hmbsbige/shadowsocksr-windows vs nopsolutions/nopcommerce
nopsolutions/nopcommerce shows stronger signals overall
As of September 2026, nopcommerce shows healthier maintenance signals than shadowsocksr-windows. nopcommerce rates Healthy overall while shadowsocksr-windows rates Mixed. shadowsocksr-windows last saw a commit 1 year ago with 2+ active contributors, while nopcommerce was committed to 1 week ago with 8+ active contributors. shadowsocksr-windows is GPL-3.0-licensed while nopcommerce is AGPL-3.0-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.
hmbsbige/shadowsocksr-windows
Stale — last commit 1y ago
copyleft license (GPL-3.0) — review compatibility; last commit was 1y ago…
No blocking repository signals were found — inspect the evidence before forking.
Documented and popular — useful reference codebase to read through.
last commit was 1y ago; Scorecard "Branch-Protection" is 0/10…
- ⚠Stale — last commit 1y ago
- ⚠Small team — 2 contributors active in recent commits
- ⚠Single-maintainer risk — top contributor 99% of recent commits
- ⚠GPL-3.0 is copyleft — check downstream compatibility
- ⚠No tests detected in the complete Git tree
- ⚠Scorecard: marked unmaintained (0/10)
- ⚠Scorecard: default branch unprotected (0/10)
- ✓2 active contributors
- ✓GPL-3.0 licensed
- ✓CI configured
What would improve this?
- •Use as dependency Concerns to Mixed if: relicense under MIT/Apache-2.0 (rare for established libs)
- •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 OpenSSF Scorecard
nopsolutions/nopcommerce
Strong maintenance signals
copyleft license (AGPL-3.0) — review compatibility; dependency CVE scan unavailable
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; dependency CVE scan unavailable
- ⚠AGPL-3.0 is copyleft — check downstream compatibility
- ⚠Scorecard: default branch unprotected (0/10)
- ✓Last commit 1d ago
- ✓8 active contributors
- ✓Distributed ownership (top contributor 46% of recent commits)
- ✓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 OpenSSF Scorecard
Signal-by-signal breakdown
| shadowsocksr-windows | nopcommerce | |
|---|---|---|
| Stars | 6,944 | 10,142 |
| Last commit | 1y ago | 9d ago |
| License | GPL-3.0 | AGPL-3.0 |
| Open issues | 13 | 169 |
| Has tests | No | ✓ |
| Has CI | ✓ | ✓ |
| Test coverage | 0% | 4% |
| Dependency CVEs | No CVEs | No CVEs |
| Architecture grade | C | C |
| Cycles | 0 | 0 |
| Bottom-line | Mixed signals | Healthy signals |
Want the full analysis? hmbsbige/shadowsocksr-windows · nopsolutions/nopcommerce
Ask AI about hmbsbige/shadowsocksr-windows vs nopsolutions/nopcommerce
Open the chat with a comparison question pre-filled.