Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-10-13 14:45 UTC

teylabs / mod

Lightweight toolkit for modular development in Laravel, for you and your coding agents. Choose or extend common layouts like DDD and modular monoliths, or create your own.

PHPMIT★ 0 stars⑂ 0 forkssince Oct 2026View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryNetwork servicehow this is determined

teylabs/mod holds a health index of 67 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (84/100) and lowest on Security (39/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

67
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.

67
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 61 is calibrated to 67 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Tey LabsOrganization · verified domain
0 followers7 public repossince Jul 2026

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

Package ecosystems

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

73Good · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
0.7/36Commit cadence — 1/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 158 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — project was created within the last 90 days. Please review its contents carefully
Inputs used
commits_last_year158
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year1

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 13 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 0 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~0.4 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count13
latest_release_tagv0.7.1
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release0
mean_days_between_releases0.4
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?

42Weak · 17% of overall
How it's scored
0/60Stars — 0 stars
0/25Forks — 0 forks
0/15Watchers — 0 watchers
Inputs used
forks0
stars0
watchers0
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

85Excellent
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (MIT)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5Code 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_conductyes
readme_badge_servicesshields.io
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
47.4/80Monthly downloads — 3,602 downloads/month across packagist
2/20Registry dependents — 1 packages depend on it
Inputs used
packagestey/mod
dependents1
ecosystemspackagist
total_downloads3,602
monthly_downloads3,602
unverified_packages_excluded—

Sustainability & Governance

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

58Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 100% of commits
1.4/13.5Contributor breadth — 1 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled1
top_contributor_share1
How it's scored
33/42Issue resolution — 79% of issues closed
29.3/30PR acceptance — 88/90 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs88
open_issues15
closed_issues55
prs_merged_7d58
prs_decided_7d60
prs_merged_30d58
prs_decided_30d60
issue_closed_ratio0.786
closed_unmerged_prs2
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 backing — organization-owned
20/20Verified domain
0/25Owner reach — 0 followers of teylabs
7.1/25Track record — 7 public repos, account ~0 yr old
Inputs used
followers0
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedyes
owner_loginteylabs
public_repos7
account_age_days94

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on packagist
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 0 days ago
20/20Version history — 13 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagestey/mod
ecosystemspackagist
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish0

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

84Excellent · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 6 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 25 out of 25 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

100Exceptional
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://mod.teylabs.com
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 16 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsartisan, auto-discovery, ddd, domain-driven-design, generators, laravel, laravel-package, modular, modular-monolith, modules, php, vertical-slices, ai-agents, coding-agents, laravel-boost, mcp
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://mod.teylabs.com
docs_sitehttps://mod.teylabs.com
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

39Weak · 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
2.5/2.5CI-Tests — 25 out of 25 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-Review — Found 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
0/10Dangerous-Workflow — no data
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
0/7.5Maintained — project was created within the last 90 days. Please review its contents carefully
0/5Packaging — no data
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — no data
0/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
5/5Security-Policy — security policy file detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — no data
0/7.5Token-Permissions — no data
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated13
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive5
scorecard_aggregate3.9
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.

70Good · 4% of overall
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructions — AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md
15/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) — llms.txt served by the project website (https://mod.teylabs.com/llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history — 80 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtyes
llms_txt_urlhttps://mod.teylabs.com/llms.txt
legible_history_share0.8
agent_instruction_filesAGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes2,339
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checking — tests/Fixtures/kits/react-current/after/tsconfig.json, tests/Fixtures/kits/react-current/before/tsconfig.json, tests/Fixtures/kits/react-laravel12/after/tsconfig.json, tests/Fixtures/kits/react-laravel12/before/tsconfig.json, tests/Fixtures/kits/vue-current/after/tsconfig.json, tests/Fixtures/kits/vue-current/before/tsconfig.json, tests/Fixtures/kits/vue-laravel12/after/tsconfig.json, tests/Fixtures/kits/vue-laravel12/before/tsconfig.json
10/10Reproducible environment — lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
5/8Automated maintenance — dependency automation configured, none observed in the sampled commits
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_configstests/Fixtures/kits/react-current/after/tsconfig.json, tests/Fixtures/kits/react-current/before/tsconfig.json, tests/Fixtures/kits/react-laravel12/after/tsconfig.json, tests/Fixtures/kits/react-laravel12/before/tsconfig.json, tests/Fixtures/kits/vue-current/after/tsconfig.json, tests/Fixtures/kits/vue-current/before/tsconfig.json, tests/Fixtures/kits/vue-laravel12/after/tsconfig.json, tests/Fixtures/kits/vue-laravel12/before/tsconfig.json
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
27/45Type-checkable code — PHP with type-check config (tests/Fixtures/kits/react-current/after/tsconfig.json, tests/Fixtures/kits/react-current/before/tsconfig.json, tests/Fixtures/kits/react-laravel12/after/tsconfig.json, tests/Fixtures/kits/react-laravel12/before/tsconfig.json, tests/Fixtures/kits/vue-current/after/tsconfig.json, tests/Fixtures/kits/vue-current/before/tsconfig.json, tests/Fixtures/kits/vue-laravel12/after/tsconfig.json, tests/Fixtures/kits/vue-laravel12/before/tsconfig.json)
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/674 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePHP
largest_source_bytes38,041
source_files_sampled674
oversized_source_files0
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto)
0/20MCP server
40/40Runnable examples — examples
Inputs used
example_dirsexamples
has_mcp_signalno
api_schema_files—
interfaces_expected_ofnetwork-service

Key facts

0GitHub stars
1contributors
158commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
13releases
1bus factor
15open issues
Packagistpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • GitHub dependency-graph SBOM unavailable (404); the dependency graph may be disabled for this repository

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 3.9 / 10
3.9aggregate

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 · 2026-10-13 14:44 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
10CI-Tests25 out of 25 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
10Contributorsproject has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
0Maintainedproject was created within the last 90 days. Please review its contents carefully
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
n/aPinned-Dependenciesno dependencies found
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
10Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
n/aToken-PermissionsNo tokens found
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 2
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Packagistlaravel/framework^12.0|^13.0composer.json
Packagistsymfony/filesystem^7.2|^8.0composer.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 statistics — Packagist.