wting/autojump vs z4nzu/hackingtool
z4nzu/hackingtool shows stronger signals overall
As of June 2026, hackingtool shows healthier maintenance signals than autojump. hackingtool rates Healthy overall while autojump rates Mixed. autojump last saw a commit 1 year ago with 13+ active contributors, while hackingtool last saw a commit 3 months ago with 10+ active contributors. autojump is Other-licensed while hackingtool 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.
wting/autojump →
Stale — last commit 1y ago
non-standard license (Other); last commit was 1y ago
Has a license, tests, and CI — clean foundation to fork and modify.
Documented and popular — useful reference codebase to read through.
last commit was 1y ago; Scorecard "Branch-Protection" is 0/10
- ⚠Stale — last commit 1y ago
- ⚠Single-maintainer risk — top contributor 82% of recent commits
- ⚠Non-standard license (Other) — review terms
- ⚠Scorecard: marked unmaintained (0/10)
- ⚠Scorecard: default branch unprotected (0/10)
- ✓13 active contributors
- ✓Other licensed
- ✓CI configured
- ✓Tests present
What would improve this?
- →Use as dependency Concerns → Mixed if: clarify license terms
- →Deploy as-is Mixed → Healthy if: 1 commit in the last 180 days
Computed from maintenance signals — commit recency, contributor breadth, bus factor, license, CI, tests, cross-checked against OpenSSF Scorecard
z4nzu/hackingtool →
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 57% of recent commits
- ✓Last commit 8w ago
- ✓10 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
| autojump | hackingtool | |
|---|---|---|
| Stars | 16,906 | 73,012 |
| Last commit | 1y ago | 3mo ago |
| License | Other | MIT |
| Open issues | 230 | 100 |
| Has tests | ✓ | ✓ |
| Has CI | ✓ | ✓ |
| Test coverage | 100% | 3% |
| Dependency CVEs | No CVEs | No CVEs |
| Architecture grade | — | — |
| Cycles | — | — |
| Bottom-line | Mixed signals | Healthy signals |
Want the full analysis? wting/autojump · z4nzu/hackingtool
Ask AI about wting/autojump vs z4nzu/hackingtool
Open the chat with a comparison question pre-filled.