79%
Total Score
healthy
Strong release cadence and active project backing offset unpinned workflow actions and weak package-to-repository identification.
The organization-backed project has two publish accounts using workos.com, but hadihallak (gmail.com) and chancestrickland (chance.dev) are outside-domain publishing identities, creating account-hygiene risk despite the company backing.
The repository name does not match the package and its README does not mention @radix-ui/react-scroll-area. This may be normal for a monorepo, but the missing README reference weakens package-to-source identification.
The repository uses TypeScript, Vite, Vitest, and npm scripts, but no security-scanning tools were detected, leaving a modest security-process gap.
No repository security policy was found, reducing transparency about vulnerability reporting and response procedures.
All four workflows were analyzed successfully with no dangerous sinks or high-severity findings, but all 8 action references are unpinned. The lack of top-level permissions is not harmful here because one workflow uses job-level permissions and none grants top-level write access.
We didn't find any vulnerabilities for this package.
| Dependency | Last Release | Score |
|---|---|---|
@radix-ui/number Version 1.1.3 | — | — |
@radix-ui/primitive Version 1.2.0 | — | — |
@radix-ui/react-slot Version 1.5.0 | — | — |
@radix-ui/react-context Version 1.3.0 | — | — |
@radix-ui/react-presence Version 1.1.11 | — | — |
Connect your repositories to instantly see whether vulnerable or malicious packages exist in your codebase.
Free. No credit card required.

I consent to receiving marketing communications based on Aikido’s Privacy Policy.
SOC 2Compliant
ISO 27001Compliant
ISO 42001Compliant© All Intel data is openly available and commercially licensed.