Repository Trust Analyzer
Contents
- Quick start
- Analysis workflow
- Understanding results
- Example output
- Validation loop
- Scoring methodology → See SCORING.md
Quick Start
/repo-check <target>
Where <target> is one of:
owner/repo— shorthand (e.g.facebook/react)https://github.com/owner/repo— full URLhttps://github.com/owner/repo/blob/branch/path/SKILL.md— SKILL.md URL
Analysis Workflow
Copy and track progress:
Repository Trust Analysis:
- [ ] Step 1: Parse input to extract owner/repo
- [ ] Step 2: Verify gh CLI authentication
- [ ] Step 3: Build and run the analyzer
- [ ] Step 4: Review trust signal and category scores
- [ ] Step 5: Review any warnings
- [ ] Step 6: Make adoption decision
Understanding Results
Trust Signal Levels
| Signal | Meaning |
|---|---|
| HIGH | Strong trust indicators across categories — safe to adopt with standard review |
| MODERATE | Acceptable but review flagged areas — investigate warnings before adopting |
| LOW | Significant concerns — manual deep review required before adoption |
Categories Analyzed
| Category | Weight | What It Measures |
|---|---|---|
| Activity | 35% | Commit recency, frequency, contributor count, archive status |
| Security | 25% | OpenSSF Scorecard (if available), license presence |
| Popularity | 20% | Stars, forks, watchers |
| Maturity | 20% | README, contributing guide, CI/CD, releases, code of conduct |
Example Output
# Repository Trust Report: facebook/react
**URL:** https://github.com/facebook/react
## Overall Trust Signal: HIGH
## Popularity — HIGH
| Metric | Value |
|--------|-------|
| Stars | 230000 |
| Forks | 47000 |
| Watchers | 6500 |
## Activity — HIGH
| Metric | Value |
|--------|-------|
| Last commit | 2026-02-15T10:30:00Z (1 days ago) |
| Commits (90d) | 350 |
| Open issues | 900 |
| Contributors | 1800 |
## Security — MODERATE
| Metric | Value |
|--------|-------|
| License | MIT License (MIT) |
| OpenSSF Scorecard | Not available |
## Maturity — HIGH
| Metric | Value |
|--------|-------|
| Releases | 100 |
| README | true |
| Contributing guide | true |
| CI/CD | true |
Validation Loop
- Run analysis:
/repo-check <target> - Review the overall trust signal
- If MODERATE or LOW:
- Check the warnings section for specific concerns
- Review the lowest-scoring categories
- Investigate flagged areas manually
- For skill adoption:
- HIGH → proceed with standard code review
- MODERATE → deeper review of flagged areas, check issue tracker
- LOW → consider alternatives, require team sign-off
- Re-run periodically to track changes
Instructions
When the user invokes this skill:
Parse the input to extract
owner/repofrom the provided target (shorthand, URL, or SKILL.md URL).Check that
ghCLI is authenticated:gh auth statusBuild and run the analyzer binary:
cd repo-check && go build -o repo-check . && ./repo-check <target>For JSON output:
cd repo-check && go build -o repo-check . && ./repo-check --json <target>Present the structured report to the user, highlighting:
- The overall trust signal (HIGH/MODERATE/LOW)
- Any warnings that need attention
- Category-level scores for deeper analysis
If the Go binary is unavailable (build fails, Go not installed), fall back to manual
gh apicalls:# Repo metadata gh api repos/{owner}/{repo} # Commit activity gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/stats/participation # Community profile gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/community/profile # Releases gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/releases?per_page=100Then manually assess trust signals based on the raw data and the scoring methodology in SCORING.md.
Provide a recommendation based on the trust signal and the user's context (adopting a dependency vs. evaluating a skill vs. general assessment).