blankj/awesome-java-leetcode vs halo-dev/halo
halo-dev/halo shows stronger signals overall
As of June 2026, halo shows healthier maintenance signals than awesome-java-leetcode. halo rates Healthy overall while awesome-java-leetcode rates Concerns. awesome-java-leetcode last saw a commit 5 years ago with 3+ active contributors, while halo last saw a commit 1 month ago with 11+ active contributors. 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.
blankj/awesome-java-leetcode →
Stale and unlicensed — last commit 5y ago
no license — legally unclear; last commit was 5y ago…
no license — can't legally use code; no tests detected…
Documented and popular — useful reference codebase to read through.
no license — can't legally use code; last commit was 5y ago…
- ⚠Stale — last commit 5y ago
- ⚠Small team — 3 contributors active in recent commits
- ⚠Single-maintainer risk — top contributor 94% of recent commits
- ⚠No license — legally unclear to depend on
- ⚠No CI workflows detected
- ⚠No test directory detected
- ✓3 active contributors
What would improve this?
- →Use as dependency Concerns → Mixed if: publish a permissive license (MIT, Apache-2.0, etc.); 1 commit in the last 365 days
- →Fork & modify Concerns → Mixed if: add a LICENSE file
- →Deploy as-is Concerns → Mixed if: add a LICENSE file
Computed from maintenance signals — commit recency, contributor breadth, bus factor, license, CI, tests
halo-dev/halo →
Healthy across the board
copyleft license (GPL-3.0) — review compatibility
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.
- ⚠GPL-3.0 is copyleft — check downstream compatibility
- ✓Last commit 1d ago
- ✓11 active contributors
- ✓Distributed ownership (top contributor 44% of recent commits)
- ✓GPL-3.0 licensed
- ✓CI configured
- ✓Tests present
What would improve this?
- →Use as dependency Concerns → Mixed if: relicense under MIT/Apache-2.0 (rare for established libs)
Computed from maintenance signals — commit recency, contributor breadth, bus factor, license, CI, tests
Signal-by-signal breakdown
| awesome-java-leetcode | halo | |
|---|---|---|
| Stars | 8,709 | 38,498 |
| Last commit | 5y ago | 1mo ago |
| License | — | GPL-3.0 |
| Open issues | 13 | 189 |
| Has tests | — | ✓ |
| Has CI | — | ✓ |
| Test coverage | 0% | 11% |
| Dependency CVEs | No CVEs | No CVEs |
| Architecture grade | — | — |
| Cycles | — | — |
| Bottom-line | Concerns signals | Healthy signals |
Want the full analysis? blankj/awesome-java-leetcode · halo-dev/halo
Ask AI about blankj/awesome-java-leetcode vs halo-dev/halo
Open the chat with a comparison question pre-filled.