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Packagistfilament/filament^4.0|^5.0composer.json
Packagistspatie/laravel-package-tools^1.9.2composer.json
Packagistilluminate/contracts^11.0|^12.0|^13.0composer.json
npm@tailwindcss/cli^4.1.12package.json
npmtailwindcss^4.1.12package.json
All dependencies 86

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 5 direct and 81 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
npm@tailwindcss/cli4.1.12direct
npmtailwindcss4.1.12direct
Packagistfilament/filamentdirect
Packagistilluminate/contractsdirect
Packagistspatie/laravel-package-toolsdirect
npm@isaacs/fs-minipass4.0.1indirect
npm@jridgewell/gen-mapping0.3.13indirect
npm@jridgewell/remapping2.3.5indirect
npm@jridgewell/resolve-uri3.1.2indirect
npm@jridgewell/sourcemap-codec1.5.5indirect
npm@jridgewell/trace-mapping0.3.30indirect
npm@parcel/watcher2.5.1indirect
npm@parcel/watcher-android-arm642.5.1indirect
npm@parcel/watcher-darwin-arm642.5.1indirect
npm@parcel/watcher-darwin-x642.5.1indirect
npm@parcel/watcher-freebsd-x642.5.1indirect
npm@parcel/watcher-linux-arm-glibc2.5.1indirect
npm@parcel/watcher-linux-arm-musl2.5.1indirect
npm@parcel/watcher-linux-arm64-glibc2.5.1indirect
npm@parcel/watcher-linux-arm64-musl2.5.1indirect
npm@parcel/watcher-linux-x64-glibc2.5.1indirect
npm@parcel/watcher-linux-x64-musl2.5.1indirect
npm@parcel/watcher-win32-arm642.5.1indirect
npm@parcel/watcher-win32-ia322.5.1indirect
npm@parcel/watcher-win32-x642.5.1indirect
npm@tailwindcss/node4.1.12indirect
npm@tailwindcss/oxide4.1.12indirect
npm@tailwindcss/oxide-android-arm644.1.12indirect
npm@tailwindcss/oxide-darwin-arm644.1.12indirect
npm@tailwindcss/oxide-darwin-x644.1.12indirect
npm@tailwindcss/oxide-freebsd-x644.1.12indirect
npm@tailwindcss/oxide-linux-arm-gnueabihf4.1.12indirect
npm@tailwindcss/oxide-linux-arm64-gnu4.1.12indirect
npm@tailwindcss/oxide-linux-arm64-musl4.1.12indirect
npm@tailwindcss/oxide-linux-x64-gnu4.1.12indirect
npm@tailwindcss/oxide-linux-x64-musl4.1.12indirect
npm@tailwindcss/oxide-wasm32-wasi4.1.12indirect
npm@tailwindcss/oxide-win32-arm64-msvc4.1.12indirect
npm@tailwindcss/oxide-win32-x64-msvc4.1.12indirect
npmbraces3.0.3indirect
npmchownr3.0.0indirect
npmdetect-libc1.0.3indirect
npmdetect-libc2.0.4indirect
npmenhanced-resolve5.18.3indirect
npmfill-range7.1.1indirect
npmgraceful-fs4.2.11indirect
npmis-extglob2.1.1indirect
npmis-glob4.0.3indirect
npmis-number7.0.0indirect
npmjiti2.5.1indirect
npmlightningcss1.30.1indirect
npmlightningcss-darwin-arm641.30.1indirect
npmlightningcss-darwin-x641.30.1indirect
npmlightningcss-freebsd-x641.30.1indirect
npmlightningcss-linux-arm-gnueabihf1.30.1indirect
npmlightningcss-linux-arm64-gnu1.30.1indirect
npmlightningcss-linux-arm64-musl1.30.1indirect
npmlightningcss-linux-x64-gnu1.30.1indirect
npmlightningcss-linux-x64-musl1.30.1indirect
npmlightningcss-win32-arm64-msvc1.30.1indirect
npmlightningcss-win32-x64-msvc1.30.1indirect
npmmagic-string0.30.17indirect
npmmicromatch4.0.8indirect
npmminipass7.1.2indirect
npmminizlib3.0.2indirect
npmmkdirp3.0.1indirect
npmmri1.2.0indirect
npmnode-addon-api7.1.1indirect
npmpicocolors1.1.1indirect
npmpicomatch2.3.1indirect
npmsource-map-js1.2.1indirect
npmtapable2.2.2indirect
npmtar7.4.3indirect
npmto-regex-range5.0.1indirect
npmyallist5.0.0indirect
Packagistlarastan/larastanindirect
Packagistnunomaduro/collisionindirect
Packagistorchestra/testbenchindirect
Packagistpestphp/pestindirect
Packagistpestphp/pest-plugin-laravelindirect
Packagistphpindirect
Packagistphpstan/extension-installerindirect
Packagistphpstan/phpstan-deprecation-rulesindirect
Packagistphpstan/phpstan-phpunitindirect
Packagistphpunit/phpunitindirect
Packagistspatie/laravel-rayindirect
Dependency advisories 2

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 72 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 2 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct. 14 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
picomatch2.3.1indirecthigh24.0.4
tar7.4.3indirecthigh127.5.21

An advisory means the version recorded in the dependency graph falls inside an advisory’s affected range. Reachability is not analysed, and the graph includes development and test pins — a finding may concern tooling rather than shipped software.

Raw JSON report machine-readable

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 v2.5.0, schema v0.31.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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