canopy-network/canopy vs sagernet/sing-box
canopy-network/canopy shows stronger signals overall
As of September 2026, canopy shows healthier maintenance signals than sing-box. canopy rates Healthy overall while sing-box rates Mixed. canopy was committed to 1 week ago with 3+ active contributors, while sing-box was committed to 6 days ago with 2+ active contributors. canopy is MIT-licensed while sing-box is GPL-3.0-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.
canopy-network/canopy
Healthy across all four use cases
No blocking maintenance, license, or known-CVE signals were found; still verify the package version and fit.
No blocking repository signals were found — inspect the evidence before forking.
Documented and popular — useful reference codebase to read through.
No blocking repository-level signals were found; deployment review is still required.
- ⚠Small team — 3 contributors active in recent commits
- ✓Last commit 1d ago
- ✓3 active contributors
- ✓Distributed ownership (top contributor 38% of recent commits)
- ✓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
sagernet/sing-box
Single-maintainer risk — review before adopting
copyleft license (GPL-3.0) — review compatibility; top contributor handles 99% of recent commits
No blocking repository signals were found — inspect the evidence before forking.
Documented and popular — useful reference codebase to read through.
Scorecard "Branch-Protection" is 0/10; Scorecard "Token-Permissions" is 0/10
- ⚠Small team — 2 contributors active in recent commits
- ⚠Single-maintainer risk — top contributor 99% of recent commits
- ⚠GPL-3.0 is copyleft — check downstream compatibility
- ⚠Scorecard: default branch unprotected (0/10)
- ✓Last commit 2d ago
- ✓2 active contributors
- ✓GPL-3.0 licensed
- ✓CI configured
- ✓Tests present
What would improve this?
- •Use as dependency Concerns to Mixed if: relicense under MIT/Apache-2.0 (rare for established libs)
- •Deploy as-is Mixed to 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
Signal-by-signal breakdown
| canopy | sing-box | |
|---|---|---|
| Stars | 15,299 | 37,880 |
| Last commit | 7d ago | 6d ago |
| License | MIT | GPL-3.0 |
| Open issues | 147 | 327 |
| Has tests | ✓ | ✓ |
| Has CI | ✓ | ✓ |
| Test coverage | 17% | 12% |
| Dependency CVEs | No CVEs | 0 critical · 0 high · 9 moderate · 0 low |
| Architecture grade | — | — |
| Cycles | — | — |
| Bottom-line | Healthy signals | Mixed signals |
Want the full analysis? canopy-network/canopy · sagernet/sing-box
Ask AI about canopy-network/canopy vs sagernet/sing-box
Open the chat with a comparison question pre-filled.