cm4ffin/empyrean

0

/ 100

Documentation85
Engineering31
Health64
0MIT2y ago
Grade a repo

Rough and inactive. Tests, CI, and a fuller README would revive it.

Easy to use and open-source stealer that's super effective

Documentation

85

Contributing guide5pt61

Contributing guide is too short for full depth credit (−6 pts). 400+ words earns the full +12 pts.

→ Add setup instructions, code style notes, and how to run tests.

README12pt85

README is present.

Install and run instructions9pt90

README documents how to install the project.

License6pt100

Licensed under MIT.

Engineering

31

Tests18pt0

No tests detected anywhere in the repository.

→ Add automated tests. They prove the code works and give contributors confidence to make changes.

CI/CD14pt0

No CI configuration detected in this repository.

→ If your CI lives elsewhere (a private repo that builds this one) or this project is itself a CI/CD tool, mark this check Not Applicable. Otherwise add a GitHub Actions workflow that runs tests on each push. It takes 15 minutes and reassures contributors their changes won't break things.

Reproducibility6pt70

Lockfile present (requirements.txt). Installs are reproducible.

Linting and formatting5pt100

Linter or formatter configured (.editorconfig).

Issue and PR templates6pt100

Issue or PR templates present.

Project health

64

Activity5pt5

No pushes in over 2 years. Looks unmaintained (−95 pts).

→ A recent commit signals the project is alive and worth using.

Repository metadata5pt60

Repository has a description.

Dependency manifest6pt100

Dependency manifest found (requirements.txt).

Housekeeping3pt100

.gitignore present.

Repository health signals

Activity, community, and responsiveness at scan time

Activity

  • —
    Commits (30d / 90d)
  • 0
    Forks
  • 0
    Releases

Community

  • —
    Community health
  • —
    authors own >50% of commits
  • 0
    Watchers

Responsiveness

  • —
    Median issue response
  • —
    Median PR merge time
  • 0
    Open issues
Repository files14 root entries
  • .github
    Good: Issue or PR templates present.
  • .vscode
  • builder
  • img
  • src
  • .editorconfig
    Good: Linter or formatter configured (.editorconfig).
  • .gitignore
    Good: .gitignore present.
  • build.bat
  • CONTRIBUTING.md
    Issue: Contributing guide is too short for full depth credit (−6 pts). 400+ words earns the full +12 pts.Fix: Add setup instructions, code style notes, and how to run tests.
    Issue: Contributing guide lacks a setup section (−12 pts).Fix: Show new contributors how to get a local dev environment running.
    Issue: Contributing guide lacks a code style section (−8 pts).Fix: Describe your linting/formatting rules and how to run them.
    Issue: Contributing guide lacks a testing section (−8 pts).Fix: Show contributors how to run the test suite (e.g. npm test, pytest, cargo test).
    Good: Contributing guide describes the PR/review workflow.
    Issue: Contributing guide has no code examples (−5 pts).Fix: Add code blocks showing example commands for setup, running tests, and submitting a PR.
  • install_python.bat
  • interferences.txt
  • LICENSE.md
    Good: Licensed under MIT.
  • README.md
    Good: README is present.
    Good: README is well structured with multiple sections.
    Good: README includes screenshots or visuals. Great for first impressions.
    Issue: README has no code examples (−15 pts).Fix: Show a quick-start snippet so contributors can see what using your project looks like.
    Good: README links to a live demo or deployed app.
    Good: README includes status badges.
    Good: README documents how to install the project.
    Good: README documents how to run the project.
  • requirements.txt
    Good: Lockfile present (requirements.txt). Installs are reproducible.
    Good: Dependency manifest found (requirements.txt).