phaserjs/phaser vs qrohlf/trianglify
phaserjs/phaser shows stronger signals overall
As of June 2026, phaser shows healthier maintenance signals than trianglify. phaser rates Healthy overall while trianglify rates Mixed. phaser was committed to 4 days ago with 7+ active contributors, while trianglify last saw a commit 1 year ago with 10+ active contributors. phaser 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.
phaserjs/phaser →
Healthy across the board
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.
- ⚠Concentrated ownership — top contributor handles 60% of recent commits
- ✓Last commit 3d ago
- ✓7 active contributors
- ✓MIT licensed
- ✓CI configured
- ✓Tests present
Computed from maintenance signals — commit recency, contributor breadth, bus factor, license, CI, tests, cross-checked against dependency CVEs from deps.dev and OpenSSF Scorecard
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
| phaser | trianglify | |
|---|---|---|
| Stars | 39,846 | 10,092 |
| Last commit | 4d ago | 1y ago |
| License | MIT | GPL-3.0 |
| Open issues | 114 | 12 |
| Has tests | ✓ | — |
| Has CI | ✓ | ✓ |
| Test coverage | 5% | 0% |
| Dependency CVEs | No CVEs | No CVEs |
| Architecture grade | A | — |
| Cycles | 0 | — |
| Bottom-line | Healthy signals | Mixed signals |
Want the full analysis? phaserjs/phaser · qrohlf/trianglify
Ask AI about phaserjs/phaser vs qrohlf/trianglify
Open the chat with a comparison question pre-filled.