github
Name collision
Naming a repository github is wonderfully direct: it is the software equivalent of labeling a drawer “drawer.” Bold branding, minimal breadcrumbs.
Roasts
pinball
Arcade archaeology
pinball promises a whole arcade in one word, while the 2016 timestamp makes it feel like a cabinet discovered behind a very patient time capsule.
slice
Sharp little mystery
slice is a crisp name for a Java project, but with only the metadata visible, it remains the programming portfolio’s neatly labeled mystery box.
pinball
Fork in the road
A JavaScript pinball project marked as a fork has excellent premise energy: part game, part map-reading exercise, with the roadmap left intriguingly offstage.
Category breakdown
Impact
25% weight
The portfolio contains a repository named github plus JavaScript and Java projects, but the supplied metadata provides too little information to establish substantial usefulness, originality, or ambition.
Consistency
15% weight
The three repositories show widely separated activity dates, with the latest supplied push in 2017 and profile activity metadata ending in 2021; sustained recent contribution is not evidenced.
Quality
25% weight
Language metadata and non-archived status provide only limited maturity signals; two repositories are marked as forks, and no implementation, testing, documentation, or CI evidence is available.
Depth
20% weight
There are three public repositories, but two are marked as forks and the available dates do not show sustained ownership or maintenance.
Breadth
10% weight
The repositories span JavaScript, Java, and one repository with an unknown language, offering some language variety, though project-type variety cannot be established from the metadata.
Community
5% weight
No repository stars are supplied beyond zero, and follower information is not used as a quality signal; community evidence is therefore treated as neutral.
Stats
52-week commit heatmap
0 active daysLanguage distribution
3 langs
- Java34%
- JavaScript33%
- Unknown33%
Based on the bounded repository sample saved with this analysis.
Numbers
Owned repos
Non-fork sample
1
Commits
Last 12 months
0
Followers
Accepted fact
13
Joined GitHub
Profile date
May 2009
Top repos
Scores marked Profile rating use bounded public repository metadata. Full repo analysis appears only when a separate accepted repository analysis exists.
chun /
github
24/100
A non-fork, non-archived repository named github, last pushed in 2017, with no language identified; the metadata supports a real project placeholder but not its scope or maturity.
OwnedActiveProfile ratingUnknown
★ 0 · 9y agoOpen on GitHub ↗
chun /
pinball
22/100
A non-archived JavaScript repository named pinball, marked as a fork and last pushed in 2016; the premise is identifiable, but ownership and implementation depth are not established.
ForkActiveProfile ratingJavaScript
★ 0 · 11y agoOpen on GitHub ↗
chun /
slice
20/100
A non-archived Java repository named slice, marked as a fork and last pushed in 2013; the metadata indicates an older project with limited evidence of sustained development.
ForkActiveProfile ratingJava
★ 0 · 13y agoOpen on GitHub ↗
Timeline
- Joined GitHub
- Created chun/github - git hub codes
- Created chun/slice - Java library for efficiently working with heap and off-heap memory
- Created chun/pinball - Pinball is a scalable workflow manager
- Most recent push to chun/github
Compare
CHUN · 6DMEDIAN CODER
Rubric
How this score was produced
Overall = Σ(category × weight) + deterministic top-end curve
| Category | Weight | Score | Contribution |
|---|---|---|---|
| Impact | 25% | 22 | 5.50 |
| Quality | 25% | 22 | 5.50 |
| Depth | 20% | 18 | 3.60 |
| Consistency | 15% | 18 | 2.70 |
| Breadth | 10% | 28 | 2.80 |
| Community | 5% | 50 | 2.50 |
Impact · 22/100
What it measures. Project usefulness, ambition, originality, and coherence. Popularity is not impact.
Evidence for chun. The portfolio contains a repository named github plus JavaScript and Java projects, but the supplied metadata provides too little information to establish substantial usefulness, originality, or ambition.
Quality · 22/100
What it measures. Engineering and project-maturity signals supported by the available public metadata.
Evidence for chun. Language metadata and non-archived status provide only limited maturity signals; two repositories are marked as forks, and no implementation, testing, documentation, or CI evidence is available.
Depth · 18/100
What it measures. Sustained ownership, meaningful scope, and continued maintenance rather than one-shots.
Evidence for chun. There are three public repositories, but two are marked as forks and the available dates do not show sustained ownership or maintenance.
Consistency · 18/100
What it measures. Recency and contribution patterns across the supplied activity window.
Evidence for chun. The three repositories show widely separated activity dates, with the latest supplied push in 2017 and profile activity metadata ending in 2021; sustained recent contribution is not evidenced.
Breadth · 28/100
What it measures. Language entropy and project-type diversity across owned repos.
Evidence for chun. The repositories span JavaScript, Java, and one repository with an unknown language, offering some language variety, though project-type variety cannot be established from the metadata.
Community · 50/100
What it measures. A weak positive tie-breaker for supplied community signals, never a popularity penalty.
Evidence for chun. No repository stars are supplied beyond zero, and follower information is not used as a quality signal; community evidence is therefore treated as neutral.
- Raw total
- 22.60
- Top-end curve
- +0.00
- Final overall
- 22.6
Tier thresholds
S 90-100 Mass-producing humansA 80-89 Ship machineB 70-79 Solid engineerC 60-69 Getting thereD 40-59 README enthusiastF 0-39 GitHub tourist
I. How this saved profile rating was produced
- 01
Validate. The server validates the login, signed browser session, attempts, cooldown, daily ceiling, and the single provider permit.
- 02
Collect. The VPS collector reads bounded public profile metadata and up to 12 recent repository metadata rows in volatile memory.
- 03
Rate. One pinned provider returned a closed profile-rating object with no tools, browsing, shell, or repository-content access.
- 04
Verify. Server checks bound the subject, rejected unsafe or echoed text, validated the schema, and recomputed rubric-v3 final arithmetic.
- 05
Save. Only a valid completion and allowlisted post-completion facts commit atomically; the public projection is then rebuilt.
This saved profile analysis is metadata-only and did not read repository trees, README files, or source code. Availability of new analysis is separate from this historical result.
Rated 2026-08-09 · rating-rubric/3
II. Data sources & caveats
- Scores summarize one accepted, subject-bound analysis; they are not a security audit or endorsement.
- Rank, percentile, and median use 1095 currently accepted public profiles and can change as the leaderboard changes.
- Repository and language details reflect the bounded analyzed sample, not necessarily every repository.
- Missing data is shown as unavailable or not evaluated instead of being inferred as zero.
- Analysis completed Aug 9, 2026, 7:32 AM UTC and is marked aging.