Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-10-21 08:53 UTC

tighten / tlint

Tighten linter for Laravel conventions.

PHPMIT★ 530 stars⑂ 34 forkssince Apr 2017View on GitHub ↗
KindCommand-line toolLibraryhow this is determined

tighten/tlint holds a health index of 69 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (78/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (28/100). It was last updated 49 days ago. 2 contributors account for most of its recent work.

69
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.

69
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 62 is calibrated to 69 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

TightenOrganization
297 followers106 public repossince Jul 2013

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
Packagisttightenco/tlintv9.7.027,9368949 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

56Moderate · 21% of overall
How it's scored
18/36Push recency — last push 49 days ago
4.8/36Commit cadence — 7/52 weeks with commits
12.2/18Commit volume — 22 commits in the last year
3/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 4 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
commits_last_year22
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push49
active_weeks_last_year7
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 17 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 49 days ago
12.6/27Release cadence — a release every ~121.8 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count17
latest_release_tagv9.7.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release49
mean_days_between_releases121.8
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?

67Good · 17% of overall
How it's scored
44.2/60Stars — 530 stars
12.7/25Forks — 34 forks
5.8/15Watchers — 12 watchers
Inputs used
forks34
stars530
watchers12
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_badges1
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesshields.io
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
59.3/80Monthly downloads — 27,936 downloads/month across packagist
10.7/20Registry dependents — 39 packages depend on it
Inputs used
packagestightenco/tlint
dependents39
ecosystemspackagist
total_downloads1,375,134
monthly_downloads27,936
unverified_packages_excluded—

Sustainability & Governance

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

78Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
25.2/54Bus factor — 2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
13.5/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 40% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 31 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 14 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor2
contributors_sampled31
top_contributor_share0.402
How it's scored
41.1/42Issue resolution — 98% of issues closed
28/30PR acceptance — 223/239 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
3/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 4/14 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
Inputs used
merged_prs223
open_issues3
closed_issues140
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio0.979
closed_unmerged_prs16
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
0/20Verified domain
17.8/25Owner reach — 297 followers of tighten
25/25Track record — 106 public repos, account ~13 yr old
Inputs used
followers297
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_logintighten
public_repos106
account_age_days4,830

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on packagist
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 49 days ago
20/20Version history — 89 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagestightenco/tlint
ecosystemspackagist
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish49

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

61Moderate · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 2 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
14/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 9 out of 12 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 7
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
10/10Topics — 5 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicslaravel, php, linter, conventions, code-style
has_wikino
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?

49Weak · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — no data
1.8/2.5CI-Tests — 9 out of 12 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 4/14 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 14 contributing companies or organizations
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
2.2/7.5Maintained — 4 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 3
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_evaluated12
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive6
scorecard_aggregate4.9
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, 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.

28At Risk · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
18.7/40Legible commit history — 35 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.35
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
0/10Reproducible environment
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
0/8Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — no data
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles—
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs—
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
0/45Type-checkable code — PHP without a type-check config
54.6/55Manageable file sizes — 1/136 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePHP
largest_source_bytes82,540
source_files_sampled136
oversized_source_files1

Key facts

530GitHub stars
31contributors
22commits, last 12 months
49days since last push
17releases
2bus factor
3open issues
Packagistpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • No resolved dependencies carried a version and a supported ecosystem

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 34 ⇿
0Stars
34Forks
16Releases

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.

01325383422017-122022-042026-08
Major 3Minor 6Patch 7

Each point covers 8 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.9 / 10
4.9aggregate

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 · 2026-10-21 08:53 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
n/aBranch-Protectioninternal error: error during branchesHandler.setup: internal error: some github tokens can't read classic branch protection rules: https://github.com/ossf/scorecard-action/blob/main/docs/authentication/fine-grained-auth-token.md
7CI-Tests9 out of 12 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 4/14 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
10Contributorsproject has 14 contributing companies or organizations
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
3Maintained4 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 3
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 4
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Packagistilluminate/view*composer.json
Packagistnikic/php-parser^5.0composer.json
Packagistsymfony/console^6.1||^7.0||^8.0composer.json
Packagistsymfony/process^6.1||^7.0||^8.0composer.json
All dependencies 9

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 4 direct and 5 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
Packagistilluminate/view—direct
Packagistnikic/php-parser—direct
Packagistsymfony/console—direct
Packagistsymfony/process—direct
Packagistphp—indirect
Packagistphpunit/phpunit—indirect
Packagistspatie/ray—indirect
Packagistsymfony/var-dumper—indirect
Packagisttightenco/duster—indirect
Dependency advisories not assessed

Advisory matching could not run for this report: No resolved dependencies carried a version and a supported ecosystem

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.