code52/carnac vs codehubapp/codehub
code52/carnac shows stronger signals overall
As of June 2026, carnac shows stronger maintenance signals than codehub. carnac rates Mixed overall while codehub rates Concerns. carnac last saw a commit 3 years ago with 10+ active contributors, while codehub last saw a commit 4 years ago with 5+ 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.
code52/carnac →
Stale — last commit 3y ago
non-standard license (MS-PL); last commit was 3y ago…
Has a license, tests, and CI — clean foundation to fork and modify.
Documented and popular — useful reference codebase to read through.
last commit was 3y ago; no CI workflows detected
- ⚠Stale — last commit 3y ago
- ⚠Concentrated ownership — top contributor handles 68% of recent commits
- ⚠Non-standard license (MS-PL) — review terms
- ⚠No CI workflows detected
- ✓10 active contributors
- ✓MS-PL licensed
- ✓Tests present
What would improve this?
- →Use as dependency Concerns → Mixed if: clarify license terms
- →Deploy as-is Mixed → Healthy if: 1 commit in the last 180 days
Computed from maintenance signals — commit recency, contributor breadth, bus factor, license, CI, tests
codehubapp/codehub →
Stale and unlicensed — last commit 4y ago
no license — legally unclear; last commit was 4y 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 4y ago…
- ⚠Stale — last commit 4y ago
- ⚠Single-maintainer risk — top contributor 95% of recent commits
- ⚠No license — legally unclear to depend on
- ⚠No CI workflows detected
- ⚠No test directory detected
- ✓5 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
Signal-by-signal breakdown
| carnac | codehub | |
|---|---|---|
| Stars | 4,513 | 22,625 |
| Last commit | 3y ago | 4y ago |
| License | MS-PL | — |
| Open issues | 171 | 237 |
| Has tests | ✓ | — |
| Has CI | — | — |
| Test coverage | 1% | 0% |
| Dependency CVEs | No CVEs | No CVEs |
| Architecture grade | — | — |
| Cycles | — | — |
| Bottom-line | Mixed signals | Concerns signals |
Want the full analysis? code52/carnac · codehubapp/codehub
Ask AI about code52/carnac vs codehubapp/codehub
Open the chat with a comparison question pre-filled.