← Back to Hall of Fame
🔍 Fetching their open-source footprint (repos / languages / contributions)…
Score breakdown
Account maturity10.0 / 10
Original project quality7.2 / 18
Contribution quality26.9 / 27
Ecosystem / maintenance impact18.7 / 20
Community influence5.0 / 8
Activity authenticity17.0 / 17
🧬 Most similar developers
Closest profile, nearby score
🔥 Full roast
🔥 Your 46-star dataset repo fooled the base scorer, all 33 high-star repo contributions are unverified blind spots, recent external PRs all target a 1-star repo, and you follow 180+ more accounts than f
xzyaoi — 74.80/100 · SOLID (Solid · Trustworthy)
TL;DR: Looks impressive on paper until you realize 100% of his all-time high-star repo contributions have zero file-level proof, his top original project is a non-usable dataset, and his recent external work is exclusively aimed at a 1-star repo — the ELITE label was a generous mistake.
| Dimension | Score | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Account maturity | 10/10 | Registered 11.5 years, active across 12 contribution years, 4,194 contributions last year — long enough to know better than to lean on unverified impact claims. |
| Original project quality | 7.2/18 | 49 original repos, 74 total stars, top repo is a 46-star research dataset (crosstalk-dataset) that isn't usable software, so those stars don't count for project quality credit per scoring rules. |
| Contribution quality | 26.9/27 | 295 merged PRs out of 329 total, only 3 maintainer-closed unmerged PRs, 22 author-closed external PRs — but all 33 all-time popular-repo contributions have zero file-level verification, so the high score here is built on unproven work. |
| Ecosystem / maintenance impact | 18.7/20 | 33 PRs + 167 commits into repos with up to 18k stars (e.g. fastapi/sqlmodel) — but none of these contributions have file-level samples to confirm they're core engineering rather than docs/templates/frontend window dressing. |
| Community influence | 5/8 | 197 followers, 380 following — the reverse follow ratio is a solid signal that his influence is mostly self-directed curation, not organic community traction. |
| Activity authenticity | 17/17 | 4,194 contributions last year, no trivial PR farming, no templated PR flood — recent activity is real, just almost entirely targeted at a single 1-star external repo (ResearchComputer/xkernels). |
| Red flags |
- All 33 all-time contributions to high-star popular repos have zero file-level verification, so their quality, scope (core engineering vs docs/templates/frontend touch-ups), and even existence are unconfirmed — the high contribution quality and ecosystem impact scores are built on unsubstantiated claims.
- The top-starred original repository is a research dataset repo (crosstalk-dataset), not usable software, so its 46 stars cannot be counted as positive project quality credit per scoring rules.
- Recent external PR activity is 100% targeted at a 1-star external repo (ResearchComputer/xkernels), with no recent merged PRs to high-star external popular repos, so recent activity does not corroborate the all-time high ecosystem impact claim.
- The high-star impact repo fastapi/sqlmodel lists 1 PR and 0 commits, an anomalous data point that requires verification to confirm the contribution's validity and quality.
- The impact repo railwayapp/templates is a templates repo, so any contributions to it would be classified as docs/templates work rather than core engineering, which would further reduce the core contribution quality claim if verified. Score calibration The -10 score correction accounts for two base-score overvaluations: all 33 all-time popular-repo contributions lack file-level verification, so their assigned quality and impact points are unsubstantiated, and the top-starred original repo is a non-usable research dataset, so its 46 stars do not qualify for project quality credit per scoring rules. Verdict Needs human review before any ELITE-tier trust is warranted — the current score is propped up by unverified claims that require file-level confirmation to validate.