foundation/foundation-sites vs jgthms/bulma
Both showing Mixed signals — pick on fit, not health
As of September 2026, foundation-sites and bulma both show mixed maintenance signals. foundation-sites last saw a commit 1 year ago with 12+ active contributors, while bulma last saw a commit 6 months ago with 16+ active contributors. 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.
foundation/foundation-sites
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 "Token-Permissions" is 0/10
- ⚠Stale — last commit 2y ago
- ⚠Single-maintainer risk — top contributor 86% of recent commits
- ⚠Scorecard: marked unmaintained (0/10)
- ⚠2 moderate-severity advisories on direct dependencies
- ✓12 active contributors
- ✓MIT 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
jgthms/bulma
Slowing — last commit 6mo 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 6mo ago; Scorecard "Branch-Protection" is 0/10…
- ⚠Slowing — last commit 6mo ago
- ⚠Concentrated ownership — top contributor handles 79% of recent commits
- ⚠Scorecard: marked unmaintained (0/10)
- ⚠Scorecard: default branch unprotected (0/10)
- ✓Last commit 6mo ago
- ✓16 active contributors
- ✓MIT licensed
- ✓CI configured
- ✓Tests present
What would improve this?
- •Deploy as-is Mixed to 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 dependency CVEs from deps.dev and OpenSSF Scorecard
Signal-by-signal breakdown
| foundation-sites | bulma | |
|---|---|---|
| Stars | 29,784 | 50,065 |
| Last commit | 1y ago | 6mo ago |
| License | MIT | MIT |
| Open issues | 80 | 527 |
| Has tests | ✓ | ✓ |
| Has CI | ✓ | ✓ |
| Test coverage | 100% | 48% |
| Dependency CVEs | 0 critical · 0 high · 2 moderate · 0 low | No CVEs |
| Architecture grade | — | — |
| Cycles | — | — |
| Bottom-line | Mixed signals | Mixed signals |
Want the full analysis? foundation/foundation-sites · jgthms/bulma
Ask AI about foundation/foundation-sites vs jgthms/bulma
Open the chat with a comparison question pre-filled.