The only accounts we have appraised in public are our own. Both reports lead with what is wrong with the subject, because a valuation that only reports the good news is marketing. Read them alongside the methodology they were produced under.
Both were produced with the method published at github.com/Scottcjn/github-portfolio-appraisal under Apache-2.0, with their limiting conditions stated.
Top 0.014% by followers and first of nineteen by annual contributions, yet eighteenth of nineteen in stars per repository, with 45% of the portfolio receiving zero human page views and contributor retention at effectively zero. A material share of the star base is classified as incentivized rather than organic, and the headline clone count is mostly automation.
An eight-month-old agent-operated account with 40 repositories and 62 stars. Twenty-one merged pull requests looked like a strong independent record; twenty of them went into repositories owned by the same operator. After the related-party adjustment the genuine independent merge credit is one, and the appraisal declines to state a value range at all.
Appraising a stranger in public, unasked, and leading with their adverse findings is not something we are willing to do to someone else. It is something we are willing to do to ourselves, and doing it first is the only way to show that the related-party adjustment is applied to the author of the method and not just to everyone else. Of 72 externally merged pull requests on the primary worked example, three went into an organization the subject controls; the reported figure is 69, not 72.
Any developer named in a comparable set or a case study can have themselves removed at any time, with no reason required — see the Removal & Correction Policy.