Compare

Forgejo vs GitHub

GitHub scores higher on the AgentReady, 55/100 against 45/100. They differ on 9 of the 41 signals. Which ones decides whether an agent can adopt them without a person watching.

What each one is

Forgejo. Forgejo is a self-hosted lightweight software forge.

GitHub. GitHub is a platform where developers, agents, and code come together for collaboration.

Where Forgejo is ahead

Forgejo passes authentication documented and pricing understandable, and GitHub does not. That is understand, whether an agent can read the docs and work out how the API behaves before calling it.

It also holds adopt: free trial or free allowance. GitHub misses it.

Where GitHub is ahead

GitHub passes llms.txt published and llms-full.txt / full agent docs, and Forgejo does not. That is discover, whether an agent can find the product at all without being told it exists.

It also holds adopt: agent-compatible signup flow and official typescript sdk. Forgejo misses those.

And on operate, structured, predictable output and rate-limit behavior predictable. Forgejo misses those.

What neither does

Both fail machine-readable metadata, structured api reference, openapi / spec quality, request examples provided, response examples provided, errors and status codes documented, limits / constraints documented, self-service signup, no mandatory sales call, programmatic credential creation, fast time to first request, copyable quickstart, machine-readable errors, retry behavior documented, idempotency support, agent compatibility verified. If your agent needs any of those, you will be building it yourself either way.

Score, pillar by pillar

The AgentReady splits into four pillars, scored separately, because a product can be easy to find and still impossible to adopt.

Discover. GitHub leads 93 to 80. Forgejo misses llms.txt published, llms-full.txt / full agent docs, machine-readable metadata; GitHub misses machine-readable metadata.

Understand. Forgejo leads 31 to 15. Forgejo misses structured api reference, openapi / spec quality, request examples provided, response examples provided, errors and status codes documented, limits / constraints documented; GitHub misses structured api reference, openapi / spec quality, authentication documented, pricing understandable, request examples provided, response examples provided, errors and status codes documented, limits / constraints documented.

Adopt. GitHub leads 52 to 35. Forgejo misses self-service signup, no mandatory sales call, agent-compatible signup flow, programmatic credential creation, fast time to first request, copyable quickstart, official typescript sdk; GitHub misses self-service signup, no mandatory sales call, programmatic credential creation, free trial or free allowance, fast time to first request, copyable quickstart.

Operate is whether an agent can run against it in production and recover when a call fails. GitHub leads 59 to 35. Forgejo misses structured, predictable output, machine-readable errors, retry behavior documented, idempotency support, rate-limit behavior predictable, agent compatibility verified; GitHub misses machine-readable errors, retry behavior documented, idempotency support, agent compatibility verified.

Pricing

Forgejo does not publish a machine-readable starting price and has a free tier. GitHub does not publish one.

Signal by signal

Which to pick

GitHub clears more of the signals an agent needs, so it is the safer default for unattended use. Full profiles: Forgejo and GitHub. Alternatives to each: Forgejo, GitHub.

An agent can fetch this as data: POST /v1/compare {"slugs": ["forgejo", "github"]}