## Package Review

*Please check off boxes as applicable, and elaborate in comments below.  Your review is not limited to these topics, as described in the reviewer guide*

- [x] As the reviewer I confirm that there are no conflicts of interest for me to review this work (If you are unsure whether you are in conflict, please speak to your editor _before_ starting your review).

#### Documentation

The package includes all the following forms of documentation:

- [x] **A statement of need** clearly stating problems the software is designed to solve and its target audience in README
- [x] **Installation instructions:** for the development version of package and any non-standard dependencies in README
- [ ] **Vignette(s)** demonstrating major functionality that runs successfully locally
- [ ] **Function Documentation:** for all exported functions in R help
- [ ] **Examples** for all exported functions in R Help that run successfully locally
- [ ] **Community guidelines** including contribution guidelines in the README or CONTRIBUTING, and DESCRIPTION with `URL`, `BugReports` and `Maintainer` (which may be autogenerated via `Authors@R`).

>##### Paper (for packages co-submitting to JOSS)
>
>The package contains a `paper.md` with:
>
>- [ ] **A short summary** describing the high-level functionality of the software
>- [ ] **Authors:**  A list of authors with their affiliations
>- [ ] **A statement of need** clearly stating problems the software is designed to solve and its target audience.
>- [ ] **References:** with DOIs for all those that have one (e.g. papers, datasets, software).

#### Functionality

- [x] **Installation:** Installation succeeds as documented.
- [x] **Functionality:** Any functional claims of the software been confirmed.
- [x] **Performance:** Any performance claims of the software been confirmed.
- [x] **Automated tests:** Unit tests cover essential functions of the package
   and a reasonable range of inputs and conditions. All tests pass on the local machine.
- [x] **Packaging guidelines**: The package conforms to the rOpenSci packaging guidelines

#### Final approval (post-review)

- [ ] **The author has responded to my review and made changes to my satisfaction. I recommend approving this package.**

Estimated hours spent reviewing: 1.5

---

### Review Comments
- Well documented and consistent package!
- I created a PR for some typos and to get through the CRAN policy of referring to other packages within apostrophes
- @hrbrmstr's comments provide an excellent review of the security aspects of this package
- A potential improvement to the documentation would be some diagrams, however, the vignettes do a great job anywayy