ogham/exa vs tw93/pake
Both showing Mixed signals — pick on fit, not health
As of September 2026, exa and pake both show mixed maintenance signals. exa last saw a commit 1 year ago with 27+ active contributors, while pake was committed to 1 week ago with 15+ active contributors. exa is MIT-licensed while pake is GPL-3.0-licensed. pake 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
tw93/pake
Mixed signals — read the receipts
copyleft license (GPL-3.0) — review compatibility
No blocking repository signals were found — inspect the evidence before forking.
Documented and popular — useful reference codebase to read through.
No blocking repository-level signals were found; deployment review is still required.
- ⚠Concentrated ownership — top contributor handles 56% of recent commits
- ⚠GPL-3.0 is copyleft — check downstream compatibility
- ⚠Scorecard: default branch unprotected (0/10)
- ✓Last commit today
- ✓15 active contributors
- ✓GPL-3.0 licensed
- ✓CI configured
- ✓Tests present
What would improve this?
- •Use as dependency Concerns to Mixed if: relicense under MIT/Apache-2.0 (rare for established libs)
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 | pake | |
|---|---|---|
| Stars | 24,444 | 61,322 |
| Last commit | 1y ago | 10d ago |
| License | MIT | GPL-3.0 |
| Open issues | 213 | 0 |
| Has tests | No | ✓ |
| Has CI | ✓ | ✓ |
| Test coverage | 0% | 89% |
| Dependency CVEs | 0 critical · 2 high · 31 moderate · 0 low | No CVEs |
| Architecture grade | C | A |
| Cycles | 8 | 0 |
| Bottom-line | Mixed signals | Mixed signals |
Want the full analysis? ogham/exa · tw93/pake
Ask AI about ogham/exa vs tw93/pake
Open the chat with a comparison question pre-filled.