ql-win/quicklook vs unigramdev/unigram
Both showing Mixed signals — pick on fit, not health
As of June 2026, quicklook and unigram both show mixed maintenance signals. quicklook last saw a commit 1 month ago with 4+ active contributors, while unigram last saw a commit 1 month ago with 1+ active contributor. Both use the GPL-3.0 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.
ql-win/quicklook →
Single-maintainer risk — review before adopting
copyleft license (GPL-3.0) — review compatibility; top contributor handles 94% of recent commits…
Has a license, tests, and CI — clean foundation to fork and modify.
Documented and popular — useful reference codebase to read through.
Scorecard "Branch-Protection" is 0/10; Scorecard "Token-Permissions" is 0/10
- ⚠Small team — 4 contributors active in recent commits
- ⚠Single-maintainer risk — top contributor 94% of recent commits
- ⚠GPL-3.0 is copyleft — check downstream compatibility
- ⚠No test directory detected
- ⚠Scorecard: default branch unprotected (0/10)
- ✓Last commit 2d ago
- ✓4 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: 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
unigramdev/unigram →
Solo project — review before adopting
copyleft license (GPL-3.0) — review compatibility; single-maintainer (no co-maintainers visible)…
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.
- ⚠Solo or near-solo (1 contributor active in recent commits)
- ⚠GPL-3.0 is copyleft — check downstream compatibility
- ⚠No CI workflows detected
- ⚠No test directory detected
- ✓Last commit 1d ago
- ✓GPL-3.0 licensed
What would improve this?
- →Use as dependency Concerns → Mixed if: relicense under MIT/Apache-2.0 (rare for established libs)
Computed from maintenance signals — commit recency, contributor breadth, bus factor, license, CI, tests
Signal-by-signal breakdown
| quicklook | unigram | |
|---|---|---|
| Stars | 23,409 | 5,153 |
| Last commit | 1mo ago | 1mo ago |
| License | GPL-3.0 | GPL-3.0 |
| Open issues | 173 | 99 |
| Has tests | — | — |
| Has CI | ✓ | — |
| Test coverage | 0% | 0% |
| Dependency CVEs | No CVEs | No CVEs |
| Architecture grade | C | — |
| Cycles | 0 | — |
| Bottom-line | Mixed signals | Mixed signals |
Want the full analysis? ql-win/quicklook · unigramdev/unigram
Ask AI about ql-win/quicklook vs unigramdev/unigram
Open the chat with a comparison question pre-filled.