jack-cherish/python-spider vs z4nzu/hackingtool
z4nzu/hackingtool shows stronger signals overall
As of June 2026, hackingtool shows healthier maintenance signals than python-spider. hackingtool rates Healthy overall while python-spider rates Concerns. python-spider last saw a commit 1 year ago with 3+ active contributors, while hackingtool last saw a commit 3 months ago with 10+ active contributors. 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.
jack-cherish/python-spider →
Stale and unlicensed — last commit 2y ago
no license — legally unclear; last commit was 2y ago…
no license — can't legally use code; no CI workflows detected
Documented and popular — useful reference codebase to read through.
no license — can't legally use code; last commit was 2y ago…
- ⚠Stale — last commit 2y ago
- ⚠Small team — 3 contributors active in recent commits
- ⚠Single-maintainer risk — top contributor 81% of recent commits
- ⚠No license — legally unclear to depend on
- ⚠No CI workflows detected
- ✓3 active contributors
- ✓Tests present
What would improve this?
- →Use as dependency Concerns → Mixed if: publish a permissive license (MIT, Apache-2.0, etc.)
- →Fork & modify Concerns → Mixed if: add a LICENSE file
- →Deploy as-is Concerns → Mixed if: add a LICENSE file
Computed from maintenance signals — commit recency, contributor breadth, bus factor, license, CI, tests
z4nzu/hackingtool →
Healthy across the board
Permissive license, no critical CVEs, actively maintained — safe to depend on.
Has a license, tests, and CI — clean foundation to fork and modify.
Documented and popular — useful reference codebase to read through.
No critical CVEs, sane security posture — runnable as-is.
- ⚠Concentrated ownership — top contributor handles 57% of recent commits
- ✓Last commit 8w ago
- ✓10 active contributors
- ✓MIT licensed
- ✓CI configured
- ✓Tests present
Computed from maintenance signals — commit recency, contributor breadth, bus factor, license, CI, tests
Signal-by-signal breakdown
| python-spider | hackingtool | |
|---|---|---|
| Stars | 19,607 | 73,012 |
| Last commit | 1y ago | 3mo ago |
| License | — | MIT |
| Open issues | 21 | 100 |
| Has tests | ✓ | ✓ |
| Has CI | — | ✓ |
| Test coverage | 2% | 3% |
| Dependency CVEs | No CVEs | No CVEs |
| Architecture grade | — | — |
| Cycles | — | — |
| Bottom-line | Concerns signals | Healthy signals |
Want the full analysis? jack-cherish/python-spider · z4nzu/hackingtool
Ask AI about jack-cherish/python-spider vs z4nzu/hackingtool
Open the chat with a comparison question pre-filled.