Head to head
Apricot vs ctxlint
Same numbers we show everywhere else, lined up. Ratings come from users, the grade comes from our scanner, adoption comes from public registries.
No reviews yet
Lint AI agent context files (CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md, etc.) against your actual codebase
Full listingThe short version
Neither has been reviewed yet, so the comparison rests on the scan and the public usage numbers. Both score close on the safety scan (87 and 91 out of 100). Apricot is hosted and callable through the gateway; ctxlint runs on your own machine. ctxlint has noticeably more public adoption.
| Apricot | ctxlint | |
|---|---|---|
| User rating | No reviews yet | No reviews yet |
| Safety grade | A87/100 | A91/100 |
| Adoption | Growing | Established |
| GitHub stars | 0 | 9 |
| Downloads / week | – | 7.9k |
| Runs where | Hosted (remote) | Your machine (local) |
| Gateway-ready | Yes | No |
| Tools | — | — |
| Write actions | — | — |
| Price per call | Free | Free |
| Licence | NOASSERTION | MIT |
| Last release | 2026-09-14 | 2026-09-15 |
| Category | AI and agents | AI and agents |