glanceapp/glance vs halfrost/leetcode-go
Both showing Mixed signals — pick on fit, not health
As of September 2026, glance and leetcode-go both show mixed maintenance signals. glance was committed to 1 week ago with 17+ active contributors, while leetcode-go was committed to 2 weeks ago with 8+ active contributors. glance is AGPL-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.
glanceapp/glance
Mixed signals — read the receipts
copyleft license (AGPL-3.0) — review compatibility
No blocking repository signals were found — inspect the evidence before forking.
Documented and popular — useful reference codebase to read through.
No blocking repository-level signals were found; deployment review is still required.
- ⚠Concentrated ownership — top contributor handles 73% of recent commits
- ⚠AGPL-3.0 is copyleft — check downstream compatibility
- ⚠Scorecard: default branch unprotected (0/10)
- ⚠1 moderate-severity advisory on direct dependencies
- ✓Last commit 2d ago
- ✓17 active contributors
- ✓AGPL-3.0 licensed
- ✓CI configured
- ✓Tests present
What would improve this?
- •Use as dependency Concerns to 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 dependency CVEs from deps.dev and OpenSSF Scorecard
halfrost/leetcode-go
Single-maintainer risk — review before adopting
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.
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 Mixed to Healthy 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
| glance | leetcode-go | |
|---|---|---|
| Stars | 36,895 | 33,800 |
| Last commit | 11d ago | 14d ago |
| License | AGPL-3.0 | MIT |
| Open issues | 315 | 2 |
| Has tests | ✓ | ✓ |
| Has CI | ✓ | ✓ |
| Test coverage | 5% | 90% |
| Dependency CVEs | 0 critical · 0 high · 1 moderate · 0 low | No CVEs |
| Architecture grade | A | A |
| Cycles | 0 | 0 |
| Bottom-line | Mixed signals | Mixed signals |
Want the full analysis? glanceapp/glance · halfrost/leetcode-go
Ask AI about glanceapp/glance vs halfrost/leetcode-go
Open the chat with a comparison question pre-filled.