Ideally, in adopting dependencies, you should be looking for a mature utility whose design was clear and implementation is complete.

If it's open source, you should be able to read and unserstand the code yourself, and you should make an earnest effort to do so, in case it has faults you wouldn't usually allow in your own code and in case you need to fork it at some point.

This lets you you build well-designed, stable, maintainable, clear things yourself.

The alternate, building your project on a random collection of "living" projects undergoing active development is how you banish yourself to perpetual maintenance, build failures and CVE warnings that have nothing to do with your work, surprise regressions when you update your referenced version (you are, at least, pinning your versions??), etc

But I would not assume that a HTTP client that has been untouched in 12 years supports SNI, for example, which means that actually it might be totally useless for a lot of modern sites (certainly Android did not support SNI 12 years ago).

If there's no issue tracker, you can YOLO and try it and see if it works, or you can look around at the code and see if it looks reasonable.

Even if there are unaddressed issues, you can always use it and fix it when it breaks. If it's reasonable enough, it's a good start anyway. And at least my assumption with open source is I'm going to be fixing it when it breaks, so lack of a pulse is better than churn.