The MIT declaration, organization ownership, and regular release history add useful confidence. The tiny README and absent security policy leave important maintenance and usage details unclear.
68%
Total Score
75
100
75
75
A README is present, but it is only 25 characters and provides almost no usage guidance. Missing tests and a changelog in the published artifact are normal packaging practice.
The repository recorded no commits and no active maintainers in the last three months. This is a maintenance concern, although the release history shows some recent publishing activity.
The repository name matches the package, supporting that it is the intended source. However, the README does not mention the package beyond its title, limiting source-to-package transparency.
The repository uses Composer build tooling, but no security scanning tool was detected. The missing scanner is a modest transparency and maintenance gap, not evidence of a security failure.
No security policy is present in the repository, leaving vulnerability-reporting expectations unclear. This weakens transparency but is not severe on its own.
We didn't find any vulnerabilities for this package.
| Dependency | Last Release | Score |
|---|---|---|
guzzlehttp/guzzle Version ^7.9 | — | — |
illuminate/support Version ^8.0|^9.0|^10.0|^11.0|^12.0 | — | — |
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.