imnpc/laravel-ueditor

This release is usable but carries meaningful maintenance and transparency risk. It has a long release history, a stable non-prerelease version, recent registry releases, an active non-archived repository, a matching repository with package references, minimal runtime dependencies, and no install-time lifecycle scripts. However, the repository shows no commits or active maintainers in the last 3 months, has no tests or changelog, has no security policy, and has negligible repository adoption metrics. The package is not deprecated and has clear MIT licensing, so these concerns indicate caution rather than making the package unfit, but developers should verify compatibility with their Laravel version and consider the limited recent development activity before adopting it.

Latest 2.0.11

Packagist

68%

Total Score

Maintainer Stability

Dependencies

100

Maturity

Supply Chain

Health Score Breakdown

Package scaffolding

A substantial README documents installation, configuration, uploads, storage, and events, but neither the artifact nor repository contains tests or a changelog. For a framework integration, the missing tests reduce confidence in compatibility and regression handling.

Project backing

The repository is owned by a user account rather than an organization, so there is no demonstrated organizational backing to compensate for the thin recent activity.

Repo commit activity

The repository recorded zero commits and zero active maintainers during the last 3 months. Combined with the lack of repository tests and changelog, this is a concrete sign of currently weak maintenance activity despite recent registry publication.

Repo issue activity

There were no new or closed issues and no pull requests in the last month, with zero open pull requests. This is consistent with a quiet project, though the null open-issue count prevents a complete issue-health assessment.

Repo popularity

The repository has zero stars, forks, and watchers, indicating very limited visible adoption and external review. Popularity is supporting evidence rather than decisive, but these values provide no community buffer for the maintenance concerns.