ruvnet/ruview vs yamato-security/hayabusa
Both showing Mixed signals — pick on fit, not health
As of September 2026, ruview and hayabusa both show mixed maintenance signals. ruview was committed to 1 week ago with 2+ active contributors, while hayabusa last saw a commit 1 month ago with 4+ active contributors. ruview is MIT-licensed while hayabusa is AGPL-3.0-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.
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
yamato-security/hayabusa
Mixed signals — read the receipts
copyleft license (AGPL-3.0) — review compatibility; no tests detected in the complete Git tree
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; 8 cyclic import chains — pervasive coupling
- ⚠Small team — 4 contributors active in recent commits
- ⚠Concentrated ownership — top contributor handles 67% of recent commits
- ⚠AGPL-3.0 is copyleft — check downstream compatibility
- ⚠No tests detected in the complete Git tree
- ⚠Scorecard: default branch unprotected (0/10)
- ✓Last commit 2w ago
- ✓4 active contributors
- ✓AGPL-3.0 licensed
- ✓CI configured
What would improve this?
- •Use as dependency Concerns to Mixed if: relicense under MIT/Apache-2.0 (rare for established libs)
- •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
| ruview | hayabusa | |
|---|---|---|
| Stars | 92,443 | 3,311 |
| Last commit | 9d ago | 1mo ago |
| License | MIT | AGPL-3.0 |
| Open issues | 613 | 20 |
| Has tests | ✓ | No |
| Has CI | ✓ | ✓ |
| Test coverage | 24% | 0% |
| Dependency CVEs | No CVEs | 0 critical · 0 high · 1 moderate · 0 low |
| Architecture grade | A | C |
| Cycles | 1 | 8 |
| Bottom-line | Mixed signals | Mixed signals |
Want the full analysis? ruvnet/ruview · yamato-security/hayabusa
Ask AI about ruvnet/ruview vs yamato-security/hayabusa
Open the chat with a comparison question pre-filled.