dearva/everywhere vs huiyadanli/revokemsgpatcher
Both showing Mixed signals — pick on fit, not health
As of June 2026, everywhere and revokemsgpatcher both show mixed maintenance signals. everywhere last saw a commit 1 month ago with 2+ active contributors, while revokemsgpatcher last saw a commit 1 month ago with 5+ active contributors. everywhere is Other-licensed while revokemsgpatcher 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.
dearva/everywhere →
Single-maintainer risk — review before adopting
non-standard license (Other); no tests detected
Has a license, tests, and CI — clean foundation to fork and modify.
Documented and popular — useful reference codebase to read through.
No critical CVEs, sane security posture — runnable as-is.
- ⚠Small team — 2 contributors active in recent commits
- ⚠Single-maintainer risk — top contributor 86% of recent commits
- ⚠Non-standard license (Other) — review terms
- ⚠No test directory detected
- ✓Last commit 2d ago
- ✓2 active contributors
- ✓Other licensed
- ✓CI configured
What would improve this?
- →Use as dependency Concerns → Mixed if: clarify license terms
Computed from maintenance signals — commit recency, contributor breadth, bus factor, license, CI, tests
huiyadanli/revokemsgpatcher →
Single-maintainer risk — review before adopting
copyleft license (GPL-3.0) — review compatibility; top contributor handles 94% of recent commits…
Has a license, tests, and CI — clean foundation to fork and modify.
Documented and popular — useful reference codebase to read through.
No critical CVEs, sane security posture — runnable as-is.
- ⚠Single-maintainer risk — top contributor 94% of recent commits
- ⚠GPL-3.0 is copyleft — check downstream compatibility
- ⚠No test directory detected
- ⚠Scorecard: default branch unprotected (0/10)
- ✓Last commit 3d ago
- ✓5 active contributors
- ✓GPL-3.0 licensed
- ✓CI configured
What would improve this?
- →Use as dependency Concerns → Mixed if: relicense under MIT/Apache-2.0 (rare for established libs)
Computed from maintenance signals — commit recency, contributor breadth, bus factor, license, CI, tests, cross-checked against OpenSSF Scorecard
Signal-by-signal breakdown
| everywhere | revokemsgpatcher | |
|---|---|---|
| Stars | 5,931 | 37,597 |
| Last commit | 1mo ago | 1mo ago |
| License | Other | GPL-3.0 |
| Open issues | 22 | 51 |
| Has tests | — | — |
| Has CI | ✓ | ✓ |
| Test coverage | 0% | 0% |
| Dependency CVEs | No CVEs | No CVEs |
| Architecture grade | — | — |
| Cycles | — | — |
| Bottom-line | Mixed signals | Mixed signals |
Want the full analysis? dearva/everywhere · huiyadanli/revokemsgpatcher
Ask AI about dearva/everywhere vs huiyadanli/revokemsgpatcher
Open the chat with a comparison question pre-filled.