Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-10-15 09:29 UTC

xefi / faker-php-laravel

PHP · DockerfileNo license detected★ 26 stars⑂ 2 forkssince Oct 2024View on GitHub ↗

xefi/faker-php-laravel holds a health index of 44 out of 100, placing it in the Weak band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (67/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (21/100). It was last updated today. 2 contributors account for most of its recent work.

44
overall / 100
Weak

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.

44
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 46 is calibrated to 44 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

XEFIOrganization
48 followers32 public repossince Feb 2024

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
Packagistxefi/faker-php-laravelv1.3.02,427110 days agofakerfixturesdatalaravelseeding

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

65Good · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
2.8/36Commit cadence — 4/52 weeks with commits
7.6/18Commit volume — 6 commits in the last year
1/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 2 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 1
Inputs used
commits_last_year6
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year4
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 11 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 0 days ago
19.8/27Release cadence — a release every ~80 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count11
latest_release_tagv1.3.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release0
mean_days_between_releases80
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?

21At Risk · 17% of overall
How it's scored
22.7/60Stars — 26 stars
0/25Forks — 2 forks
0/15Watchers — 2 watchers
Inputs used
forks2
stars26
watchers2
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
0/22.5README
0/22.5License — no license file detected
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeno
has_licenseno
readme_badges—
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services—
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
45.1/80Monthly downloads — 2,427 downloads/month across packagist
0/20Registry dependents — 0 packages depend on it
Inputs used
packagesxefi/faker-php-laravel
dependents0
ecosystemspackagist
total_downloads27,660
monthly_downloads2,427
unverified_packages_excluded—

Sustainability & Governance

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

67Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
25.2/54Bus factor — 2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
12.2/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 46% of commits
4.1/13.5Contributor breadth — 3 contributors
6/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
bus_factor2
contributors_sampled3
top_contributor_share0.458
How it's scored
28/42Issue resolution — 67% of issues closed
30/30PR acceptance — 11/11 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
3/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 4/17 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
Inputs used
merged_prs11
open_issues1
closed_issues2
prs_merged_7d2
prs_decided_7d2
prs_merged_30d2
prs_decided_30d2
issue_closed_ratio0.667
closed_unmerged_prs0
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
12.2/25Owner reach — 48 followers of xefi
16.4/25Track record — 32 public repos, account ~2 yr old
Inputs used
followers48
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_loginxefi
public_repos32
account_age_days978

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 — 11 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesxefi/faker-php-laravel
ecosystemspackagist
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish0

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

40Weak · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 2 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
12/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 7 out of 11 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

10Critical
How it's scored
0/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
0/10Repository description
0/10Topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics—
has_wikiyes
homepage—
docs_site—
has_readmeno
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionno

Security

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

29At Risk · 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
1.5/2.5CI-Tests — 7 out of 11 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 6
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
1.5/7.5Code-Review — Found 4/17 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
1.5/2.5Contributors — project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
0/10Dangerous-Workflow — no data
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
0/2.5License — license file not detected
0.8/7.5Maintained — 2 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 1
0/5Packaging — no data
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — no data
0/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5Security-Policy — security policy file not 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_aggregate2.9
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.

35Weak · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
23.5/40Legible commit history — 11 of 25 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.44
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 environment — Dockerfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 25
0/8Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — no data
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles—
has_dockerfileyes
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
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/4 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePHP
largest_source_bytes1,018
source_files_sampled4
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

26GitHub stars
3contributors
6commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
11releases
2bus factor
1open 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 ★ / 2 ⇿
0Stars
2Forks
4Releases

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.

111222212025-022025-092026-04
Major 0Minor 2Patch 2

Each point covers 2 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 2.9 / 10
2.9aggregate

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 · 2026-10-15 09:28 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
6CI-Tests7 out of 11 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 4/17 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
6Contributorsproject has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
0Licenselicense file not detected
1Maintained2 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 1
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/support^12.0|^13.0composer.json
Packagistxefi/faker-php^1composer.json
All dependencies 5

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 2 direct and 3 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
Packagistilluminate/support—direct
Packagistxefi/faker-php—direct
Packagistorchestra/testbench—indirect
Packagistphp—indirect
Packagistphpunit/phpunit—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.