ghfind
← Back to Hall of Fame

🏆 Notable contributions

Popular open-source repos they've shipped to (commits + PRs)

Score breakdown

Account maturity10.0 / 10
Original project quality12.1 / 18
Contribution quality17.1 / 27
Ecosystem / maintenance impact17.3 / 20
Community influence6.5 / 8
Activity authenticity16.4 / 17

🛠 Featured work

Their own popular and pinned repositories

🧬 Stack & domains

Top languages
C++58%
C#34%
Python5%
C2%
PowerShell1%
Shell0%
Domains
exploitintegrity-monitoringmemorymemory-hackingbb-graphcapstonecoveragegraphprofileransomware-preventionransonwarerop-gadgets

🧬 Most similar developers

Closest profile, nearby score

🔥 Full roast

🔥 10-year OSS veteran whose only standout original project is EhTrace, padding the rest of his contribution count with self-promotional awesome-list adds and big-name repo edge-case fixes — half of thos

K2 — 79.40/100 · SOLID (Solid · Trustworthy)

TL;DR: Long-tenured, low-drama contributor with one legit standout original project and verified core work in popular repos, but leans on self-promotional list additions and trivial edge-case fixes to pad his contribution count — trustworthy, but his home-grown portfolio is far narrower than the raw numbers suggest.

DimensionScoreNotes
Account maturity10/10Registered 10.54 years ago, active across 12 distinct contribution years with no long dormancy gaps. A genuine long-term platform user, not a recent signup chasing contribution badges.
Original project quality12.1/18Total 513 stars across 15 original repos, 242 of which belong to EhTrace (quality score 0.82, actively maintained C++ binary tracing tool with real security community traction). The rest of his original repos are niche, low-star side projects with no broad adoption — the entire star count is effectively carried by one tool.
Contribution quality17.1/279 merged PRs total, 13 total PRs; 2 maintainer-closed unmerged PRs, 0 author-closed external PRs, 0 author-closed own-repo PRs. No PR farming or self-close shenanigans, but 4 of his 9 recent merged PRs are trivial: 3 are self-promotional awesome-list adds of his own inVtero.net project, 1 is a self-repo revert. The contribution count is padded with low-effort list edits that take 2 minutes and a copy-paste.
Ecosystem / maintenance impact17.3/20All-time 5 PRs + 8 commits into ★70k+ popular repos; verified samples include core build fixes for amd/xdna-driver and fuzz integration for google/oss-fuzz, with 1 unverified contribution to Textualize/rich. The verified core work is solid and targets high-star, high-impact repos, but 13 total PRs over 10 years is not exactly a torrent of upstream impact.
Community influence6.5/8192 followers, 67 following, a healthy 2.9:1 follower ratio. Modest for a 10-year veteran with a popular original project, but no evidence of follower farming or artificial influence padding.
Activity authenticity16.4/171,091 contributions in the last year, last activity 24 days ago, 4 distinct activity types (commits, PRs, issues, reviews). Recent activity is consistent and not bot-like, though the trivial PR share suggests some contribution padding to hit annual contribution targets.
Red flags
  • 3 of 9 recent merged PRs are self-promotional, 1-2 line edits adding his own inVtero.net project to third-party awesome forensics/malware analysis lists (trivial, no substantive content added)
  • 1 all-time popular-repo contribution (to Textualize/rich) lacks file-level quality verification
  • No bot behavior, PR flooding, star inflation, or malicious contribution patterns detected. Score calibration No extra adjustment. The base score already accounts for the mix of strong core contributions, a high-quality original project, and minor trivial PR padding — no additional bump or haircut was needed. Verdict Normal, trustworthy contributor with a solid but narrow footprint. His core engineering work is real and verified, but his public contribution profile leans a little too heavily on self-promotional list edits and trivial fixes to inflate his contribution count — not a security or trust risk, just not as substantive as the raw 1,091 annual contribution number suggests.