RepoPilot

ds300/patch-package vs ruvnet/ruflo

Both showing Mixed signals — pick on fit, not health

As of June 2026, patch-package and ruflo both show mixed maintenance signals. patch-package last saw a commit 8 months ago with 10+ active contributors, while ruflo was committed to 2 days ago with 1+ active contributor. Both use the MIT license. 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

Mixed

Slowing — last commit 8mo ago

HealthyDependency

Permissive license, no critical CVEs, actively maintained — safe to depend on.

HealthyFork & modify

Has a license, tests, and CI — clean foundation to fork and modify.

HealthyLearn from

Documented and popular — useful reference codebase to read through.

MixedDeploy as-is

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 MixedHealthy if: 1 commit in the last 180 days; bring "Branch-Protection" to ≥3/10 (see scorecard report)

Maintenance signals: commit recency, contributor breadth, bus factor, license, CI, tests + OpenSSF Scorecard

ruvnet/ruflo

Mixed

Solo project — review before adopting

MixedDependency

single-maintainer (no co-maintainers visible); no CI workflows detected

HealthyFork & modify

Has a license, tests, and CI — clean foundation to fork and modify.

HealthyLearn from

Documented and popular — useful reference codebase to read through.

MixedDeploy as-is

Scorecard "Branch-Protection" is 0/10; no CI workflows detected

  • Solo or near-solo (1 contributor active in recent commits)
  • No CI workflows detected
  • Scorecard: default branch unprotected (0/10)
  • Last commit today
  • MIT licensed
  • Tests present

What would improve this?

  • Use as dependency MixedHealthy if: onboard a second core maintainer
  • Deploy as-is MixedHealthy if: bring "Branch-Protection" to ≥3/10 (see scorecard report)

Maintenance signals: commit recency, contributor breadth, bus factor, license, CI, tests + OpenSSF Scorecard

Signal-by-signal breakdown

patch-packageruflo
Stars11,17760,015
Last commit8mo ago2d ago
LicenseMITMIT
Open issues278644
Has tests
Has CI
Test coverage1%
Dependency CVEsNo CVEsNo CVEs
Architecture gradeC
Cycles0
Bottom-lineMixed signalsMixed signals

Want the full analysis? ds300/patch-package · ruvnet/ruflo

Ask AI about ds300/patch-package vs ruvnet/ruflo

Open the chat with a comparison question pre-filled.