rapidez/wishlist

rapidez/wishlist 5.0.0 appears usable and reasonably transparent: it has a five-year release history, a stable major release, a current non-archived organization-owned repository, a matching package repository with relevant README documentation, a license file, and no install-time lifecycle scripts. The main concerns are limited recent development evidence (no commits or active maintainers in the last three months), no tests in either the artifact or repository, no security policy or security scanning, and incomplete workflow permission declarations. These issues warrant caution for long-term maintenance and change confidence, but the package is not deprecated or archived and its repository was pushed recently, so it remains a viable dependency with normal due diligence.

Latest 5.0.0

Packagist

72%

Total Score

Maintainer Stability

Dependencies

100

Maturity

Supply Chain

Health Score Breakdown

Package scaffolding

The package includes a README and changelog, and the repository uses GitHub Releases, which compensates for the absence of packaged and repository tests. The missing tests still reduce confidence in regression coverage for a user-facing integration package.

Release history

The package has existed for 1665 days with 24 releases and a latest release on the assessment date, indicating established publishing history. Only one release in the last 12 months suggests a slower maintenance cadence.

Repo commit activity

There were zero commits and zero active maintainers in the last three months, which is a meaningful maintenance concern. The recently pushed repository state and release history provide some compensation, so this is caution rather than danger.

Repo issue activity

There are no open issues or pull requests and no issue or pull-request activity in the last month. This is not inherently unhealthy, but it provides little evidence of active community maintenance.

Repo popularity

The repository has five forks and three watchers but no stars. This is weak supporting evidence, though low popularity alone is not a health verdict for a specialized package.