Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-13 08:53 UTC

shadowhand / latitude

A SQL query builder with zero dependencies

PHPMIT★ 634 stars⑂ 52 forkssince Jan 2017View on GitHub ↗

shadowhand/latitude holds a health index of 75 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (90/100) and lowest on Vitality (48/100). It was last updated 47 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

75
overall / 100
Good

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.

75
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 65 is calibrated to 75 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Woody GilkPersonal account
578 followers40 public repossince Dec 2008@RoundingWell

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 publish
Packagistlatitude/latitude4.4.16,61847277 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

48Weak · 21% of overall
How it's scored
18/36Push recency — last push 47 days ago
8.3/36Commit cadence — 12/52 weeks with commits
15.6/18Commit volume — 54 commits in the last year
5/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 6 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 5
Inputs used
commits_last_year54
human_commit_share0.69
days_since_last_push47
active_weeks_last_year12
How it's scored
16.2/27Ships releases — 47 version tags (no GitHub releases)
16.2/36Release recency — latest release 277 days ago
12.6/27Release cadence — a release every ~282 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count47
latest_release_tag4.4.1
releases_from_tagsyes
days_since_latest_release277
mean_days_between_releases282
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?

59Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
45.4/60Stars — 634 stars
14.2/25Forks — 52 forks
7.1/15Watchers — 20 watchers
Inputs used
forks52
stars634
watchers20
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_badges4
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesshields.io
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
50.9/80Monthly downloads — 6,618 downloads/month across packagist
7.6/20Registry dependents — 13 packages depend on it
Inputs used
packageslatitude/latitude
dependents13
ecosystemspackagist
total_downloads338,112
monthly_downloads6,618
unverified_packages_excluded—

Sustainability & Governance

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

65Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
3.6/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 84% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 17 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled17
top_contributor_share0.839
How it's scored
37.5/42Issue resolution — 89% of issues closed
26/30PR acceptance — 116/134 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
3/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 2/8 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
Inputs used
merged_prs116
open_issues6
closed_issues50
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio0.893
closed_unmerged_prs18
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
19.9/25Owner reach — 578 followers of shadowhand
23.7/25Track record — 40 public repos, account ~17 yr old
Inputs used
followers578
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginshadowhand
public_repos40
account_age_days6,492
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on packagist
26/35Publish recency — latest publish 277 days ago
20/20Version history — 47 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packageslatitude/latitude
ecosystemspackagist
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish277

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

90Excellent · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 1 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — phpstan.neon
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
14/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 8 out of 11 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 7
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

100Exceptional
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://latitude.shadowhand.com/
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 4 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicssql, query-builder, php, php7
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://latitude.shadowhand.com/
docs_sitehttps://latitude.shadowhand.com/
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

65Good · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
2.2/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
1.8/2.5CI-Tests — 8 out of 11 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 7
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
1.5/7.5Code-Review — Found 2/8 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
3.8/7.5Maintained — 6 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 5
0/5Packaging — no data
5/5Pinned-Dependencies — all dependencies are pinned
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 — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate5.6
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging, Signed-Releases. 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
advisories0
affected_packages0
assessed_packages54
unassessed_packages7
affected_by_severitynone
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 54 resolved dependencies against OSV. 7 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.

52Moderate · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
37.9/40Legible commit history — 49 of 69 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.71
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — phpstan.neon
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environment — lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
8/8Automated maintenance — 31 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — all dependencies are pinned
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesGemfile.lock, package-lock.json
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0.31
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — PHP without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/82 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePHP
largest_source_bytes9,449
source_files_sampled82
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

634GitHub stars
17contributors
54commits, last 12 months
47days since last push
47releases
1bus factor
6open issues
Packagist, RubyGemspackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

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

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 52 ⇿
0Stars
52Forks
41Releases

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.

01020304050605282017-012021-062025-11
Major 3Minor 19Patch 19

Each point covers 9 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.6 / 10
5.6aggregate

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 · 2026-09-13 08:52 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
3Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
7CI-Tests8 out of 11 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 7
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
2Code-ReviewFound 2/8 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
10Contributorsproject has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
5Maintained6 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 5
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
10Pinned-Dependenciesall dependencies are pinned
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
All dependencies 61

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 61 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
npm@cloudflare/kv-asset-handler0.0.11indirect
npm@cloudflare/workers-types2.0.0indirect
npm@types/mime2.0.2indirect
npmmime2.4.6indirect
Packagistdoctrine/coding-standard—indirect
Packagisteloquent/phpstan-phony—indirect
Packagistphp—indirect
Packagistphpstan/extension-installer—indirect
Packagistphpstan/phpstan—indirect
Packagistphpstan/phpstan-phpunit—indirect
Packagistphpunit/phpunit—indirect
RubyGemsaddressable2.9.0indirect
RubyGemsbase640.3.0indirect
RubyGemsbigdecimal4.1.2indirect
RubyGemscolorator1.1.0indirect
RubyGemsconcurrent-ruby1.3.7indirect
RubyGemscsv3.3.6indirect
RubyGemsdrb2.2.3indirect
RubyGemsem-websocket0.5.3indirect
RubyGemseventmachine1.2.7indirect
RubyGemsffi1.17.3indirect
RubyGemsforwardable-extended2.6.0indirect
RubyGemsgoogle-protobuf4.34.0indirect
RubyGemshttp_parser.rb0.8.1indirect
RubyGemsi18n1.14.8indirect
RubyGemsjekyll4.4.1indirect
RubyGemsjekyll-feed0.17.0indirect
RubyGemsjekyll-redirect-from0.16.0indirect
RubyGemsjekyll-sass-converter3.1.0indirect
RubyGemsjekyll-seo-tag2.8.0indirect
RubyGemsjekyll-sitemap1.4.0indirect
RubyGemsjekyll-theme-slate0.2.0indirect
RubyGemsjekyll-watch2.2.1indirect
RubyGemsjson2.19.9indirect
RubyGemskramdown2.5.2indirect
RubyGemskramdown-parser-gfm1.1.0indirect
RubyGemsliquid4.0.4indirect
RubyGemslisten3.10.0indirect
RubyGemslogger1.7.0indirect
RubyGemsmercenary0.4.0indirect
RubyGemsmutex_m0.3.0indirect
RubyGemspathutil0.16.2indirect
RubyGemspublic_suffix7.0.5indirect
RubyGemsrake13.3.1indirect
RubyGemsrb-fsevent0.11.2indirect
RubyGemsrb-inotify0.11.1indirect
RubyGemsrexml3.4.4indirect
RubyGemsrouge4.7.0indirect
RubyGemssafe_yaml1.0.5indirect
RubyGemssass-embedded1.97.3indirect
RubyGemssass-embedded1.97.3-aarch64-linux-androidindirect
RubyGemssass-embedded1.97.3-arm-linux-androideabiindirect
RubyGemssass-embedded1.97.3-arm-linux-gnueabihfindirect
RubyGemssass-embedded1.97.3-arm-linux-musleabihfindirect
RubyGemssass-embedded1.97.3-riscv64-linux-androidindirect
RubyGemssass-embedded1.97.3-riscv64-linux-gnuindirect
RubyGemssass-embedded1.97.3-riscv64-linux-muslindirect
RubyGemssass-embedded1.97.3-x86_64-linux-androidindirect
RubyGemsterminal-table3.0.2indirect
RubyGemsunicode-display_width2.6.0indirect
RubyGemswebrick1.9.2indirect
Dependency advisories 0

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 54 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct. 7 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list.

No known advisories affect the assessed dependencies.

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

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.