RepoPilot

foxcpp/maddy vs halfrost/leetcode-go

Both showing Mixed signals — pick on fit, not health

As of June 2026, maddy and leetcode-go both show mixed maintenance signals. maddy last saw a commit 1 month ago with 17+ active contributors, while leetcode-go was committed to 2 days ago with 8+ active contributors. maddy is GPL-3.0-licensed while leetcode-go 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.

foxcpp/maddy

Mixed

Mixed signals — read the receipts

ConcernsDependency

copyleft license (GPL-3.0) — review compatibility

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.

HealthyDeploy as-is

No critical CVEs, sane security posture — runnable as-is.

  • Concentrated ownership — top contributor handles 75% of recent commits
  • GPL-3.0 is copyleft — check downstream compatibility
  • Last commit 1w ago
  • 17 active contributors
  • GPL-3.0 licensed
  • CI configured
  • Tests present

What would improve this?

  • Use as dependency ConcernsMixed if: relicense under MIT/Apache-2.0 (rare for established libs)

Computed from maintenance signals — commit recency, contributor breadth, bus factor, license, CI, tests

halfrost/leetcode-go

Mixed

Single-maintainer risk — review before adopting

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

Scorecard "Branch-Protection" is 0/10; Scorecard "Token-Permissions" is 0/10

  • Single-maintainer risk — top contributor 93% of recent commits
  • Scorecard: default branch unprotected (0/10)
  • Last commit 1d ago
  • 8 active contributors
  • MIT licensed
  • CI configured
  • Tests present

What would improve this?

  • Deploy as-is MixedHealthy 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

maddyleetcode-go
Stars5,95333,785
Last commit1mo ago2d ago
LicenseGPL-3.0MIT
Open issues1285
Has tests
Has CI
Test coverage18%0%
Dependency CVEsNo CVEsNo CVEs
Architecture gradeA
Cycles0
Bottom-lineMixed signalsMixed signals

Want the full analysis? foxcpp/maddy · halfrost/leetcode-go

Ask AI about foxcpp/maddy vs halfrost/leetcode-go

Open the chat with a comparison question pre-filled.