emcon-sentinel
Sentinel duty
emcon-sentinel sounds ready to guard the gates of civilization, though the available evidence currently confirms only that it is a Java repository on patrol.
Roasts
Repository binding unavailable
The self-portrait repo
Naming a repository after yourself is wonderfully direct: no branding meeting required, just the digital equivalent of signing the yearbook.
Historical result · no repository binding was retained
emcon-sentinel
One-project command center
With emcon-sentinel as the apparent flagship, this portfolio has the charming energy of a tiny command center where one Java project wears every hat.
Repository binding unavailable
Mystery box
The account-named repository has an unidentified language in the metadata, giving it the rare ability to be both the portfolio’s title card and its opening mystery.
Historical result · no repository binding was retained
Category breakdown
Impact
25% weight
The Java project suggests a potentially useful focused tool, while the portfolio is too small to establish substantial ambition or originality.
Consistency
15% weight
Two public repositories show some recent activity, but the supplied history is brief and limited.
Quality
25% weight
A non-fork, non-archived Java repository is a modest positive signal, but implementation quality and maturity cannot be assessed from the available metadata.
Depth
20% weight
There is one identifiable substantive project and recent activity, but the small portfolio and limited history provide weak evidence of sustained scope or maintenance.
Breadth
10% weight
Only one identifiable language and two repositories are shown, with no meaningful evidence of project-type variety.
Community
5% weight
No meaningful community signal is available; the neutral score reflects the absence of evidence rather than a penalty.
Stats
52-week commit heatmap
3 active daysLanguage distribution
2 langs
- Java50%
- Unknown50%
Based on the bounded repository sample saved with this analysis.
Numbers
Owned repos
Non-fork sample
2
Commits
Last 12 months
2
Followers
Accepted fact
0
Joined GitHub
Profile date
Jan 2026
Top repos
Scores marked Profile rating use bounded public repository metadata. Full repo analysis appears only when a separate accepted repository analysis exists.
poggybobby /
emcon-sentinel
42/100
A non-fork, non-archived Java repository with recent activity; its sentinel-oriented name suggests a focused utility, but scope and maturity are not assessable from metadata alone.
OwnedActiveProfile ratingJava
★ 1 · 3mo agoOpen on GitHub ↗
poggybobby /
poggybobby
22/100
A non-fork repository sharing the account name, with no identifiable language in the supplied metadata; its purpose and substance remain unclear.
OwnedActiveProfile ratingUnknown
★ 0 · 5mo agoOpen on GitHub ↗
Timeline
- Joined GitHub
- Created poggybobby/poggybobby - profile
- Created poggybobby/emcon-sentinel - EMCON Sentinel — ATAK-CIV plugin that warns drone operators when adversary RF direction-finding assets are about to fix their position. Three-tier sensing (phone, MAVLink C2, RTL-SDR) + Friis path-loss +
- Most recent push to poggybobby/emcon-sentinel
Compare
POGGYBOBBY · 6DMEDIAN CODER
Rubric
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% | 30 | 6.00 |
| Consistency | 15% | 35 | 5.25 |
| Breadth | 10% | 20 | 2.00 |
| Community | 5% | 50 | 2.50 |
Impact · 38/100
What it measures. Project usefulness, ambition, originality, and coherence. Popularity is not impact.
Evidence for poggybobby. The Java project suggests a potentially useful focused tool, while the portfolio is too small to establish substantial ambition or originality.
Quality · 35/100
What it measures. Engineering and project-maturity signals supported by the available public metadata.
Evidence for poggybobby. A non-fork, non-archived Java repository is a modest positive signal, but implementation quality and maturity cannot be assessed from the available metadata.
Depth · 30/100
What it measures. Sustained ownership, meaningful scope, and continued maintenance rather than one-shots.
Evidence for poggybobby. There is one identifiable substantive project and recent activity, but the small portfolio and limited history provide weak evidence of sustained scope or maintenance.
Consistency · 35/100
What it measures. Recency and contribution patterns across the supplied activity window.
Evidence for poggybobby. Two public repositories show some recent activity, but the supplied history is brief and limited.
Breadth · 20/100
What it measures. Language entropy and project-type diversity across owned repos.
Evidence for poggybobby. Only one identifiable language and two repositories are shown, with no meaningful evidence of project-type variety.
Community · 50/100
What it measures. A weak positive tie-breaker for supplied community signals, never a popularity penalty.
Evidence for poggybobby. No meaningful community signal is available; the neutral score reflects the absence of evidence rather than a penalty.
- Raw total
- 34.00
- Top-end curve
- +0.00
- Final overall
- 34.0
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 2026-08-10 · 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, 1:05 AM UTC and is marked aging.