nickemanarin/screentogif vs ql-win/quicklook
Both showing Mixed signals — pick on fit, not health
As of September 2026, screentogif and quicklook both show mixed maintenance signals. screentogif last saw a commit 1 month ago with 13+ active contributors, while quicklook was committed to 2 weeks ago with 7+ active contributors. screentogif is MS-PL-licensed while quicklook is GPL-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.
nickemanarin/screentogif
Mixed signals — read the receipts
non-standard license (MS-PL); no tests detected in the complete Git tree…
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
- ⚠Concentrated ownership — top contributor handles 66% of recent commits
- ⚠Non-standard license (MS-PL) — review terms
- ⚠No tests detected in the complete Git tree
- ⚠Scorecard: default branch unprotected (0/10)
- ✓Last commit 5w ago
- ✓13 active contributors
- ✓MS-PL licensed
- ✓CI configured
What would improve this?
- •Use as dependency Concerns to Mixed if: clarify license terms
Computed from maintenance signals — commit recency, contributor breadth, bus factor, license, CI, tests, cross-checked against OpenSSF Scorecard
ql-win/quicklook
Single-maintainer risk — review before adopting
copyleft license (GPL-3.0) — review compatibility; top contributor handles 92% of recent commits…
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 92% of recent commits
- ⚠GPL-3.0 is copyleft — check downstream compatibility
- ⚠No tests detected in the complete Git tree
- ⚠Scorecard: default branch unprotected (0/10)
- ✓Last commit 5d ago
- ✓7 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: 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
| screentogif | quicklook | |
|---|---|---|
| Stars | 27,590 | 24,614 |
| Last commit | 1mo ago | 15d ago |
| License | MS-PL | GPL-3.0 |
| Open issues | 331 | 201 |
| Has tests | No | No |
| Has CI | ✓ | ✓ |
| Test coverage | 0% | 0% |
| Dependency CVEs | No CVEs | No CVEs |
| Architecture grade | C | C |
| Cycles | 0 | 0 |
| Bottom-line | Mixed signals | Mixed signals |
Want the full analysis? nickemanarin/screentogif · ql-win/quicklook
Ask AI about nickemanarin/screentogif vs ql-win/quicklook
Open the chat with a comparison question pre-filled.