quipnetwork/xq-rs vs ruvnet/ruview
Both showing Mixed signals — pick on fit, not health
As of September 2026, xq-rs and ruview both show mixed maintenance signals. xq-rs last saw a commit 5 months ago with 1+ active contributor, while ruview was committed to 1 week ago with 2+ active contributors. xq-rs is AGPL-3.0-licensed while ruview 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/xq-rs
Solo project — review before adopting
copyleft license (AGPL-3.0) — review compatibility; single-maintainer (no co-maintainers visible)…
No blocking repository signals were found — inspect the evidence before forking.
Documented and popular — useful reference codebase to read through.
CI evidence incomplete; dependency CVE scan unavailable
- ⚠Solo or near-solo (1 contributor active in recent commits)
- ⚠AGPL-3.0 is copyleft — check downstream compatibility
- ✓Last commit 5w ago
- ✓AGPL-3.0 licensed
- ✓Tests present
What would improve this?
- •Use as dependency Concerns to 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
ruvnet/ruview
Mixed signals — read the receipts
No blocking maintenance, license, or known-CVE signals were found; still verify the package version and fit.
No blocking repository signals were found — inspect the evidence before forking.
Documented and popular — useful reference codebase to read through.
Scorecard "Branch-Protection" is 0/10; 1 cyclic import chain detected
- ⚠Small team — 2 contributors active in recent commits
- ⚠Concentrated ownership — top contributor handles 71% of recent commits
- ⚠Scorecard: default branch unprotected (0/10)
- ✓Last commit today
- ✓2 active contributors
- ✓MIT licensed
- ✓CI configured
- ✓Tests present
What would improve this?
- •Deploy as-is Mixed to 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 dependency CVEs from deps.dev and OpenSSF Scorecard
Signal-by-signal breakdown
| xq-rs | ruview | |
|---|---|---|
| Stars | 5,737 | 92,443 |
| Last commit | 5mo ago | 9d ago |
| License | AGPL-3.0 | MIT |
| Open issues | 0 | 613 |
| Has tests | ✓ | ✓ |
| Has CI | Unknown | ✓ |
| Test coverage | 31% | 24% |
| Dependency CVEs | No CVEs | No CVEs |
| Architecture grade | — | A |
| Cycles | — | 1 |
| Bottom-line | Mixed signals | Mixed signals |
Want the full analysis? quipnetwork/xq-rs · ruvnet/ruview
Ask AI about quipnetwork/xq-rs vs ruvnet/ruview
Open the chat with a comparison question pre-filled.