ultraworkers/claw-code vs willcrichton/flowistry
ultraworkers/claw-code shows stronger signals overall
As of September 2026, claw-code shows healthier maintenance signals than flowistry. claw-code rates Healthy overall while flowistry rates Mixed. claw-code last saw a commit 1 month ago with 11+ active contributors, while flowistry last saw a commit 4 months ago with 4+ active contributors. Both use the MIT 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.
ultraworkers/claw-code
Healthy across all four use cases
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.
No blocking repository-level signals were found; deployment review is still required.
- ⚠Concentrated ownership — top contributor handles 65% of recent commits
- ⚠Scorecard: default branch unprotected (0/10)
- ✓Last commit 3w ago
- ✓11 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
willcrichton/flowistry
Single-maintainer risk — review before adopting
top contributor handles 94% of recent commits; dependency CVE scan unavailable
No blocking repository signals were found — inspect the evidence before forking.
Documented and popular — useful reference codebase to read through.
dependency CVE scan unavailable
- ⚠Small team — 4 contributors active in recent commits
- ⚠Single-maintainer risk — top contributor 94% of recent commits
- ✓Last commit 5d ago
- ✓4 active contributors
- ✓MIT licensed
- ✓CI configured
- ✓Tests present
Computed from maintenance signals — commit recency, contributor breadth, bus factor, license, CI, tests
Signal-by-signal breakdown
| claw-code | flowistry | |
|---|---|---|
| Stars | 195,190 | 3,047 |
| Last commit | 1mo ago | 4mo ago |
| License | MIT | MIT |
| Open issues | 41 | 34 |
| Has tests | ✓ | ✓ |
| Has CI | ✓ | ✓ |
| Test coverage | 13% | 100% |
| Dependency CVEs | 0 critical · 0 high · 1 moderate · 0 low | No CVEs |
| Architecture grade | A | — |
| Cycles | 0 | — |
| Bottom-line | Healthy signals | Mixed signals |
Want the full analysis? ultraworkers/claw-code · willcrichton/flowistry
Ask AI about ultraworkers/claw-code vs willcrichton/flowistry
Open the chat with a comparison question pre-filled.