cozodb/cozo vs ruvnet/ruview
Both showing Mixed signals — pick on fit, not health
As of September 2026, cozo and ruview both show mixed maintenance signals. cozo last saw a commit 1 year ago with 15+ active contributors, while ruview was committed to 1 week ago with 2+ active contributors. cozo is MPL-2.0-licensed while ruview is MIT-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.
cozodb/cozo
Stale — last commit 2y ago
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.
last commit was 2y ago; Scorecard "Branch-Protection" is 0/10
- ⚠Stale — last commit 2y ago
- ⚠Concentrated ownership — top contributor handles 72% of recent commits
- ⚠Scorecard: marked unmaintained (0/10)
- ⚠Scorecard: default branch unprotected (0/10)
- ✓15 active contributors
- ✓MPL-2.0 licensed
- ✓CI configured
- ✓Tests present
What would improve this?
- •Deploy as-is Mixed to Healthy if: 1 commit in the last 180 days
Computed from maintenance signals — commit recency, contributor breadth, bus factor, license, CI, tests, cross-checked against dependency CVEs from deps.dev and OpenSSF Scorecard
ruvnet/ruview
Mixed signals — read the receipts
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.
Scorecard "Branch-Protection" is 0/10; 1 cyclic import chain detected
- ⚠Small team — 2 contributors active in recent commits
- ⚠Concentrated ownership — top contributor handles 71% of recent commits
- ⚠Scorecard: default branch unprotected (0/10)
- ✓Last commit today
- ✓2 active contributors
- ✓MIT licensed
- ✓CI configured
- ✓Tests present
What would improve this?
- •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
| cozo | ruview | |
|---|---|---|
| Stars | 4,104 | 92,443 |
| Last commit | 1y ago | 13d ago |
| License | MPL-2.0 | MIT |
| Open issues | 50 | 613 |
| Has tests | ✓ | ✓ |
| Has CI | ✓ | ✓ |
| Test coverage | 9% | 24% |
| Dependency CVEs | No CVEs | No CVEs |
| Architecture grade | A | A |
| Cycles | 0 | 1 |
| Bottom-line | Mixed signals | Mixed signals |
Want the full analysis? cozodb/cozo · ruvnet/ruview
Ask AI about cozodb/cozo vs ruvnet/ruview
Open the chat with a comparison question pre-filled.