Rate My GitHub

Profiles, repos, scores & roasts

← Rate my GitHub
timriffe GitHub avatar

#31 · Top 97.2%

timriffe

Tim Riffe

A philosopher, trapped in a programmer's body, with a penchant for demography: data, demography, danger.

B

Solid engineer

bronze medal

Overall

0.0

/ 100

Roasts

Category breakdown

timriffe category score radarImpactConsistencyQualityDepthBreadthCommunity

Impact

25% weight

82A

The projects form a coherent, specialized body of demographic, mortality, decomposition, inequality, and coverage work, suggesting substantial practical and research value.

Consistency

15% weight

88A

The visible portfolio shows sustained activity across many years, with numerous repositories updated in 2025-2026 and several active, non-fork projects.

Quality

25% weight

70B

Repository names, non-fork ownership, active status, and repeated domain-specific tooling signal mature project intent, though implementation quality cannot be assessed from metadata alone.

Depth

20% weight

86A

The long-running profile, specialized tool repositories, and continued work across related analytical projects indicate sustained ownership and meaningful domain depth.

Breadth

10% weight

43D

The supplied repositories are overwhelmingly R-based and concentrated in demography and population analysis, giving strong thematic variety but limited language and project-type variety.

Community

5% weight

57D

Follower and star counts provide a modest positive signal, especially for demotools, but community evidence is limited and does not materially drive the other scores.

Stats

52-week commit heatmap

114 active days

Language distribution

  • R100%

Based on the bounded repository sample saved with this analysis.

Numbers

Owned repos

Non-fork sample

11

Commits

Last 12 months

330

Followers

Accepted fact

269

Joined GitHub

Profile date

Jul 2011

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 timriffe/adultcoverage - The DDM R package automates three methods to estimate adult death registration coverage
  3. Created timriffe/demotools - Tools for the evaluation, adjustment, and standardization of demographic data
  4. Created timriffe/ddsqltools - DemoData SQL tools. Wrappers for the DemoTools package to work with UNPD SQL data format
  5. Created timriffe/demodecomp - General demographic decomposition methods
  6. Created timriffe/lifeineq - An R-package to calculate measures of lifespan variation from a life table
  7. Created timriffe/phds_hle_2021 - Materials for one day course on healthy life expectancy, held 18 Nov, 2021 This course is part of the PHDS 2021 cohort
  8. Created timriffe/ms_dist
  9. Created timriffe/decomp_sullivan
  10. Created timriffe/hmdhfdplus - Read Human Mortality Database and Human Fertility Database Data from the Web
  11. Created timriffe/incdem
  12. Created timriffe/avsp2026r
  13. Created timriffe/bssd2026module2
  14. Most recent push to timriffe/incdem

Compare

TIMRIFFE · 6DMEDIAN CODER

TIMRIFFE 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%7017.50
Depth20%8617.20
Consistency15%8813.20
Breadth10%434.30
Community5%572.85
Impact · 82/100

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

Evidence for timriffe. The projects form a coherent, specialized body of demographic, mortality, decomposition, inequality, and coverage work, suggesting substantial practical and research value.

Quality · 70/100

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

Evidence for timriffe. Repository names, non-fork ownership, active status, and repeated domain-specific tooling signal mature project intent, though implementation quality cannot be assessed from metadata alone.

Depth · 86/100

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

Evidence for timriffe. The long-running profile, specialized tool repositories, and continued work across related analytical projects indicate sustained ownership and meaningful domain depth.

Consistency · 88/100

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

Evidence for timriffe. The visible portfolio shows sustained activity across many years, with numerous repositories updated in 2025-2026 and several active, non-fork projects.

Breadth · 43/100

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

Evidence for timriffe. The supplied repositories are overwhelmingly R-based and concentrated in demography and population analysis, giving strong thematic variety but limited language and project-type variety.

Community · 57/100

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

Evidence for timriffe. Follower and star counts provide a modest positive signal, especially for demotools, but community evidence is limited and does not materially drive the other scores.

Raw total
75.55
Top-end curve
+0.00
Final overall
75.6

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, 1:58 AM UTC and is marked aging.