crown_asia
The comeback kid
crown_asia is the portfolio’s recent headline act: after a decade-long supporting cast, it arrives in 2022 like the sequel that finally got a release date—but the metadata leaves the plot delightfully mysterious.
Roasts
bundler
Fork in the road
bundler takes the classic fork-in-the-road premise literally, then leaves the road dated 2014: a Ruby detour with excellent historical ambience and an uncertain destination.
test
Minimalist naming
test is a repository name so committed to understatement that it reveals neither genre nor ending—an entire project reduced to the software equivalent of a sticky note.
bayaninhand
Handheld ambition
bayaninhand sounds like it wants to put something useful directly in your palm, while its fork status makes the project feel like borrowed momentum wearing a very memorable name.
citricmi
Citrus noir
citricmi has the strongest title-to-metadata ratio here: it sounds like either a zesty tool or an experimental beverage, and the unknown language keeps the recipe classified.
Category breakdown
Impact
25% weight
There are several named projects, including crown_asia, but the supplied metadata does not establish substantial usefulness, originality, or scope.
Consistency
15% weight
The portfolio shows sporadic activity, with the latest listed push in 2022 and most repositories last updated between 2011 and 2014.
Quality
25% weight
Metadata supports some evidence of owned Ruby projects and active repository status, but no implementation, testing, documentation, or release evidence is available.
Depth
20% weight
Five public repositories indicate some history of project ownership, but fork status and long gaps in update activity provide limited evidence of sustained development.
Breadth
10% weight
The portfolio is primarily Ruby, with two repositories lacking a reported language; meaningful language or project-type variety is not demonstrated.
Community
5% weight
Available community signals are modest and are treated only as a neutral tie-breaker; they do not materially change the other scores.
Stats
52-week commit heatmap
0 active daysLanguage distribution
2 langs
- Ruby60%
- Unknown40%
Based on the bounded repository sample saved with this analysis.
Numbers
Owned repos
Non-fork sample
3
Commits
Last 12 months
0
Followers
Accepted fact
13
Joined GitHub
Profile date
Jan 2009
Top repos
Scores marked Profile rating use bounded public repository metadata. Full repo analysis appears only when a separate accepted repository analysis exists.
gerald /
crown_asia
43/100
A non-fork Ruby project updated in 2022, making it the clearest recent example of owned work in the portfolio; metadata alone cannot establish its completeness or functionality.
OwnedActiveProfile ratingRuby
★ 1 · 4y agoOpen on GitHub ↗
gerald /
bundler
27/100
A Ruby repository marked as a fork, with its last listed update in 2014; the metadata suggests an older derivative project but does not reveal its scope or implementation.
ForkActiveProfile ratingRuby
★ 0 · 12y agoOpen on GitHub ↗
gerald /
bayaninhand
25/100
A Ruby repository marked as a fork, last updated in 2012; it indicates participation in a Ruby project but limited evidence of distinctive or sustained ownership.
ForkActiveProfile ratingRuby
★ 1 · 14y agoOpen on GitHub ↗
gerald /
citricmi
23/100
A non-fork repository with an unknown language and a 2011 update date; the metadata confirms a separate project but not its contents, maturity, or intended use.
OwnedActiveProfile ratingUnknown
★ 1 · 16y agoOpen on GitHub ↗
gerald /
test
22/100
A non-fork repository with an unknown language and a 2011 update date; its name is minimal and the available metadata offers little evidence about purpose or scope.
OwnedActiveProfile ratingUnknown
★ 1 · 15y agoOpen on GitHub ↗
Timeline
- Joined GitHub
- Created gerald/test - test
- Created gerald/citricmi
- Created gerald/bayaninhand
- Created gerald/crown_asia
- Created gerald/bundler - Manage your application's gem dependencies with less pain
- Most recent push to gerald/crown_asia
Compare
GERALD · 6DMEDIAN CODER
Rubric
How this score was produced
Overall = Σ(category × weight) + deterministic top-end curve
| Category | Weight | Score | Contribution |
|---|---|---|---|
| Impact | 25% | 29 | 7.25 |
| Quality | 25% | 31 | 7.75 |
| Depth | 20% | 22 | 4.40 |
| Consistency | 15% | 24 | 3.60 |
| Breadth | 10% | 27 | 2.70 |
| Community | 5% | 50 | 2.50 |
Impact · 29/100
What it measures. Project usefulness, ambition, originality, and coherence. Popularity is not impact.
Evidence for gerald. There are several named projects, including crown_asia, but the supplied metadata does not establish substantial usefulness, originality, or scope.
Quality · 31/100
What it measures. Engineering and project-maturity signals supported by the available public metadata.
Evidence for gerald. Metadata supports some evidence of owned Ruby projects and active repository status, but no implementation, testing, documentation, or release evidence is available.
Depth · 22/100
What it measures. Sustained ownership, meaningful scope, and continued maintenance rather than one-shots.
Evidence for gerald. Five public repositories indicate some history of project ownership, but fork status and long gaps in update activity provide limited evidence of sustained development.
Consistency · 24/100
What it measures. Recency and contribution patterns across the supplied activity window.
Evidence for gerald. The portfolio shows sporadic activity, with the latest listed push in 2022 and most repositories last updated between 2011 and 2014.
Breadth · 27/100
What it measures. Language entropy and project-type diversity across owned repos.
Evidence for gerald. The portfolio is primarily Ruby, with two repositories lacking a reported language; meaningful language or project-type variety is not demonstrated.
Community · 50/100
What it measures. A weak positive tie-breaker for supplied community signals, never a popularity penalty.
Evidence for gerald. Available community signals are modest and are treated only as a neutral tie-breaker; they do not materially change the other scores.
- Raw total
- 28.20
- Top-end curve
- +0.00
- Final overall
- 28.2
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, 9:14 PM UTC and is marked aging.