Wizard Laravel Package

Product Decisions This Supports

• Multi-step flow features — the wizard package targets step-based state (onboarding, checkout, KYC/verification, application and survey forms). It is relevant to roadmap items where one form must be split across screens with per-step validation and back/forward navigation.
• Build vs. buy for "form plumbing" — this package represents the buy/borrow end of the spectrum. The correct PM decision it informs is whether wizard scaffolding is worth any dependency at all, given that step state, validation gating, and navigation are a few hundred lines of your own code in most Laravel apps.
• Time-to-prototype trade-off — useful as a reference implementation if a team needs a working multi-step flow for a demo/spike in days, not weeks. It does not support production commitments.
• Progressive-disclosure UX bets — supports the product question "should this be one long form or a guided flow?" by making the guided-flow variant cheap to trial.
• Not a platform decision — with 1 star, 0 dependents, and an archived repository, it should not appear in an architecture or vendor-selection decision record except as a rejected option.

When to Consider This Package

Consider it only as:

• A reading source — clone it, study the step/state abstractions, and reimplement the good parts in-house. This is the highest-value use of an archived, low-adoption package.
• A throwaway prototype — a spike or internal demo where the code will never ship to customers and will be deleted before launch.
• A team already standardized on the Ruwork/Ruvents PHP ecosystem and comfortable owning a fork outright.

Look elsewhere — or build — when:

• Maintenance matters. "Archived" is a hard stop for anything on a customer-facing path: no security patches, no PHP/Laravel version support, no upstream fixes. Budget for full ownership if you adopt.
• You need community support. 1 star / 0 dependents means no Stack Overflow answers, no third-party tutorials, no hiring signal, and no one else to find the edge cases for you.
• The requirement is real. For production multi-step flows, prefer maintained alternatives (Laravel Livewire or Filament wizard components, Inertia/Inertia-style client-side step state, or a thin custom state machine) or write the ~200–400 lines yourself with tests.
• Compliance or auditability is in scope. An unmaintained dependency on a KYC or payments flow is a procurement and security-review liability.

Bottom line: adoption is justified only when the cost of replacement is near zero. The package's value is as a pattern catalog, not a dependency.

How to Pitch It (Stakeholders)

To executives: This is a small, single-author, archived PHP component for building multi-step forms. It is not a strategic platform choice — the capability it provides (splitting a form into guided steps) is commodity work our engineers can build and own in a short cycle. Adopting it would introduce an unmaintained dependency on flows like onboarding and checkout, where reliability directly affects conversion and revenue. Recommendation: do not adopt; treat it as free design input and build or use a maintained alternative. Cost impact is neutral to slightly positive — reading it may save a few days of design work, at no licensing cost (MIT).

To engineering: Use it as a reference, not a dependency. Skim the step-state and validation-gating approach, then implement the equivalent in-house with tests, or use a maintained package already in our stack. If anyone wants to vendor it, that requires an explicit owner, a fork, and a plan for PHP/Laravel upgrades — absent that, it fails our dependency review on maintenance and support criteria.