julien-cpsn/atac vs ruvnet/ruview
Both showing Mixed signals — pick on fit, not health
As of September 2026, atac and ruview both show mixed maintenance signals. atac was committed to 1 week ago with 10+ active contributors, while ruview was committed to 1 week ago with 2+ active contributors. Both use the MIT license. 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.
julien-cpsn/atac
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; 8 cyclic import chains — pervasive coupling
- ⚠Single-maintainer risk — top contributor 89% of recent commits
- ⚠No tests detected in the complete Git tree
- ⚠Scorecard: default branch unprotected (0/10)
- ✓Last commit 3d ago
- ✓10 active contributors
- ✓MIT licensed
- ✓CI configured
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
ruvnet/ruview
Mixed signals — read the receipts
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; 1 cyclic import chain detected
- ⚠Small team — 2 contributors active in recent commits
- ⚠Concentrated ownership — top contributor handles 71% of recent commits
- ⚠Scorecard: default branch unprotected (0/10)
- ✓Last commit today
- ✓2 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
| atac | ruview | |
|---|---|---|
| Stars | 3,715 | 92,443 |
| Last commit | 13d ago | 13d ago |
| License | MIT | MIT |
| Open issues | 20 | 613 |
| Has tests | No | ✓ |
| Has CI | ✓ | ✓ |
| Test coverage | 0% | 24% |
| Dependency CVEs | 0 critical · 0 high · 1 moderate · 0 low | No CVEs |
| Architecture grade | C | A |
| Cycles | 8 | 1 |
| Bottom-line | Mixed signals | Mixed signals |
Want the full analysis? julien-cpsn/atac · ruvnet/ruview
Ask AI about julien-cpsn/atac vs ruvnet/ruview
Open the chat with a comparison question pre-filled.