amrdeveloper/gql vs ultraworkers/claw-code
ultraworkers/claw-code shows stronger signals overall
As of June 2026, claw-code shows healthier maintenance signals than gql. claw-code rates Healthy overall while gql rates Mixed. gql last saw a commit 2 months ago with 2+ active contributors, while claw-code was committed to 1 day ago with 10+ active contributors. Both use the MIT license. Neither has known critical or high-severity CVEs in its dependency tree.
Informational only. RepoPilot summarises public signals at the time of analysis. Not professional, security, or legal advice.
amrdeveloper/gql →
Single-maintainer risk — review before adopting
top contributor handles 99% of recent commits; no tests detected
Has a license, tests, and CI — clean foundation to fork and modify.
Documented and popular — useful reference codebase to read through.
No critical CVEs, sane security posture — runnable as-is.
- ⚠Small team — 2 contributors active in recent commits
- ⚠Single-maintainer risk — top contributor 99% of recent commits
- ⚠No test directory detected
- ⚠Scorecard: default branch unprotected (0/10)
- ✓Last commit 3w ago
- ✓2 active contributors
- ✓MIT licensed
- ✓CI configured
What would improve this?
- →Use as dependency Mixed → Healthy if: diversify commit ownership (top <90%)
Computed from maintenance signals — commit recency, contributor breadth, bus factor, license, CI, tests, cross-checked against OpenSSF Scorecard
ultraworkers/claw-code →
Healthy across the board
Permissive license, no critical CVEs, actively maintained — safe to depend on.
Has a license, tests, and CI — clean foundation to fork and modify.
Documented and popular — useful reference codebase to read through.
No critical CVEs, sane security posture — runnable as-is.
- ⚠Concentrated ownership — top contributor handles 71% of recent commits
- ✓Last commit 1d ago
- ✓10 active contributors
- ✓MIT licensed
- ✓CI configured
- ✓Tests present
Computed from maintenance signals — commit recency, contributor breadth, bus factor, license, CI, tests, cross-checked against dependency CVEs from deps.dev and OpenSSF Scorecard
Signal-by-signal breakdown
| gql | claw-code | |
|---|---|---|
| Stars | 3,490 | 194,369 |
| Last commit | 2mo ago | 1d ago |
| License | MIT | MIT |
| Open issues | 11 | 20 |
| Has tests | — | ✓ |
| Has CI | ✓ | ✓ |
| Test coverage | 0% | 17% |
| Dependency CVEs | No CVEs | 0 critical · 0 high · 1 moderate · 0 low |
| Architecture grade | — | — |
| Cycles | — | — |
| Bottom-line | Mixed signals | Healthy signals |
Want the full analysis? amrdeveloper/gql · ultraworkers/claw-code
Ask AI about amrdeveloper/gql vs ultraworkers/claw-code
Open the chat with a comparison question pre-filled.