Profiles, repos, scores & roasts
william-worm-privacy
A project called william-worm-privacy sounds like it is guarding secrets while wearing a name tag that explains the whole mystery. Strong premise, with the implementation wisely remaining private from the evidence supplied.
Repository binding unavailable
The portfolio has achieved impressive biodiversity: one repository, one habitat, and absolutely no need for a migration guide between species. Compact, focused, and still waiting for the rest of the ecosystem to evolve.
Historical result · no repository binding was retained
Repository binding unavailable
A 2023 push gives this privacy project the energy of a carefully placed cryptic artifact: discovered, intriguing, and offering no visible clues about what happened next.
Historical result · no repository binding was retained
Impact
25% weight
The repository name suggests a focused privacy-related project, but its usefulness, ambition, and originality cannot be assessed beyond that premise.
Consistency
15% weight
One public repository shows a dated push in 2023, but the supplied metadata does not establish a sustained contribution pattern.
Quality
25% weight
No language or implementation metadata is available, so engineering quality and maturity are largely unobservable.
Depth
20% weight
A single non-archived repository indicates some ownership, but the metadata does not show scope, iteration, or long-term maintenance.
Breadth
10% weight
The portfolio contains one repository and no identified language, providing little evidence of project or technology variety.
Community
5% weight
Community evidence is limited to two followers and zero repository stars; under the rubric, this is treated as neutral rather than negative.
Based on the bounded repository sample saved with this analysis.
Non-fork sample
1
Last 12 months
0
Accepted fact
2
Profile date
Dec 2017
Scores marked Profile rating use bounded public repository metadata. Full repo analysis appears only when a separate accepted repository analysis exists.
How this score was produced
Overall = Σ(category × weight) + deterministic top-end curve
| Category | Weight | Score | Contribution |
|---|---|---|---|
| Impact | 25% | 28 | 7.00 |
| Quality | 25% | 27 | 6.75 |
| Depth | 20% | 22 | 4.40 |
| Consistency | 15% | 24 | 3.60 |
| Breadth | 10% | 12 | 1.20 |
| Community | 5% | 50 | 2.50 |
What it measures. Project usefulness, ambition, originality, and coherence. Popularity is not impact.
Evidence for t0adman. The repository name suggests a focused privacy-related project, but its usefulness, ambition, and originality cannot be assessed beyond that premise.
What it measures. Engineering and project-maturity signals supported by the available public metadata.
Evidence for t0adman. No language or implementation metadata is available, so engineering quality and maturity are largely unobservable.
What it measures. Sustained ownership, meaningful scope, and continued maintenance rather than one-shots.
Evidence for t0adman. A single non-archived repository indicates some ownership, but the metadata does not show scope, iteration, or long-term maintenance.
What it measures. Recency and contribution patterns across the supplied activity window.
Evidence for t0adman. One public repository shows a dated push in 2023, but the supplied metadata does not establish a sustained contribution pattern.
What it measures. Language entropy and project-type diversity across owned repos.
Evidence for t0adman. The portfolio contains one repository and no identified language, providing little evidence of project or technology variety.
What it measures. A weak positive tie-breaker for supplied community signals, never a popularity penalty.
Evidence for t0adman. Community evidence is limited to two followers and zero repository stars; under the rubric, this is treated as neutral rather than negative.
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
