teddan/dislikes

This release has solid implementation and packaging hygiene: it is MIT-licensed, includes a README and changelog, has a complete-looking 47-file artifact with corresponding repository tests, uses only one runtime dependency, has no install lifecycle scripts, and is not deprecated or archived. However, it is a newly published v0.1.0 with only one release, no demonstrated release history, no repository security scanning or security policy, and GitHub workflows without explicitly declared top-level token permissions. The repository is correctly linked and currently active, but there is not yet enough history or adoption evidence to establish long-term maintenance maturity, so this is usable with moderate caution rather than a highly mature dependency.

Latest v0.1.0

Packagist

68%

Total Score

Maintainer Stability

Dependencies

100

Maturity

Supply Chain

Health Score Breakdown

Project backing

The repository is owned by an individual user rather than an organization, so there is no demonstrated organizational backing to compensate for the package's short release history.

Release history

This is a newly published package with one release and no accumulated release history, so maintenance continuity and maturity cannot yet be demonstrated.

Repo popularity

The repository has zero stars, forks, and watchers. This is weak adoption evidence, but popularity is supporting evidence only and does not by itself make the package unhealthy.

Repo tooling

Composer build tooling is present, but no security scanning tools were detected, leaving a security-process gap for a package intended to be installed as a dependency.

Security policy

The repository has no security policy, reducing transparency about vulnerability reporting and response expectations.