patchleaks
open-sourceThe section your link pointed to isn't on patchleaks's page any more, so we've brought you to the top.
PatchLeaks compares two versions of a codebase, highlights vendor-changed lines, and explains why they matter for security analysis.
Summary
patchleaks is an open-source vulnerability-research tool, licensed under GNU AGPL v3, that compares two versions of a code-base and uses language-model reasoning to flag which changed lines are security-relevant and why. It runs as a server process you start locally, and it can monitor GitHub repositories continuously, pulling new releases and triggering analysis automatically rather than waiting for a manual diff. It is built for vulnerability researchers and patch analysts doing CVE-to-PoC work under time pressure, particularly around 0-day triage where reading full diffs by hand is too slow, and it tolerates the mixed old/new code hunks that most SASTSASTStatic application security testing, analyzing source code or compiled code for vulnerabilities without running the application. It helps developers find problems before deployment. tools refuse to scan. No comparable product is named in its documentation, but it sits alongside patch-diffing and CVE-analysis workflows researchers currently do by hand. With 172 commits in the past year from a single maintainer and a release 282 days ago, it is actively developed though still a small, one-person project.
PatchLeaks compares two versions of a codebase, highlights vendor-changed lines, and explains why they matter for security analysis.
How patchleaks helps
Which lines in a new release actually matter when a vendor ships a security patch buried in hundreds of changed files?
runs a diff-aware comparison against the prior version and ranks the changed lines by security relevance instead of listing every textual change
Is this fix a straightforward memory-safety bug or something subtler like a broken ACL check?
uses language-model reasoning over the changed flow, not pattern matching, so it can name logic-level issues like privilege escalation that a regex-based scan would miss
Does a diff that only shows half-rewritten functions still tell me anything before I trace it by hand?
reasons over the mixed old/new hunks directly, where most SAST tooling would simply refuse to scan the file
Is the bug I found the same one the CVE description is talking about?
checks the flagged change against a supplied CVE description and reports whether they line up
Which of the repositories I track have shipped a new version I haven't looked at yet?
polls the configured GitHub repositories for new releases and queues them for analysis automatically instead of waiting for a manual check
Have I already reviewed this version of this library, or am I looking at the same result twice?
keeps a per-repository history of checked versions and past analysis results so repeat runs don't reopen ground already covered
Languages
Command line
| option | found in | since | description |
|---|
Values are placeholders taken from each option’s declared default. Nothing is executed here — the output shown is a recording of a run that already happened.
Score card
-
Shipping velocity releases a month, last 12 months
-
Documentation quality release-notes rubric, 0–100
-
Breaking-change discipline how rarely a release breaks users, and notice given
-
Maintenance risk quiet time against its own cadence, maintainers
-
Innovation & surface new capabilities, API and MCP surface
- Community health
-
Contributor trend distinct committers, this year against last
-
Maintainer concentration bus factor now against a year ago
-
Issue backlog trend issues closed per issue opened, 12 months
-
Responsiveness median time to a maintainer’s first reply
Nine scores for patchleaks, each built from the releases, notes and API history this site tracks — and, on Researcher and Business, where it stands among every measured tool in its category and how that has moved.
Score cards are part of every paid plan.
See plans → Already subscribed? Sign in →Trajectory
Blank means never measured; nothing here is a filled-in zero.
Peer standings are included with Researcher and Business. See how this tool ranks against its competitors, using data we don't publish anywhere else.
See plans →Each score is 0–100 on a published rubric, derived from data this site already shows. A dimension we cannot measure says so — it is never scored 0 and never enters a rank.
How this is scored
- Shipping velocity — releases a month over the last 12 months, on a log scale where 16 a month scores 100. Needs 3 releases in the window.
- Documentation quality — the release-notes rubric published on the analytics page, unchanged.
- Breaking-change discipline — the share of releases carrying a breaking change (none scores 100, half or more scores 0). Only projects that label breaking changes are measured: a clean record cannot be told from an unlabelled one.
- Maintenance risk — quiet time measured against the tool's own release cadence (quiet longer than 90 days and three typical gaps scores 0), plus the number of active maintainers and whether contributors are growing, where known. Higher is lower risk.
- Innovation & surface — new capabilities in the feature ledger this year, API and MCP operations added, and the share of commits that are features: the mean of whichever we hold.
- Community health (open-source tools only) — each is a direction, not a size: contributors this year against last, the bus factor now against a year ago, and issues closed per issue opened, where steady scores 50, doubled 100 and halved 0; plus the median time to a maintainer's first reply (an hour scores about 100, a month or more 0). A commercial card has no repository and carries none of the four.
- Documented delivery (commercial tools) — when a vendor's documented new capabilities have slowed against its own baseline, that counts against the overall standing as heavily as two low dimensions. Steady delivery, or too little history to judge, leaves the standing alone; it is never a sixth score.
- Open-source tools are scored on repository signals; commercial tools on their published changelog. Ranks compare tools within one category and one profile and need at least five measured peers; the overall standing needs three ranked dimensions. Best-in-breed or consolidator is a shape, not a quality, and is never scored.
Release-note detail over time
See how much detail patchleaks puts in its release notes, quarter by quarter, and compare it with tracked tools in the same category. This history uses up to ten retained, reviewed notes per tool; sparse or blank older quarters may reflect that limit.
Checking release-note history…
Releases
Nothing shipped since we started watching. Releases and docs updates land here as they happen.
Project health
Issue, contributor and maintainer activity in hatlesswizard/PatchLeaks, 2023-10 – 2026-09, as of 2026-09-25. Twelve-month figures first; the trend lines run the whole window.
- Contributors 1 ±0 vs prior 12 months
- Maintainers 1 +0 joined · −0 left, last 12 months
- Bus factor 1 committers behind half the commits
- Community-filed 100% of issues opened, last 12 months
- Median time to close < 1 day first maintainer reply 14 hours
- Open backlog 0 of 1 issues ever filed
- Issues opened / month 0 · 0 communitymaintainers
- Open backlog 0
- Contributors / month 0
- Commits / month 0
- Stars 32
- other 100%
Counts from the project's public repository and git history; no individuals are identified. Maintainers are the committers covering 80% of the last year's commits. how we measure this
Libraries its release ships
What its latest release locks, checked against known advisories.None of its release's images build from a lockfile we can read.
Add the badge to your README
Maintain this project? The badge links readers straight to this page, so they can follow every release here.
Choose a badge style and copy the code →