javscraper/emby.plugins.javscraper vs ql-win/quicklook
ql-win/quicklook shows stronger signals overall
As of June 2026, quicklook shows stronger maintenance signals than emby.plugins.javscraper. quicklook rates Mixed overall while emby.plugins.javscraper rates Concerns. emby.plugins.javscraper last saw a commit 1 year ago with 6+ active contributors, while quicklook last saw a commit 1 month ago with 4+ 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.
javscraper/emby.plugins.javscraper →
Stale and unlicensed — last commit 2y ago
no license — legally unclear; last commit was 2y ago…
no license — can't legally use code; no tests 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
- ⚠Single-maintainer risk — top contributor 94% of recent commits
- ⚠No license — legally unclear to depend on
- ⚠No CI workflows detected
- ⚠No test directory detected
- ✓6 active contributors
What would improve this?
- →Use as dependency Concerns → Mixed if: publish a permissive license (MIT, Apache-2.0, etc.); 1 commit in the last 365 days
- →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
ql-win/quicklook →
Single-maintainer risk — review before adopting
copyleft license (GPL-3.0) — review compatibility; top contributor handles 94% of recent commits…
Has a license, tests, and CI — clean foundation to fork and modify.
Documented and popular — useful reference codebase to read through.
Scorecard "Branch-Protection" is 0/10; Scorecard "Token-Permissions" is 0/10
- ⚠Small team — 4 contributors active in recent commits
- ⚠Single-maintainer risk — top contributor 94% of recent commits
- ⚠GPL-3.0 is copyleft — check downstream compatibility
- ⚠No test directory detected
- ⚠Scorecard: default branch unprotected (0/10)
- ✓Last commit 2d ago
- ✓4 active contributors
- ✓GPL-3.0 licensed
- ✓CI configured
What would improve this?
- →Use as dependency Concerns → Mixed if: relicense under MIT/Apache-2.0 (rare for established libs)
- →Deploy as-is Mixed → 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 OpenSSF Scorecard
Signal-by-signal breakdown
| emby.plugins.javscraper | quicklook | |
|---|---|---|
| Stars | 3,766 | 23,409 |
| Last commit | 1y ago | 1mo ago |
| License | — | GPL-3.0 |
| Open issues | 276 | 173 |
| Has tests | — | — |
| Has CI | — | ✓ |
| Test coverage | 0% | 0% |
| Dependency CVEs | No CVEs | No CVEs |
| Architecture grade | — | C |
| Cycles | — | 0 |
| Bottom-line | Concerns signals | Mixed signals |
Want the full analysis? javscraper/emby.plugins.javscraper · ql-win/quicklook
Ask AI about javscraper/emby.plugins.javscraper vs ql-win/quicklook
Open the chat with a comparison question pre-filled.