ds300/patch-package vs openclaw/openclaw
openclaw/openclaw shows stronger signals overall
As of June 2026, openclaw shows healthier maintenance signals than patch-package. openclaw rates Healthy overall while patch-package rates Mixed. patch-package last saw a commit 9 months ago with 10+ active contributors, while openclaw was committed to 2 days ago with 22+ active contributors. patch-package is MIT-licensed while openclaw is Other-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.
ds300/patch-package →
Slowing — last commit 8mo ago
Permissive license, no critical CVEs, actively maintained — safe to depend on.
Has a license, tests, and CI — clean foundation to fork and modify.
Documented and popular — useful reference codebase to read through.
last commit was 8mo ago; Scorecard "Branch-Protection" is 0/10…
- ⚠Slowing — last commit 8mo ago
- ⚠Concentrated ownership — top contributor handles 64% of recent commits
- ⚠Scorecard: marked unmaintained (0/10)
- ⚠Scorecard: default branch unprotected (0/10)
- ✓Last commit 8mo ago
- ✓10 active contributors
- ✓MIT licensed
- ✓CI configured
- ✓Tests present
What would improve this?
- →Deploy as-is Mixed → Healthy if: 1 commit in the last 180 days; 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 OpenSSF Scorecard
openclaw/openclaw →
Healthy across the board
non-standard license (Other)
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.
- ⚠Non-standard license (Other) — review terms
- ✓Last commit today
- ✓22+ active contributors
- ✓Distributed ownership (top contributor 24% of recent commits)
- ✓Other licensed
- ✓CI configured
- ✓Tests present
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, cross-checked against OpenSSF Scorecard
Signal-by-signal breakdown
| patch-package | openclaw | |
|---|---|---|
| Stars | 11,177 | 380,328 |
| Last commit | 9mo ago | 2d ago |
| License | MIT | Other |
| Open issues | 278 | 6,610 |
| Has tests | ✓ | ✓ |
| Has CI | ✓ | ✓ |
| Test coverage | 1% | — |
| Dependency CVEs | No CVEs | No CVEs |
| Architecture grade | — | — |
| Cycles | — | — |
| Bottom-line | Mixed signals | Healthy signals |
Want the full analysis? ds300/patch-package · openclaw/openclaw
Ask AI about ds300/patch-package vs openclaw/openclaw
Open the chat with a comparison question pre-filled.