Public record
Software health reportschema 0.27.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-24 02:44 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 (89/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (52/100). It was last updated 30 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
579 followers37 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/latitude4.4.16,77047226 days ago

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
7.6/36Commit cadence11/52 weeks with commits
15.3/18Commit volume50 commits in the last year
1/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained2 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 1
Inputs used
commits_last_year50
human_commit_share0.69
days_since_last_push30
active_weeks_last_year11
How it's scored
16.2/27Ships releases47 version tags (no GitHub releases)
16.2/36Release recencylatest release 226 days ago
12.6/27Release cadencea release every ~282 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count47
latest_release_tag4.4.1
releases_from_tagsyes
days_since_latest_release226
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
45.4/60Stars634 stars
14.2/25Forks52 forks
7.1/15Watchers20 watchers
Inputs used
forks52
stars634
watchers20
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized 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
51.1/80Monthly downloads6,770 downloads/month across packagist
7.6/20Registry dependents13 packages depend on it
Inputs used
packageslatitude/latitude
dependents13
ecosystemspackagist
total_downloads327,596
monthly_downloads6,770
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 factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
3.6/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 84% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth17 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled17
top_contributor_share0.838
How it's scored
37.5/42Issue resolution89% of issues closed
25.9/30PR acceptance114/132 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
3/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 3/11 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
Inputs used
merged_prs114
open_issues6
closed_issues50
prs_merged_7d
prs_decided_7d
prs_merged_30d
prs_decided_30d
issue_closed_ratio0.893
closed_unmerged_prs18
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
19.9/25Owner reach579 followers of shadowhand
23.5/25Track record37 public repos, account ~17 yr old
Inputs used
followers579
owner_typeUser
is_verified
owner_loginshadowhand
public_repos37
account_age_days6,440
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable1 package(s) on packagist
26/35Publish recencylatest publish 226 days ago
20/20Version history47 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packageslatitude/latitude
ecosystemspackagist
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish226

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

89Excellent · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows1 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter configphpstan.neon
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
12/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests6 out of 10 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 6
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 sitehttps://latitude.shadowhand.com/
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics4 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?

62Moderate · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
2.2/7.5Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
1.5/2.5CI-Tests6 out of 10 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 6
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
1.5/7.5Code-ReviewFound 3/11 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
2.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
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
0.8/7.5Maintained2 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 1
0/5Packagingno data
5/5Pinned-Dependenciesall dependencies are pinned
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
6.8/7.5Vulnerabilities1 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate5.2
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 advisoriesno direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisoriestransitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40No advisories left outstandingno advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories1
affected_packages1
assessed_packages54
unassessed_packages7
affected_by_severitylow 1
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 instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
37.9/40Legible commit history49 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 configphpstan.neon
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environmentlockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno agent-authored commits among the last 100
8/8Automated maintenance31 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesall 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 codePHP without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes0/82 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePHP
largest_source_bytes9,449
source_files_sampled82
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

634GitHub stars
17contributors
50commits, last 12 months
30days 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 5.2 / 10
5.2aggregate

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 · 2026-07-24 02:44 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
3Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
6CI-Tests6 out of 10 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 6
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
2Code-ReviewFound 3/11 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
1Maintained2 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 1
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
9Vulnerabilities1 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-standardindirect
Packagisteloquent/phpstan-phonyindirect
Packagistphpindirect
Packagistphpstan/extension-installerindirect
Packagistphpstan/phpstanindirect
Packagistphpstan/phpstan-phpunitindirect
Packagistphpunit/phpunitindirect
RubyGemsaddressable2.9.0indirect
RubyGemsbase640.3.0indirect
RubyGemsbigdecimal4.1.2indirect
RubyGemscolorator1.1.0indirect
RubyGemsconcurrent-ruby1.3.7indirect
RubyGemscsv3.3.5indirect
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
RubyGemsjson2.19.2indirect
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 1

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: 1 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.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
json2.19.2indirectlow12.19.9

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 v0.27.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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