codehubapp/codehub vs shadowsocksr-backup/shadowsocksr-csharp
shadowsocksr-backup/shadowsocksr-csharp shows stronger signals overall
As of June 2026, shadowsocksr-csharp shows stronger maintenance signals than codehub. shadowsocksr-csharp rates Mixed overall while codehub rates Concerns. codehub last saw a commit 4 years ago with 5+ active contributors, while shadowsocksr-csharp last saw a commit 7 years ago with 2+ 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.
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
shadowsocksr-backup/shadowsocksr-csharp →
Stale — last commit 7y ago
copyleft license (GPL-3.0) — review compatibility; last commit was 7y ago…
no CI workflows detected; no description (proxy for README missing)…
no description (proxy for README missing); last commit was 7y ago
last commit was 7y ago; no CI workflows detected
- ⚠Stale — last commit 7y ago
- ⚠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
- ⚠No CI workflows detected
- ✓2 active contributors
- ✓GPL-3.0 licensed
- ✓Tests present
What would improve this?
- →Use as dependency Concerns → Mixed if: relicense under MIT/Apache-2.0 (rare for established libs)
- →Fork & modify Mixed → Healthy if: wire up GitHub Actions or equivalent
- →Learn from Mixed → Healthy if: add a README + repo description
- →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
Signal-by-signal breakdown
| codehub | shadowsocksr-csharp | |
|---|---|---|
| Stars | 22,625 | 4,511 |
| Last commit | 4y ago | 7y ago |
| License | — | GPL-3.0 |
| Open issues | 237 | 10 |
| Has tests | — | ✓ |
| Has CI | — | — |
| Test coverage | 0% | 4% |
| Dependency CVEs | No CVEs | No CVEs |
| Architecture grade | — | — |
| Cycles | — | — |
| Bottom-line | Concerns signals | Mixed signals |
Want the full analysis? codehubapp/codehub · shadowsocksr-backup/shadowsocksr-csharp
Ask AI about codehubapp/codehub vs shadowsocksr-backup/shadowsocksr-csharp
Open the chat with a comparison question pre-filled.