caldis/mos vs soapyigu/leetcode-swift
Both showing Mixed signals — pick on fit, not health
As of September 2026, mos and leetcode-swift both show mixed maintenance signals. mos was committed to 3 weeks ago with 9+ active contributors, while leetcode-swift last saw a commit 2 years ago with 3+ 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.
caldis/mos
Single-maintainer risk — review before adopting
license evidence incomplete; dependency CVE scan unavailable
license evidence incomplete
Documented and popular — useful reference codebase to read through.
Scorecard "Branch-Protection" is 0/10; license evidence incomplete…
- ⚠Single-maintainer risk — top contributor 88% of recent commits
- ⚠Scorecard: default branch unprotected (0/10)
- ✓Last commit 3w ago
- ✓9 active contributors
- ✓CI configured
- ✓Tests present
Computed from maintenance signals — commit recency, contributor breadth, bus factor, license, CI, tests, cross-checked against OpenSSF Scorecard
soapyigu/leetcode-swift
Stale — last commit 2y ago
last commit was 2y ago; top contributor handles 95% of recent commits…
no tests detected in the complete Git tree; 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
- ⚠Small team — 3 contributors active in recent commits
- ⚠Single-maintainer risk — top contributor 95% of recent commits
- ⚠No CI workflows detected
- ⚠No tests detected in the complete Git tree
- ⚠Scorecard: marked unmaintained (0/10)
- ⚠Scorecard: default branch unprotected (0/10)
- ✓3 active contributors
- ✓MIT licensed
What would improve this?
- •Use as dependency Concerns to Mixed if: 1 commit in the last 365 days
- •Fork & modify Mixed to Healthy if: add a test suite
- •Deploy as-is Mixed to 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
| mos | leetcode-swift | |
|---|---|---|
| Stars | 21,344 | 4,961 |
| Last commit | 24d ago | 2y ago |
| License | Unknown | MIT |
| Open issues | 403 | 35 |
| Has tests | ✓ | No |
| Has CI | ✓ | No |
| Test coverage | 14% | — |
| Dependency CVEs | No CVEs | No CVEs |
| Architecture grade | C | C |
| Cycles | 0 | 0 |
| Bottom-line | Mixed signals | Mixed signals |
Want the full analysis? caldis/mos · soapyigu/leetcode-swift
Ask AI about caldis/mos vs soapyigu/leetcode-swift
Open the chat with a comparison question pre-filled.