paveldogreat/webgl-fluid-simulation vs qrohlf/trianglify
Both showing Mixed signals — pick on fit, not health
As of June 2026, webgl-fluid-simulation and trianglify both show mixed maintenance signals. webgl-fluid-simulation last saw a commit 1 year ago with 4+ active contributors, while trianglify last saw a commit 1 year ago with 10+ active contributors. webgl-fluid-simulation is MIT-licensed while trianglify 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.
paveldogreat/webgl-fluid-simulation →
Stale — last commit 1y ago
last commit was 1y ago; no tests detected…
Has a license, tests, and CI — clean foundation to fork and modify.
Documented and popular — useful reference codebase to read through.
last commit was 1y ago; no CI workflows detected
- ⚠Stale — last commit 1y ago
- ⚠Small team — 4 contributors active in recent commits
- ⚠Concentrated ownership — top contributor handles 75% of recent commits
- ⚠No CI workflows detected
- ⚠No test directory detected
- ✓4 active contributors
- ✓MIT licensed
What would improve this?
- →Use as dependency Mixed → Healthy if: 1 commit in the last 365 days; add a test suite
- →Deploy as-is Mixed → Healthy if: 1 commit in the last 180 days
Computed from maintenance signals — commit recency, contributor breadth, bus factor, license, CI, tests
qrohlf/trianglify →
Slowing — last commit 12mo ago
copyleft license (GPL-3.0) — review compatibility; no tests detected
Has a license, tests, and CI — clean foundation to fork and modify.
Documented and popular — useful reference codebase to read through.
last commit was 12mo ago; Scorecard "Token-Permissions" is 0/10
- ⚠Slowing — last commit 12mo ago
- ⚠Single-maintainer risk — top contributor 82% of recent commits
- ⚠GPL-3.0 is copyleft — check downstream compatibility
- ⚠No test directory detected
- ⚠Scorecard: marked unmaintained (0/10)
- ✓Last commit 12mo ago
- ✓10 active contributors
- ✓GPL-3.0 licensed
- ✓CI configured
What would improve this?
- →Use as dependency Concerns → Mixed if: relicense under MIT/Apache-2.0 (rare for established libs)
- →Deploy as-is Mixed → Healthy if: 1 commit in the last 180 days
Computed from maintenance signals — commit recency, contributor breadth, bus factor, license, CI, tests, cross-checked against OpenSSF Scorecard
Signal-by-signal breakdown
| webgl-fluid-simulation | trianglify | |
|---|---|---|
| Stars | 16,309 | 10,092 |
| Last commit | 1y ago | 1y ago |
| License | MIT | GPL-3.0 |
| Open issues | 76 | 12 |
| Has tests | — | — |
| Has CI | — | ✓ |
| Test coverage | 0% | 0% |
| Dependency CVEs | No CVEs | No CVEs |
| Architecture grade | — | — |
| Cycles | — | — |
| Bottom-line | Mixed signals | Mixed signals |
Want the full analysis? paveldogreat/webgl-fluid-simulation · qrohlf/trianglify
Ask AI about paveldogreat/webgl-fluid-simulation vs qrohlf/trianglify
Open the chat with a comparison question pre-filled.