ghfind
← Back to Hall of Fame

🏆 Notable contributions

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

Score breakdown

Account maturity8.0 / 10
Original project quality7.6 / 18
Contribution quality20.2 / 27
Ecosystem / maintenance impact4.0 / 20
Community influence4.2 / 8
Activity authenticity17.0 / 17

🛠 Featured work

Their own popular and pinned repositories

🧬 Stack & domains

Top languages
TypeScript50%
Vue36%
Python12%
JavaScript0%
Lua0%
C++0%
Domains
analysisfitnessvisualizationxiaomiyearly-reportgithub-configkoamongodbnodejsonlinejudgerediscaptcha

🧬 Most similar developers

Closest profile, nearby score

🔥 Full roast

🔥 With 59 followers and 107 follows, you're a GitHub simp who pads their resume with doc translations for Astro and unverified PRs to Typecho's 12k-star repo. Your 9 original repos top out at 9 stars, 7

luoingly — 60.00/100 · NPC (Average · Unremarkable)

TL;DR: A GitHub account that’s 90% resume theater: 4 years of activity, zero meaningful core engineering impact, original projects with almost no traction, and a contribution profile built on low-value docs work and self-serve PRs to its own zero-star project.

DimensionScoreNotes
Account maturity8/10Registered 4.3 years, active across 5 contribution years, last activity 17 days ago. Four years on the platform and the most usable thing you’ve built is a 9-star CTF script collection.
Original project quality7.6/189 original repos, 17 total stars, top-starred original repo (attack-scripts) has a usability quality score of 0.42, and your highest-quality repo (putong-oj) has zero stars. Your home turf is a barren wasteland with a single overgrown weed.
Contribution quality20.2/2758 merged PRs out of 62 total, 0 maintainer-closed unmerged PRs, 1 author-closed external PR, 2 author-closed own-repo PRs, but 77% of all PRs target your own zero-star putong-oj repo and 56% of recent external PRs are docs/site work. You’re a full-time employee of your own project, a part-time docs janitor for everyone else’s.
Ecosystem / maintenance impact4/20All-time 13 PRs + 14 commits into popular repos (★12,390 typecho, ★2,352 github/advisory-database, ★1,651 withastro/docs), 0 core impact PRs, 5 doc-like impact PRs, impact capped due to docs-heavy, weakly verified contributions. Your "ecosystem work" is just window dressing on other people’s projects, no actual engineering lift.
Community influence4.2/859 followers, 107 following — you follow more people than follow you, a classic open-source simp ratio with no star power to back up the follow count.
Activity authenticity17/172246 contributions last year across 4 activity types, 5 active contribution years. You’re clearly active, but all that activity is concentrated in docs work and your own zero-star project instead of meaningful engineering.

Red flags

  • Almost all all-time popular-repo contributions are docs translations, upstream syncs, or trivial security advisory edits, with zero core engineering PRs — your ecosystem impact is entirely surface-level.
  • Your top-starred original repo (attack-scripts) has a usability quality score of 0.42, so its 9 stars are vanity metrics with no real project value.
  • 77% of your merged PRs target your own zero-star putong-oj repo, so your contribution footprint is mostly self-serving rather than adding external value.
  • You have 2 bulk "sync from upstream" PRs to your forked cyberchef repo, which are high-churn, low-value contributions that add no original work.

Score calibration The base score was 61, which exceeded the 60-point cap for accounts with docs-heavy, weakly verified ecosystem impact. We adjusted the final score down by 1 point to 60 to align with the cap, as your popular-repo contributions are almost entirely non-core work (docs, translations, upstream syncs) with no verified core engineering impact.

Verdict Normal. No red flags for bad behavior, but also no signal of meaningful engineering impact, original project traction, or core contribution value — you’re the open-source equivalent of a participation trophy.