Which has better activity and maintenance signals?

Based on the RepoPilot analysis data provided:

ice-cube-ruby/ice_cube shows a GO verdict — Healthy across all four use cases, which is the strongest signal available. However, the repository_data block doesn't include detailed metrics beyond that verdict.

For jekyll/jekyll, no RepoPilot analysis verdict is included in the data provided, so I cannot make a direct comparison on that basis.

From the code artifacts alone:

• ice-cube-ruby/ice_cube: The CHANGELOG shows recent activity — Indonesian translations were added ([CHANGELOG.md:L16-L18]), and BYSETPOS support was added across all rule frequencies ([CHANGELOG.md:L8-L10]), suggesting ongoing maintenance.

• jekyll/jekyll: The code samples shown (highlight tag renderer, filters, site configuration) appear to be from an active codebase, but without explicit activity signals in the data provided, I cannot definitively assess relative maintenance status.

To make a confident comparison, I'd need:

• RepoPilot verdicts for both repos
• Commit frequency and recency for each
• Issue/PR resolution rates
• Maintainer activity timelines

Based solely on what's provided: ice-cube-ruby/ice_cube has an explicit health verdict; jekyll/jekyll's health status isn't signaled in this data block.

FOLLOW_UPS:

• What specific maintenance concern do you have?
• How recent should activity be for your use case?
• Are you evaluating for production dependency adoption?