Rate My GitHub

Profiles, repos, scores & roasts

← Rate my GitHub
natesales GitHub avatar

#39 · Top 96.3%

natesales

Nate Sales

Infrastructure + Security + Applied Physics

B

Solid engineer

bronze medal

Overall

0.0

/ 100

Roasts

Category breakdown

natesales category score radarImpactConsistencyQualityDepthBreadthCommunity

Impact

25% weight

82A

The named projects suggest substantial infrastructure, networking, observability, radio, and developer-tool ambitions, with q and pathvector standing out as distinctive owned projects.

Consistency

15% weight

78B

The portfolio shows repeated activity across several years, with multiple non-fork repositories updated in 2024-2026 and a profile spanning 87 public repositories.

Quality

25% weight

68C

Metadata supports active ownership, non-fork status for most notable repositories, and sustained project investment, but source-level engineering quality and maturity cannot be assessed from the supplied evidence.

Depth

20% weight

80A

Several owned projects have multi-year or recent activity, especially q, pathvector, openreactor, and go-bird, indicating sustained attention rather than only one-off experiments.

Breadth

10% weight

63C

The repositories cover Go, Svelte, Ruby, Shell, Python, and Dockerfile, alongside varied apparent project types including networking, tooling, exporters, web applications, and containers.

Community

5% weight

62C

Follower and star signals provide a modest positive tie-breaker, particularly for q and pathvector, while the overall evidence remains incomplete and popularity is not treated as a proxy for other categories.

Stats

52-week commit heatmap

84 active days

Language distribution

  • Go50%
  • Dockerfile9%
  • Python9%
  • Ruby8%
  • Shell8%
  • Svelte8%
  • Unknown8%

Based on the bounded repository sample saved with this analysis.

Numbers

Owned repos

Non-fork sample

10

Commits

Last 12 months

376

Followers

Accepted fact

277

Joined GitHub

Profile date

Jul 2016

Top repos

Scores marked Profile rating use bounded public repository metadata. Full repo analysis appears only when a separate accepted repository analysis exists.

Timeline

  1. Joined GitHub
  2. Created natesales/pathvector - Declarative routing platform that automates BGP route optimization and control plane configuration with secure and repeatable routing policy.
  3. Created natesales/repo - My software repositories
  4. Created natesales/doqd - DNS over QUIC implementation in Go (draft-ietf-dprive-dnsoquic-02)
  5. Created natesales/q - A tiny command line DNS client with support for UDP, TCP, DoT, DoH, DoQ and ODoH.
  6. Created natesales/as112 - AS112 DNS Service
  7. Created natesales/go-bird - Go interface for BIRD2
  8. Created natesales/loa-generator - Quickly generate letters of authorization (LoAs) for IP announcements and cross connects in your browser
  9. Created natesales/gpsd-exporter - Export gpsd metrics to Prometheus
  10. Created natesales/peeringdb-cache - PeeringDB cache with drop-in replacement API
  11. Created natesales/openreactor - Open-source IEC nuclear fusion reactor: control, monitoring, and data logging system
  12. Created natesales/nvtrust - Ancillary open source software to support confidential computing on NVIDIA GPUs
  13. Created natesales/krakensdr-containers - Containerized Kraken SDR applications
  14. Most recent push to natesales/q

Compare

NATESALES · 6DMEDIAN CODER

NATESALES compared with MEDIAN CODER across six rating categoriesImpactConsistencyQualityDepthBreadthCommunity

Rubric

How this score was produced

Overall = Σ(category × weight) + deterministic top-end curve

CategoryWeightScoreContribution
Impact25%8220.50
Quality25%6817.00
Depth20%8016.00
Consistency15%7811.70
Breadth10%636.30
Community5%623.10
Impact · 82/100

What it measures. Project usefulness, ambition, originality, and coherence. Popularity is not impact.

Evidence for natesales. The named projects suggest substantial infrastructure, networking, observability, radio, and developer-tool ambitions, with q and pathvector standing out as distinctive owned projects.

Quality · 68/100

What it measures. Engineering and project-maturity signals supported by the available public metadata.

Evidence for natesales. Metadata supports active ownership, non-fork status for most notable repositories, and sustained project investment, but source-level engineering quality and maturity cannot be assessed from the supplied evidence.

Depth · 80/100

What it measures. Sustained ownership, meaningful scope, and continued maintenance rather than one-shots.

Evidence for natesales. Several owned projects have multi-year or recent activity, especially q, pathvector, openreactor, and go-bird, indicating sustained attention rather than only one-off experiments.

Consistency · 78/100

What it measures. Recency and contribution patterns across the supplied activity window.

Evidence for natesales. The portfolio shows repeated activity across several years, with multiple non-fork repositories updated in 2024-2026 and a profile spanning 87 public repositories.

Breadth · 63/100

What it measures. Language entropy and project-type diversity across owned repos.

Evidence for natesales. The repositories cover Go, Svelte, Ruby, Shell, Python, and Dockerfile, alongside varied apparent project types including networking, tooling, exporters, web applications, and containers.

Community · 62/100

What it measures. A weak positive tie-breaker for supplied community signals, never a popularity penalty.

Evidence for natesales. Follower and star signals provide a modest positive tie-breaker, particularly for q and pathvector, while the overall evidence remains incomplete and popularity is not treated as a proxy for other categories.

Raw total
74.60
Top-end curve
+0.00
Final overall
74.6

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

  1. 01

    Validate. The server validates the login, signed browser session, attempts, cooldown, daily ceiling, and the single provider permit.

  2. 02

    Collect. The VPS collector reads bounded public profile metadata and up to 12 recent repository metadata rows in volatile memory.

  3. 03

    Rate. One pinned provider returned a closed profile-rating object with no tools, browsing, shell, or repository-content access.

  4. 04

    Verify. Server checks bound the subject, rejected unsafe or echoed text, validated the schema, and recomputed rubric-v3 final arithmetic.

  5. 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 2026-08-10 · 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 10, 2026, 12:47 AM UTC and is marked aging.