RepoPilot

phaserjs/phaser vs sindresorhus/get-port

phaserjs/phaser shows stronger signals overall

As of June 2026, phaser shows healthier maintenance signals than get-port. phaser rates Healthy overall while get-port rates Mixed. phaser was committed to 3 days ago with 7+ active contributors, while get-port last saw a commit 3 months ago with 21+ 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.

phaserjs/phaser

Healthy

Healthy across the board

HealthyDependency

Permissive license, no critical CVEs, actively maintained — safe to depend on.

HealthyFork & modify

Has a license, tests, and CI — clean foundation to fork and modify.

HealthyLearn from

Documented and popular — useful reference codebase to read through.

HealthyDeploy as-is

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

sindresorhus/get-port

Mixed

OpenSSF Scorecard says this is unmaintained

HealthyDependency

Permissive license, no critical CVEs, actively maintained — safe to depend on.

HealthyFork & modify

Has a license, tests, and CI — clean foundation to fork and modify.

HealthyLearn from

Documented and popular — useful reference codebase to read through.

MixedDeploy as-is

Scorecard "Branch-Protection" is 0/10; Scorecard "Token-Permissions" is 0/10

  • Concentrated ownership — top contributor handles 69% of recent commits
  • Scorecard: marked unmaintained (2/10)
  • Scorecard: default branch unprotected (0/10)
  • Last commit 8w ago
  • 21+ active contributors
  • MIT licensed
  • CI configured
  • Tests present

What would improve this?

  • Deploy as-is MixedHealthy 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 OpenSSF Scorecard

Signal-by-signal breakdown

phaserget-port
Stars39,846923
Last commit3d ago3mo ago
LicenseMITMIT
Open issues1141
Has tests
Has CI
Test coverage5%33%
Dependency CVEsNo CVEsNo CVEs
Architecture gradeA
Cycles0
Bottom-lineHealthy signalsMixed signals

Want the full analysis? phaserjs/phaser · sindresorhus/get-port

Ask AI about phaserjs/phaser vs sindresorhus/get-port

Open the chat with a comparison question pre-filled.