phaserjs/phaser vs tumobi/nideshop-mini-program
phaserjs/phaser shows stronger signals overall
As of June 2026, phaser shows healthier maintenance signals than nideshop-mini-program. phaser rates Healthy overall while nideshop-mini-program rates Mixed. phaser was committed to 3 days ago with 7+ active contributors, while nideshop-mini-program last saw a commit 1 year ago with 1+ active contributor. 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
tumobi/nideshop-mini-program →
Slowing — last commit 12mo ago
no license — legally unclear; single-maintainer (no co-maintainers visible)…
no license — can't legally use code; no tests detected…
Documented and popular — useful reference codebase to read through.
no license — can't legally use code; last commit was 12mo ago…
- ⚠Slowing — last commit 12mo ago
- ⚠Solo or near-solo (1 contributor active in recent commits)
- ⚠No license — legally unclear to depend on
- ⚠No CI workflows detected
- ⚠No test directory detected
- ⚠Scorecard: default branch unprotected (0/10)
- ✓Last commit 12mo ago
What would improve this?
- →Use as dependency Concerns → Mixed if: publish a permissive license (MIT, Apache-2.0, etc.)
- →Fork & modify Concerns → Mixed if: add a LICENSE file
- →Deploy as-is Concerns → Mixed if: add a LICENSE file
Computed from maintenance signals — commit recency, contributor breadth, bus factor, license, CI, tests, cross-checked against OpenSSF Scorecard
Signal-by-signal breakdown
| phaser | nideshop-mini-program | |
|---|---|---|
| Stars | 39,846 | 8,344 |
| Last commit | 3d ago | 1y ago |
| License | MIT | — |
| Open issues | 114 | 3 |
| 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 · tumobi/nideshop-mini-program
Ask AI about phaserjs/phaser vs tumobi/nideshop-mini-program
Open the chat with a comparison question pre-filled.