onevcat/kingfisher vs yagcioglutoprak/dusty
Both showing Healthy signals — pick on fit, not health
As of June 2026, kingfisher and dusty both show healthy maintenance signals. kingfisher last saw a commit 1 month ago with 8+ active contributors, while dusty was committed to 3 weeks 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.
onevcat/kingfisher →
Healthy across all four use cases
Permissive license, no critical CVEs, actively maintained — safe to depend on.
Has a license, tests, and CI — clean foundation to fork and modify.
Documented and popular — useful reference codebase to read through.
No critical CVEs, sane security posture — runnable as-is.
- ⚠Single-maintainer risk — top contributor 90% of recent commits
- ✓Last commit 5d ago
- ✓8 active contributors
- ✓MIT licensed
- ✓CI configured
- ✓Tests present
Computed from maintenance signals — commit recency, contributor breadth, bus factor, license, CI, tests
yagcioglutoprak/dusty →
Healthy across all four use cases
Permissive license, no critical CVEs, actively maintained — safe to depend on.
Has a license, tests, and CI — clean foundation to fork and modify.
Documented and popular — useful reference codebase to read through.
No critical CVEs, sane security posture — runnable as-is.
- ⚠Small team — 2 contributors active in recent commits
- ⚠Concentrated ownership — top contributor handles 59% of recent commits
- ⚠Scorecard: default branch unprotected (0/10)
- ✓Last commit today
- ✓2 active contributors
- ✓MIT licensed
- ✓CI configured
- ✓Tests present
Computed from maintenance signals — commit recency, contributor breadth, bus factor, license, CI, tests, cross-checked against OpenSSF Scorecard
Signal-by-signal breakdown
| kingfisher | dusty | |
|---|---|---|
| Stars | 24,322 | 30 |
| Last commit | 1mo ago | 24d ago |
| License | MIT | MIT |
| Open issues | 173 | 4 |
| Has tests | ✓ | ✓ |
| Has CI | ✓ | ✓ |
| Test coverage | 100% | 100% |
| Dependency CVEs | No CVEs | No CVEs |
| Architecture grade | — | C |
| Cycles | — | 0 |
| Bottom-line | Healthy signals | Healthy signals |
Want the full analysis? onevcat/kingfisher · yagcioglutoprak/dusty
Ask AI about onevcat/kingfisher vs yagcioglutoprak/dusty
Open the chat with a comparison question pre-filled.