The organization-backed project has three active contributors, reducing handoff risk. Missing licensing and an entirely unpinned workflow leave transparency and build-hygiene gaps. No security policy adds a smaller concern.
78%
Total Score
100
81
50
No license is declared, and neither the package nor repository contains a detected license file. This creates a real adoption and redistribution concern.
The package has no README, which is a minor documentation gap for a library consumers must integrate with; the absence of tests and changelog in the artifact is normal packaging practice.
Composer build tooling is present, but no security scanning tool was detected. This is a modest transparency gap rather than evidence of unsafe code.
The repository has no security policy, leaving vulnerability-reporting expectations and response guidance undocumented.
The workflow audit completed successfully with no injection or high-confidence findings, but its only action reference is unpinned, reducing build reproducibility. The lack of a top-level permissions block is acceptable on its own.
We didn't find any vulnerabilities for this package.
No maintainer information available.
| Dependency | Last Release | Score |
|---|---|---|
wpmetabox/support Version ^1 | — | — |
riimu/kit-phpencoder Version ^2.4 | — | — |
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.