The package is not a malware because the provided evidence is insufficient to make that determination. Evidence 0 flags the source project as 'untrustworthy' with low confidence. This is a warning flag, not definitive proof of malicious intent. Low popularity and OpenSSF score suggest a lack of community scrutiny and potential maintenance issues, which increases the risk of vulnerabilities or accidental inclusion of malicious code. However, it does not inherently mean the package itself contains malware. A low OpenSSF score doesn't automatically equate to malicious code; it could simply reflect a lack of resources or attention dedicated to security best practices by the maintainers. Further investigation is required. This includes:

• Static Analysis: A thorough review of the package's code for suspicious activities such as network connections, file system modifications, or execution of arbitrary commands. This should involve examining all files included in the package, not just the main source code.
• Dynamic Analysis: Running the package in a controlled sandbox environment to observe its runtime behavior and detect any malicious actions.
• Reputation Analysis: Checking the package's reputation on various vulnerability databases and malware repositories.
• Community Feedback: Searching for any reports or discussions about the package's behavior online.
• Investigation of Embedded Files: The prompt mentions 'embedded file contents' but provides no details. Analyzing these files for malicious code or suspicious data is crucial.

Without this additional investigation, classifying @lexical/dragon version 0.22.0 as malware based solely on a low-confidence assessment of its source project's trustworthiness is premature and unreliable.