Rough and inactive. Tests, CI, and a fuller README would revive it.
ESP8266 RFID (RC522, PN532, Wiegand, RDM6300) Access Control system featuring WebSocket, JSON, NTP Client, Javascript, SPIFFS
Documentation
82
No CONTRIBUTING.md found (−47 pts base + up to −53 pts more for content).
→ Add a CONTRIBUTING.md telling newcomers how to get involved. Include setup, code style, test, and PR instructions.
README documents how to install the project.
README is present.
Licensed under MIT.
Engineering
37
No tests detected anywhere in the repository.
→ Add automated tests. They prove the code works and give contributors confidence to make changes.
No linter or formatter config found.
→ Add a linter config such as .eslintrc.json, .prettierrc, ruff.toml, or .golangci.yml to enforce consistent code style.
No issue or PR templates found (−100 pts).
→ Add .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/ with bug_report.md and feature_request.md to guide contributors. It dramatically improves issue quality.
Lockfile present (tools/webfilesbuilder/package-lock.json). Installs are reproducible.
CI is configured (.travis.yml).
Project health
64
No pushes in over 2 years. Looks unmaintained (−95 pts).
→ A recent commit signals the project is alive and worth using.
Repository has a description.
Dependency manifest found (tools/webfilesbuilder/package.json).
.gitignore present.
Repository health signals
Activity, community, and responsiveness at scan time
Activity
- —Commits (30d / 90d)
- 0Forks
- 0Releases
Community
- —Community health
- —authors own >50% of commits
- 0Watchers
Responsiveness
- —Median issue response
- —Median PR merge time
- 0Open issues
Repository files12 root entries
- bin
- demo
- scripts
- src
- toolsGood: Lockfile present (tools/webfilesbuilder/package-lock.json). Installs are reproducible.Good: Dependency manifest found (tools/webfilesbuilder/package.json).
- .gitattributes
- .gitignoreGood: .gitignore present.
- .travis.ymlGood: CI is configured (.travis.yml).
- CHANGELOG.md
- LICENSEGood: Licensed under MIT.
- platformio.ini
- README.mdGood: README is present.Good: README is well structured with multiple sections.Good: README includes screenshots or visuals. Great for first impressions.Good: README has code examples.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.