ogham/exa vs ruvnet/ruview
Both showing Mixed signals — pick on fit, not health
As of September 2026, exa and ruview both show mixed maintenance signals. exa last saw a commit 1 year ago with 27+ active contributors, while ruview was committed to 1 week ago with 2+ active contributors. Both use the MIT license. ruview has no known critical CVEs, while exa has 2.
Informational only. RepoPilot summarises public signals at the time of analysis. Not professional, security, or legal advice.
ogham/exa
Stale — last commit 2y ago
last commit was 2y ago; 2 high-severity CVEs in dependencies…
No blocking repository signals were found — inspect the evidence before forking.
Documented and popular — useful reference codebase to read through.
2 high-severity CVEs in dependencies; last commit was 2y ago…
- ⚠Stale — last commit 2y ago
- ⚠No tests detected in the complete Git tree
- ⚠Scorecard: marked unmaintained (0/10)
- ⚠Scorecard: default branch unprotected (0/10)
- ⚠2 moderate-severity advisories on direct dependencies
- ⚠2 high-severity advisories in transitive deps
- ✓27+ active contributors
- ✓Distributed ownership (top contributor 41% of recent commits)
- ✓MIT licensed
- ✓CI configured
What would improve this?
- •Use as dependency Mixed to Healthy if: 1 commit in the last 365 days; resolve the high-severity advisories
- •Deploy as-is Concerns to Mixed if: resolve the high-severity advisories
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
| exa | ruview | |
|---|---|---|
| Stars | 24,444 | 92,443 |
| Last commit | 1y ago | 13d ago |
| License | MIT | MIT |
| Open issues | 213 | 613 |
| Has tests | No | ✓ |
| Has CI | ✓ | ✓ |
| Test coverage | 0% | 24% |
| Dependency CVEs | 0 critical · 2 high · 31 moderate · 0 low | No CVEs |
| Architecture grade | C | A |
| Cycles | 8 | 1 |
| Bottom-line | Mixed signals | Mixed signals |
Want the full analysis? ogham/exa · ruvnet/ruview
Ask AI about ogham/exa vs ruvnet/ruview
Open the chat with a comparison question pre-filled.