Public record
Software health reportschema 0.26.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-22 02:10 UTC

tonysm / rich-text-laravel

Integrates the Trix Editor with Laravel. Inspired by the Action Text gem from Rails.

PHP · CSS · BladeMIT★ 467 stars⑂ 18 forkssince Jul 2021View on GitHub ↗

tonysm/rich-text-laravel holds a health index of 67 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Vitality (80/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (27/100). 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

Tony MessiasPersonal account
357 followers208 public repossince Nov 2011@tighten

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
Packagisttonysm/rich-text-laravel3.11.27,4344839 days agolaravelrich-text-laravel

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

80Excellent · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 0 days ago
6.9/36Commit cadence10/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume108 commits in the last year
5/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained5 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 5
Inputs used
commits_last_year108
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year10

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases40 releases published
36/36Release recencylatest release 39 days ago
27/27Release cadencea release every ~17.7 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count40
latest_release_tag3.11.2
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release39
mean_days_between_releases17.7
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?

60Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
43.3/60Stars467 stars
10.3/25Forks18 forks
1.7/15Watchers3 watchers
Inputs used
forks18
stars467
watchers3
growth_stateorganic
growth_factor_pct100
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
51.6/80Monthly downloads7,434 downloads/month across packagist
2/20Registry dependents1 packages depend on it
Inputs used
packagestonysm/rich-text-laravel
dependents1
ecosystemspackagist
total_downloads105,338
monthly_downloads7,434
unverified_packages_excluded

Sustainability & Governance

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

64Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0.6/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 98% of commits
6.8/13.5Contributor breadth5 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled5
top_contributor_share0.975
How it's scored
38.9/42Issue resolution93% of issues closed
29.2/30PR acceptance36/37 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 1/23 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs36
open_issues3
closed_issues38
prs_merged_7d
prs_decided_7d
prs_merged_30d
prs_decided_30d
issue_closed_ratio0.927
closed_unmerged_prs1
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
18.4/25Owner reach357 followers of tonysm
25/25Track record208 public repos, account ~14 yr old
Inputs used
followers357
owner_typeUser
is_verified
owner_logintonysm
public_repos208
account_age_days5,370
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 39 days ago
20/20Version history48 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagestonysm/rich-text-laravel
ecosystemspackagist
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish39

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

65Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows2 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
14/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests3 out of 4 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

60Moderate
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics3 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicshacktoberfest, laravel, trix
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?

37Weak · 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
1.8/2.5CI-Tests3 out of 4 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 7
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-ReviewFound 1/23 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
2.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
0/10Dangerous-Workflowno data
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5Licenselicense file detected
3.8/7.5Maintained5 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 5
0/5Packagingno data
0/5Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
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
0/7.5Vulnerabilities20 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated14
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive4
scorecard_aggregate2.7
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Dangerous-Workflow, Packaging, Signed-Releases, Token-Permissions. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
22.1/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories1 affected: trix 2.1.16 (moderate 4.6)
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisoriestransitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
35.9/40No advisories left outstanding1 advisory-carrying package(s) unaddressed past 90 days; oldest published 131 days ago
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories20
affected_packages3
assessed_packages45
unassessed_packages11
affected_by_severitymoderate 3
direct_affected_packages1
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 45 resolved dependencies against OSV. 11 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.

27At Risk · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
6.9/40Legible commit history13 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.13
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
10/10Reproducible environmentlockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno agent-authored commits among the last 100
0/8Automated maintenanceno automated dependency updates observed
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilespackage-lock.json
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable codePHP without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes0/131 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePHP
largest_source_bytes26,623
source_files_sampled131
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

467GitHub stars
5contributors
108commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
40releases
1bus factor
3open issues
npm, Packagistpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Could not fetch npm package 'rich-text-laravel' from its registry

More detail

Star and fork history 467 ★ / 18 ⇿
467Stars
18Forks
40Releases

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.

010020030040050046718862021-082024-012026-07
Major 3Minor 20Patch 11

Each point covers 5 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 2.7 / 10
2.7aggregate

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 · 2026-07-22 02:09 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
3Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
7CI-Tests3 out of 4 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 7
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 1/23 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
5Maintained5 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 5
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
0Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
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
0Vulnerabilities20 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 5
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Packagistilluminate/contracts^10.0|^11.47|^12.0|^13.0composer.json
Packagistspatie/laravel-package-tools^1.9.2composer.json
Packagisttonysm/globalid-laravel^1.5composer.json
npm@37signals/lexxy^0.8.0-betapackage.json
npmtrix^2.1.16package.json
All dependencies 56

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 5 direct and 51 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
npm@37signals/lexxy0.8.0-betadirect
npmtrix2.1.16direct
Packagistilluminate/contractsdirect
Packagistspatie/laravel-package-toolsdirect
Packagisttonysm/globalid-laraveldirect
npm@esbuild/linux-loong640.14.54indirect
npm@lexical/clipboard0.38.2indirect
npm@lexical/code0.38.2indirect
npm@lexical/dragon0.38.2indirect
npm@lexical/extension0.38.2indirect
npm@lexical/history0.38.2indirect
npm@lexical/html0.38.2indirect
npm@lexical/link0.38.2indirect
npm@lexical/list0.38.2indirect
npm@lexical/markdown0.38.2indirect
npm@lexical/plain-text0.38.2indirect
npm@lexical/rich-text0.38.2indirect
npm@lexical/selection0.38.2indirect
npm@lexical/table0.38.2indirect
npm@lexical/text0.38.2indirect
npm@lexical/utils0.38.2indirect
npm@preact/signals-core1.13.0indirect
npm@types/trusted-types2.0.7indirect
npmdompurify3.3.1indirect
npmesbuild0.14.54indirect
npmesbuild-android-640.14.54indirect
npmesbuild-android-arm640.14.54indirect
npmesbuild-darwin-640.14.54indirect
npmesbuild-darwin-arm640.14.54indirect
npmesbuild-freebsd-640.14.54indirect
npmesbuild-freebsd-arm640.14.54indirect
npmesbuild-linux-320.14.54indirect
npmesbuild-linux-640.14.54indirect
npmesbuild-linux-arm0.14.54indirect
npmesbuild-linux-arm640.14.54indirect
npmesbuild-linux-mips64le0.14.54indirect
npmesbuild-linux-ppc64le0.14.54indirect
npmesbuild-linux-riscv640.14.54indirect
npmesbuild-linux-s390x0.14.54indirect
npmesbuild-netbsd-640.14.54indirect
npmesbuild-openbsd-640.14.54indirect
npmesbuild-sunos-640.14.54indirect
npmesbuild-windows-320.14.54indirect
npmesbuild-windows-640.14.54indirect
npmesbuild-windows-arm640.14.54indirect
npmlexical0.38.2indirect
npmmarked16.4.2indirect
npmprismjs1.30.0indirect
Packagistlaravel/pintindirect
Packagistlivewire/livewireindirect
Packagistnunomaduro/collisionindirect
Packagistorchestra/testbenchindirect
Packagistorchestra/workbenchindirect
Packagistphpindirect
Packagistphpunit/phpunitindirect
Packagistsymfony/html-sanitizerindirect
Dependency advisories 3

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 45 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 3 carry known advisories, of which 1 are direct. 11 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
trix2.1.16directmoderate22.1.18
dompurify3.3.1indirectmoderate173.4.12
esbuild0.14.54indirectmoderate10.25.0

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 v0.26.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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