Profiles, repos, scores & roasts
Repository binding unavailable
A marketplace API is the classic move of trying to turn commerce into endpoints before commerce turns into paperwork. Ambitious premise, very 2015 timestamps.
Historical result · no repository binding was retained
english-calculator
The English calculator looks ready to negotiate with numbers in complete sentences—proof that even arithmetic can be given a tiny literary career.
docker
The Docker project brings deployment vibes to a portfolio that otherwise feels like a cabinet of experiments: one sturdy box, several intriguing things waiting to be packed.
chat
A repository simply called chat makes a wonderfully direct promise: no lore, no branding ceremony, just software hoping someone says hello.
Impact
25% weight
The portfolio includes varied practical concepts such as an API, calculator, chat project, Docker-related work, and identity-oriented tooling, but the metadata does not demonstrate substantial adoption or distinctive outcomes.
Consistency
15% weight
The supplied repositories cluster around 2014–2015, with no sustained recent activity evidenced in the repository list. The profile update date alone does not establish contribution consistency.
Quality
25% weight
Several original, non-fork repositories and multiple languages provide positive engineering signals, but repository metadata alone cannot establish testing, documentation, architecture, or implementation maturity.
Depth
20% weight
There are multiple owned repositories across different project types, suggesting exploratory scope, but the available dates and metadata do not show sustained maintenance or deep long-term ownership.
Breadth
10% weight
The listed work spans Ruby, JavaScript, TypeScript, Shell, CSS, and Java, with application, API, tooling, and sample-oriented projects. Some breadth comes from forks, so meaningful owned-project variety is moderate.
Community
5% weight
Follower and star data provide only a weak positive tie-breaker. The supplied evidence shows some followers and limited stars, but community signals do not materially change the portfolio assessment.
Based on the bounded repository sample saved with this analysis.
Non-fork sample
8
Last 12 months
0
Accepted fact
35
Profile date
Apr 2009
Scores marked Profile rating use bounded public repository metadata. Full repo analysis appears only when a separate accepted repository analysis exists.
krunal /
45/100
An owned Ruby marketplace API project, a credible application-oriented concept with activity recorded in 2015.
krunal /
43/100
An owned Ruby English-language calculator, a focused utility project with a clear functional premise.
krunal /
42/100
An owned Ruby repository centered on an identity-related concept, with activity recorded in 2015.
krunal /
40/100
An owned Shell repository related to Docker, suggesting deployment or tooling interest, though implementation scope is unavailable.
krunal /
39/100
An owned chat project with no language identified, implying a potentially substantive application concept but limited metadata evidence.
krunal /
38/100
An owned questions-and-answers project with no language identified; the premise suggests a practical application, though scope is unclear.
krunal /
36/100
An owned Ruby project with a concise name and an apparent earlier iteration, suggesting experimentation but limited evidence of maturity.
krunal /
34/100
An owned CSS project with a concise name, suggesting a front-end or styling-oriented effort whose scope cannot be determined.
krunal /
22/100
A TypeScript fork of DefinitelyTyped, useful as ecosystem participation but not strong evidence of original project scope.
krunal /
22/100
A JavaScript fork of Chrome app samples, indicating ecosystem exploration rather than clearly original ownership.
krunal /
22/100
A forked Java repository, representing participation in an existing project rather than clearly attributable original work.
krunal /
20/100
A forked repository with no language identified; the metadata provides limited evidence of distinctive owned work.
How this score was produced
Overall = Σ(category × weight) + deterministic top-end curve
| Category | Weight | Score | Contribution |
|---|---|---|---|
| Impact | 25% | 38 | 9.50 |
| Quality | 25% | 35 | 8.75 |
| Depth | 20% | 34 | 6.80 |
| Consistency | 15% | 24 | 3.60 |
| Breadth | 10% | 48 | 4.80 |
| Community | 5% | 50 | 2.50 |
What it measures. Project usefulness, ambition, originality, and coherence. Popularity is not impact.
Evidence for krunal. The portfolio includes varied practical concepts such as an API, calculator, chat project, Docker-related work, and identity-oriented tooling, but the metadata does not demonstrate substantial adoption or distinctive outcomes.
What it measures. Engineering and project-maturity signals supported by the available public metadata.
Evidence for krunal. Several original, non-fork repositories and multiple languages provide positive engineering signals, but repository metadata alone cannot establish testing, documentation, architecture, or implementation maturity.
What it measures. Sustained ownership, meaningful scope, and continued maintenance rather than one-shots.
Evidence for krunal. There are multiple owned repositories across different project types, suggesting exploratory scope, but the available dates and metadata do not show sustained maintenance or deep long-term ownership.
What it measures. Recency and contribution patterns across the supplied activity window.
Evidence for krunal. The supplied repositories cluster around 2014–2015, with no sustained recent activity evidenced in the repository list. The profile update date alone does not establish contribution consistency.
What it measures. Language entropy and project-type diversity across owned repos.
Evidence for krunal. The listed work spans Ruby, JavaScript, TypeScript, Shell, CSS, and Java, with application, API, tooling, and sample-oriented projects. Some breadth comes from forks, so meaningful owned-project variety is moderate.
What it measures. A weak positive tie-breaker for supplied community signals, never a popularity penalty.
Evidence for krunal. Follower and star data provide only a weak positive tie-breaker. The supplied evidence shows some followers and limited stars, but community signals do not materially change the portfolio assessment.
Validate. The server validates the login, signed browser session, attempts, cooldown, daily ceiling, and the single provider permit.
Collect. The VPS collector reads bounded public profile metadata and up to 12 recent repository metadata rows in volatile memory.
Rate. One pinned provider returned a closed profile-rating object with no tools, browsing, shell, or repository-content access.
Verify. Server checks bound the subject, rejected unsafe or echoed text, validated the schema, and recomputed rubric-v3 final arithmetic.
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 2026-08-10 · rating-rubric/3
