phaserjs/phaser vs sindresorhus/pretty-bytes
phaserjs/phaser shows stronger signals overall
As of June 2026, phaser shows healthier maintenance signals than pretty-bytes. phaser rates Healthy overall while pretty-bytes rates Mixed. phaser was committed to 4 days ago with 7+ active contributors, while pretty-bytes last saw a commit 9 months ago with 19+ 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 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
sindresorhus/pretty-bytes →
Slowing — last commit 8mo ago
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.
last commit was 8mo ago; Scorecard "Branch-Protection" is 0/10…
- ⚠Slowing — last commit 8mo ago
- ⚠Concentrated ownership — top contributor handles 74% of recent commits
- ⚠Scorecard: marked unmaintained (0/10)
- ⚠Scorecard: default branch unprotected (0/10)
- ✓Last commit 8mo ago
- ✓19 active contributors
- ✓MIT licensed
- ✓CI configured
- ✓Tests present
What would improve this?
- →Deploy as-is Mixed → Healthy if: 1 commit in the last 180 days; 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
| phaser | pretty-bytes | |
|---|---|---|
| Stars | 39,846 | 1,297 |
| Last commit | 4d ago | 9mo ago |
| License | MIT | MIT |
| Open issues | 114 | 0 |
| Has tests | ✓ | ✓ |
| Has CI | ✓ | ✓ |
| Test coverage | 5% | 33% |
| Dependency CVEs | No CVEs | No CVEs |
| Architecture grade | A | — |
| Cycles | 0 | — |
| Bottom-line | Healthy signals | Mixed signals |
Want the full analysis? phaserjs/phaser · sindresorhus/pretty-bytes
Ask AI about phaserjs/phaser vs sindresorhus/pretty-bytes
Open the chat with a comparison question pre-filled.