Public record
Software health reportschema 0.15.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-19 16:18 UTC

sinnbeck / laravel-dom-assertions

Adds DOM assertions to laravels test responses

PHPMIT★ 106 stars⑂ 11 forkssince Oct 2022View on GitHub ↗

sinnbeck/laravel-dom-assertions holds a health index of 75 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Vitality (87/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (26/100). It was last updated today. 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

René SinnbeckPersonal account
81 followers35 public repossince Aug 2015

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
Packagistsinnbeck/laravel-dom-assertionsv3.0.1014,1914734 days agoviewdomlaravelassertionsblade

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

87Excellent · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 0 days ago
15.2/36Commit cadence22/52 weeks with commits
17.8/18Commit volume94 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained29 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year94
human_commit_share
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year22

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases47 releases published
36/36Release recencylatest release 33 days ago
27/27Release cadencea release every ~11.4 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count47
latest_release_tagv3.0.10
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release33
mean_days_between_releases11.4
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?

58Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
32.8/60Stars106 stars
8.3/25Forks11 forks
2.7/15Watchers4 watchers
Inputs used
forks11
stars106
watchers4
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized 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_badges
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
55.4/80Monthly downloads14,191 downloads/month across packagist
6.7/20Registry dependents9 packages depend on it
Inputs used
packagessinnbeck/laravel-dom-assertions
dependents9
ecosystemspackagist
total_downloads310,637
monthly_downloads14,191
unverified_packages_excluded

Sustainability & Governance

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

66Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
8.8/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 61% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth13 contributors
6/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled13
top_contributor_share0.609
How it's scored
42/42Issue resolution100% of issues closed
27.9/30PR acceptance68/73 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
1.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 3/23 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
Inputs used
merged_prs68
open_issues0
closed_issues13
prs_merged_7d
prs_decided_7d
prs_merged_30d
prs_decided_30d
issue_closed_ratio1
closed_unmerged_prs5
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
13.8/25Owner reach81 followers of sinnbeck
23.3/25Track record35 public repos, account ~10 yr old
Inputs used
followers81
owner_typeUser
is_verified
owner_loginsinnbeck
public_repos35
account_age_days3,980
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable1 package(s) on packagist
35/35Publish recencylatest publish 34 days ago
20/20Version history47 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagessinnbeck/laravel-dom-assertions
ecosystemspackagist
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish34

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

64Moderate · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows4 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
18/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests19 out of 20 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

60Moderate
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics5 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicslaravel, pestphp, php, phpunit, testing
has_wikiyes
homepage
docs_site
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

53Moderate · 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-Tests19 out of 20 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
0.8/7.5Code-ReviewFound 3/23 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
1.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
0/10Dangerous-Workflowno data
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5Licenselicense file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained29 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packagingno data
0/5Pinned-Dependenciesno data
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-Permissionsno data
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated13
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive5
scorecard_aggregate5.3
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.

26At Risk · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
0/40Legible commit historyno data
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Legible commit history. Remaining weights renormalized.
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 practiceno data
5/8Automated maintenancedependency automation configured, none observed in the sampled commits
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesno data
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Demonstrated agent practice, OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable codePHP without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes0/54 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePHP
largest_source_bytes21,786
source_files_sampled54
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

106GitHub stars
13contributors
94commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
47releases
1bus factor
0open issues
Packagistpackage ecosystems

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.3 / 10
5.3aggregate

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 · 2026-07-19 16:18 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
9CI-Tests19 out of 20 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
1Code-ReviewFound 3/23 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
6Contributorsproject has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained29 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
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 2
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Packagistilluminate/testing^10.0|^11.0|^12.0|^13.0composer.json
Packagistsymfony/css-selector^6.0|^7.0|^8.0composer.json
All dependencies 14

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 2 direct and 12 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
Packagistilluminate/testingdirect
Packagistsymfony/css-selectordirect
Packagistext-domindirect
Packagistext-libxmlindirect
Packagistlarastan/larastanindirect
Packagistlaravel/pintindirect
Packagistlivewire/livewireindirect
Packagistorchestra/testbenchindirect
Packagistpestphp/pestindirect
Packagistphpindirect
Packagistphpstan/extension-installerindirect
Packagistphpstan/phpstan-deprecation-rulesindirect
Packagistphpstan/phpstan-phpunitindirect
Packagistrector/rectorindirect
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 v0.15.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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