abi/screenshot-to-code

Choose this fork only if its local prompt/eval and workflow changes match your needs and you are prepared to do ongoing upstream merge work. If you want the latest models and product capabilities, upstream is the safer choice.

Choose this fork only if you value its custom refactors more than upstream parity. For most adopters, upstream is the safer choice because this fork is stale and appears to have removed several newer workflows and UI areas.

Choose this fork only if you want a simplified, likely hosted screenshot-to-code experience and do not need upstream parity. If you want active maintenance, newer model support, or the full eval/agent workflow, upstream is the safer choice.

Prefer upstream unless you specifically want this fork's simpler, hosted-tool-oriented snapshot and URL screenshot workflow. The fork looks materially behind and appears to shed evaluation and broader product capabilities, so it is better as a lightweight starting point than as a current, full-featured base.

Choose this fork if you want a more experimental, developer-centric base for model and agent work. Avoid it if you want the newest upstream UI, model support, and polished workflows with minimal merge risk.

Choose this fork only if its eval/history/import workflow is the point of the project. For most adopters, upstream is the better default because this fork is stale, materially behind, and missing newer model and prototype capabilities.

Prefer this fork only if you specifically want its older eval/history workflow and are prepared to maintain a divergent codebase. If you want current model support, active upstream features, or an easier upgrade path, upstream is the better choice.

Choose this fork only if its evaluation- and agent-oriented changes are specifically what you need. If you want a current, broadly supported screenshot-to-code product, upstream is the safer default.

Choose this fork only if its custom model/default behavior, mock-LLM workflow, or simplified UI matches your needs and you are willing to absorb merge debt. If you want current upstream capabilities, active maintenance, and newer model/support work, upstream is the safer choice.