Which has better activity and maintenance signals?

Based on the RepoPilot analysis provided, I can only make a direct comparison on dependency security and code quality signals. However, openai/codex shows significantly stronger overall health signals:

openai/codex:

• RepoPilot verdict: GO — Healthy across all four use cases
• Architecture grade: A (91/100) with 0 import cycles (excellent)
• Dependency security: 0 critical/high/moderate CVEs in 1 scanned npm dependency
• Code scanning: 0 open SAST alerts
• 122,698 stars, 18,857 forks (very active community signal)

trunk-rs/trunk:

• No RepoPilot verdict provided in the data
• No architecture grade or dependency security analysis in the data
• No code scanning results shown

The repository data for trunk-rs/trunk doesn't include RepoPilot's computed signals (architecture grade, dependency analysis, or verdict), so I cannot make a direct maintenance comparison. The openai/codex data explicitly confirms active maintenance through:

• Zero import cycles (well-refactored code structure)
• Explicit architectural guidance in AGENTS.md resisting bloat [AGENTS.md:L72-L84]
• Clear analytics and instrumentation infrastructure

To make a fair assessment of trunk-rs/trunk's maintenance status, you'd want to check its GitHub releases, commit frequency, and issue response times directly, as those signals aren't included in the provided data.

FOLLOW_UPS:

• What's trunk-rs/trunk's current release cadence?
• Does openai/codex have documented security practices?
• How old are trunk-rs/trunk's most recent commits?