quipnetwork/hashsigs-rs vs ultraworkers/claw-code
ultraworkers/claw-code shows stronger signals overall
As of June 2026, claw-code shows healthier maintenance signals than hashsigs-rs. claw-code rates Healthy overall while hashsigs-rs rates Mixed. hashsigs-rs last saw a commit 2 months ago with 4+ active contributors, while claw-code was committed to 1 day ago with 10+ active contributors. hashsigs-rs is AGPL-3.0-licensed while claw-code is MIT-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.
quipnetwork/hashsigs-rs →
Single-maintainer risk — review before adopting
copyleft license (AGPL-3.0) — review compatibility; no CI workflows detected
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.
- ⚠Small team — 4 contributors active in recent commits
- ⚠Single-maintainer risk — top contributor 84% of recent commits
- ⚠AGPL-3.0 is copyleft — check downstream compatibility
- ⚠No CI workflows detected
- ✓Last commit 5w ago
- ✓4 active contributors
- ✓AGPL-3.0 licensed
- ✓Tests present
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
ultraworkers/claw-code →
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 71% of recent commits
- ✓Last commit 1d ago
- ✓10 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
Signal-by-signal breakdown
| hashsigs-rs | claw-code | |
|---|---|---|
| Stars | 11,583 | 194,369 |
| Last commit | 2mo ago | 1d ago |
| License | AGPL-3.0 | MIT |
| Open issues | 10 | 20 |
| Has tests | ✓ | ✓ |
| Has CI | — | ✓ |
| Test coverage | 100% | 17% |
| Dependency CVEs | No CVEs | 0 critical · 0 high · 1 moderate · 0 low |
| Architecture grade | — | — |
| Cycles | — | — |
| Bottom-line | Mixed signals | Healthy signals |
Want the full analysis? quipnetwork/hashsigs-rs · ultraworkers/claw-code
Ask AI about quipnetwork/hashsigs-rs vs ultraworkers/claw-code
Open the chat with a comparison question pre-filled.