I think these are just the package managers that it supports parsing dependencies for. The actual script seems to just be a single python file.

It does seem like the repo is missing some files though; make is mentioned in the README but no makefile and no list of python dependencies for the script that I can see.

It doesn't need them, it parses SBOMs and manifests from their ecosystems. I think you misunderstood this section of the README.

> Dependencies | SBOM / manifest parsing across npm, PyPI, Maven, Go, Ruby; flags unpinned, shadow, or non-registry deps.

The project seems like it only requires Python >= 3.9!

Stars are just a signal. When I am looking at multiple libraries that do the same, I am going to trust more a repo with 200 starts that one with 0. Its not perfect, but I don't have the time to go through the entire codebase and try it out. If the repo works for me I will star it to contribute to the signal.

Github was a "social network" from its very beginning. The whole premise was geared around git hosting and "social coding". I don't think it became enshittified later since that was the entire value proposition from day 1.

Basically what I mean by it is for example a repository appears to be under a permissive license like MIT, Apache, or BSD, but actually includes code that’s governed by a much stricter or viral license—like GPL or AGPL—often buried in a subdirectory, dependency, or embedded snippet. The problem is, if you reuse or build on that code assuming it’s fully permissive, you could end up violating the terms of the stricter license without realising it. It’s a trap because the original authors might have mixed incompatible licenses, knowingly or not, and the legal risk then falls on downstream users. So yeah essentially a plain old license violation which are relatively easy to miss or not think about

they get around it by licensing differently only packages / parts of the codebase

It's gonna flag most of the clojure ecosystem

I have to agree - the highest quality libraries in my experience are the ones maintained that one dedicated person as their pet project. There's no glory, no money, no large community, no Twitter followers - just a person with a problem to solve and making the solution open source for the benefit of others.

Fair take—it's definitely context-dependent. In some cases, solo-maintainer projects can be great, especially if they’re stable or purpose-built. But from a trust and maintenance standpoint, it’s worth flagging as a signal: if 90% of commits are from one person who’s now inactive, it could mean slow responses to bugs or no updates for security issues. Doesn’t mean the project is bad—just something to consider alongside other factors.

Heuristics are never perfect and it's all iterative but it's all about understanding the underlying assumptions and taking the knowledge you get out of it with your own context. Probably could enhance it slightly by a run through an LLM with a prompt but I prefer to keep things purely statistical for now.

Yeah to be fair would be great, sometimes just giving a nudge and showing people want these features is the first step to getting an official integration.

> I'm surprised Github hasn't been sued for serving malware.

do you want a world where people can randomly sue you for any random damages they suffer or do you want nice things like free code hosting?

I haven't done that before so it would be a small learning curve for me to figure that out. Feel free to make a pull request.

Believe me, CTO's of startups do.

Crazy how far people go for these things tbh.

the difference means getting funded or not. people fake testimonials and put logos of large companies too on their saas.

some people even buy residential proxies and create accounts on communities that can steer them towards specific action like "hey lets short squeeze this company let me sell you my call option" etc.

there's no incentive to be honest, i know two founders where one cheated with fake accounts, github likes and exited. the other ultimately gave up and worked in another field.

the old saying "if you lie to those who wants to be lied to you will become wealthy" rings true.

however at the end of the day it is dishonest and money earned through deception is bad.

I checked your past submissions and yes, they are also ai generated.

I know it's the age of ai, but one should do a little checking oneself before posting ai generated content, right? Or at least one should know how to use git and write meaningful commit messages?

Well I initially planned to use GraphQL and started to implement it, but switched to REST for now as it's still not fully complete, just to keep things simpler while I iterate and the fact that it's not required currently. I’ll bring GraphQL back once I’ve got key cycling in place and things are more stable. As for the rate limit, I’ve been tweaking things manually to avoid hitting it constantly which I did to an extent—that’s actually why I want to add key rotation... and I am allowed to leave comments for myself for a work in progress no? or does everything have to be perfect from day one?

You would assume if it was pure ai generated it would have the correct rate limit in the comments and the code .... but honestly I don't care and yeah I ran the read me through GPT to 'prettify it'. Arrest me.

Just spitballing, but assuming the fake stars are added in a "naive" manner (i.e. as fast as possible, no breaks) you could distinguish the two by looking for the long tail usually associated with organic traffic spikes.

Of course, the problem with that is the adversary could easily simulate the same effect by mixing together some fall-off functions and a bit of randomness.

For each spike it samples the users from that spike (I set it to a high enough value currently it essentially gets all of them for 99.99% of repos - though that should be optimised so it's faster but just figured I will just grab every single one for now whilst building it). It checks the users who caused this spike for signs of being "fake accounts".