avelino/awesome-go vs lxn/walk
avelino/awesome-go shows stronger signals overall
As of June 2026, awesome-go shows healthier maintenance signals than walk. awesome-go rates Healthy overall while walk rates Mixed. awesome-go was committed to today with 76+ active contributors, while walk last saw a commit 2 years ago with 7+ active contributors. awesome-go is MIT-licensed while walk is Other-licensed. 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.
avelino/awesome-go →
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.
Scorecard "Branch-Protection" is 0/10; Scorecard "Token-Permissions" is 0/10
- ⚠Scorecard: dangerous CI workflow (0/10)
- ⚠Scorecard: default branch unprotected (0/10)
- ✓Last commit today
- ✓76+ active contributors
- ✓Distributed ownership (top contributor 10% of recent commits)
- ✓MIT licensed
- ✓CI configured
- ✓Tests present
What would improve this?
- →Deploy as-is Mixed → Healthy if: bring "Branch-Protection" to ≥3/10 (see scorecard report)
Computed from maintenance signals — commit recency, contributor breadth, bus factor, license, CI, tests, cross-checked against dependency CVEs from deps.dev and OpenSSF Scorecard
lxn/walk →
Stale — last commit 2y ago
non-standard license (Other); last commit was 2y ago…
no tests detected; no CI workflows detected…
Documented and popular — useful reference codebase to read through.
last commit was 2y ago; Scorecard "Branch-Protection" is 0/10…
- ⚠Stale — last commit 2y ago
- ⚠Single-maintainer risk — top contributor 83% of recent commits
- ⚠Non-standard license (Other) — review terms
- ⚠No CI workflows detected
- ⚠No test directory detected
- ⚠Scorecard: marked unmaintained (0/10)
- ⚠Scorecard: default branch unprotected (0/10)
- ✓7 active contributors
- ✓Other licensed
What would improve this?
- →Use as dependency Concerns → Mixed if: clarify license terms
- →Fork & modify Mixed → Healthy if: add a test suite
- →Deploy as-is Mixed → Healthy if: 1 commit in the last 180 days; bring "Branch-Protection" to ≥3/10 (see scorecard report)
Computed from maintenance signals — commit recency, contributor breadth, bus factor, license, CI, tests, cross-checked against OpenSSF Scorecard
Signal-by-signal breakdown
| awesome-go | walk | |
|---|---|---|
| Stars | 176,527 | 7,066 |
| Last commit | today | 2y ago |
| License | MIT | Other |
| Open issues | 184 | 347 |
| Has tests | ✓ | — |
| Has CI | ✓ | — |
| Test coverage | 10% | 0% |
| Dependency CVEs | No CVEs | No CVEs |
| Architecture grade | — | — |
| Cycles | — | — |
| Bottom-line | Healthy signals | Mixed signals |
Want the full analysis? avelino/awesome-go · lxn/walk
Ask AI about avelino/awesome-go vs lxn/walk
Open the chat with a comparison question pre-filled.