Github project audit

GitHub Project Audit

Use when the user asks to evaluate, review, or analyze a GitHub repository in depth.

Methodology

Conduct a multi-layered investigation in parallel where possible:

Layer 1 — Verified Stats (GitHub API)

# Use execute_code to fetch and parse repo metadata
from hermes_tools import web_extract
result = web_extract(["https://api.github.com/repos/OWNER/REPO"])

Report: Stars, Forks, Language, Description, Default branch, Created, Pushed, Size, Open issues, License.

Layer 2 — Contributors & Bus Factor

Fetch contributors via web_extract on https://api.github.com/repos/OWNER/REPO/contributors?per_page=10. Report top contributors, concentration risk, and bus factor.

Layer 3 — Commit Activity & Velocity

Fetch commits via web_extract on https://api.github.com/repos/OWNER/REPO/commits?per_page=15. Check: Is it still active? How many commits/day? Single maintainer or team?

Layer 4 — Documentation Analysis

Read these files if they exist:

• README.md — what they claim to be
• LICENSE — verify actual license file (not just Cargo.toml/package.json metadata)
• SECURITY.md — responsible disclosure process
• ROADMAP.md — future direction
• CONTRIBUTING.md — community governance

Critical: Compare declared license in config files vs actual LICENSE file. GitHub API returns license: null when no LICENSE file exists even if package metadata claims MIT/Apache.

Layer 5 — Source Code Security Audit

5a. Cross-Language Red Flag Patterns (check all repos)

Use GitHub code search via web_search or web_extract to scan for dangerous patterns:

• Shell execution: exec.Command, Runtime.exec, subprocess, child_process, Process(), NSTask
• Network calls: http.Get, http.Post, URLSession, fetch, axios, net.Dial
• Obfuscation: base64, eval, exec, atob, dynamic code generation

5b. Dependency Audit

• Go: Review go.mod — look for unknown modules, excessive deps, or suspicious packages
• Swift: Review Package.swift dependencies — verify all git URLs are legitimate repos
• Node: Check package.json + package-lock.json for supply chain risks
• Python: Check requirements.txt/pyproject.toml for pinned versions and known vulns

5c. Data Flow Analysis

Trace where data goes:

• Inbound: What permissions/API keys does the tool require?
• Storage: Where does it persist data? (local DB, files, cloud?)
• Outbound: What servers does it contact? Are they user-initiated or background?
• Exfiltration risk: Does any code send user data to unexpected endpoints?

5d. Language-Specific Checks

• Rust: unsafe_code policy in Cargo.toml, TLS choice (rustls vs openssl), input sanitization in exec/shell paths
• Go: exec.Command usage, HTTP server exposure, CGO usage (go-sqlite3 = native code)
• Python: dependency pinning, sandboxing, subprocess usage
• Node: eval usage, dependency audit, env variable handling
• Swift: Process() (NSTask) shell execution, URLSession network calls, keychain access, Accessibility API usage

Layer 6 — Issues & PRs Reality Check

Fetch issues via web_extract on https://api.github.com/repos/OWNER/REPO/issues?state=open&per_page=50. Compare "open issues" count from repo metadata vs actual issues returned. Issues-disabled repos still show a count that includes PRs.

Layer 7 — Releases & Maturity

Fetch releases via web_extract on https://api.github.com/repos/OWNER/REPO/releases. No releases = proof-of-concept, not production-ready.

Layer 8 — ML/AI Model Legitimacy Verification

When the repo claims to release an ML model (especially foundation models, fine-tuned LLMs, or financial/timeseries models), verify the weights are REAL — not just config dummies or LFS pointer stubs.

8a. Hugging Face Model Audit

• Hit https://huggingface.co/api/models/ORG/MODEL — check: siblings list, downloads, likes
• Models with zero downloads + zero likes + recent creation = red flag
• Critical pitfall: Hugging Face API returns size: 0 for all LFS-tracked files (like model.safetensors). This is normal — LFS pointers are tiny text files pointing to the real binary. Do NOT flag "0 byte model" as a red flag — download the actual file to verify.
• Download the safetensors file via https://huggingface.co/ORG/MODEL/resolve/main/model.safetensors and check actual byte size with wc -c

8b. Parameter Count Verification

For safetensors models, read the raw header WITHOUT torch dependency (see references/safetensors-inspection.md):

curl -sL "https://huggingface.co/ORG/MODEL/resolve/main/model.safetensors" -o /tmp/model.safetensors
python3 references/safetensors-inspection.md  # or inline the script

• Expected: total_params ≈ claimed_params (±1% tolerance for embedding/bias mismatches)
• For fp32 models: file_size_bytes ≈ claimed_params × 4 (e.g., 24.7M params ≈ 94-99 MB)
• For fp16 models: file_size_bytes ≈ claimed_params × 2

8c. Weight Distribution Sanity Check

Trained weights should show:

• Mean near 0 (not 0.5, not 1.0 — those suggest random init or bugs)
• Std dev in 0.02-0.30 range (not 0.001 — dead weights; not 50+ — exploding)
• No tensors that are all-zeros or all-identical
• No extreme outliers (>50σ from mean)
• The output head/projection layers often have wider spread than internal layers — this is normal for trained models

Red flags for fake/dummy weights:

• All weights exactly 0 or exactly 1 — not trained
• Perfect uniform distribution — random init, not trained
• File is only config JSON with no actual tensor data (1-2 KB total)

8d. Academic Paper Verification

For repos claiming a paper:

• Search arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/XXXX.XXXXX — does paper exist?
• Verify venue claims via DBLP: https://dblp.org/search/publ/api?q=TITLE
• Check Semantic Scholar: https://api.semanticscholar.org/graph/v1/paper/ArXiv:XXXX.XXXXX?fields=citationCount,publicationVenue
• Verify authors are real researchers (Google Scholar profiles, university affiliations)
• Cross-reference: does the GitHub author name match the paper's first author?

8e. Training Code Reality Check

• Is there actual training/pre-training code, or only inference wrappers?
• Many academic repos release weights + inference but keep training pipeline closed — note this honestly
• Complete absence of any training code while claiming "open-source model" = partial openness

Output Format

Structure the report as:

1. Verified Stats — what the numbers actually say
2. Architecture & Structure — code organization, tech stack
3. Protocol/Design — how it works internally
4. Issues Analysis — what kind of problems exist
5. Security Assessment — positives and concerns (red/yellow/green flags)
6. License & Open Source — is it legally usable?
7. Maintenance Outlook — will it be updated?
8. Hype vs Substance — honest verdict
9. Risk Summary Table — tool × risk level × key concern matrix

Layer 9 — Business Model & Marketing Funnel Detection

When the repo is an "awesome list" or curated collection, trace the money:

• Check FUNDING.yml — does the repo accept sponsorships?
• Scan README for product banners (LaunchKit, SaaS, paid services)
• Map the org ecosystem — do they own multiple "awesome-*" repos funneling to a paid product?
• Watch for "Request private X" CTAs — paid service disguised as community feature
• Read CONTRIBUTING.md — does it actually accept external PRs, or are contributions blocked?
• AI-speak detection — files with "theatre-like darkness", "radical subtraction", "chiaroscuro" are AI-generated, not hand-curated
• Preview gap — do claimed files (preview.html) actually exist in the repo, or only on the monetized website?
• Auth routes on companion site — sign-in flows indicate a SaaS product behind the curtain

Flag pattern: "awesome list → product funnel" is a legitimate growth strategy but label it as marketing, not community altruism.

Layer 10 — Comparison Audit

When the user asks "compare against what we have," benchmark the third-party repo against the user's equivalent toolkit:

1. Identify the user's equivalent capability (Stitch MCP, internal pipeline, etc.)
2. Load the relevant skill for the user's tool to get current capabilities
3. Build a comparison table: Nature, Creator, Output, Customization, Integration, Ownership, Business Model, Pricing, Risks
4. Render a verdict: complementary (use both), substitutive (pick one), or inferior (skip)?

⚠️ PITFALL — Category Error in Comparison. The most common failure: comparing form without understanding substance. Impeccable inspects rendered DOM (visual output); building a regex source-code scanner and calling it "the Flutter equivalent" is a category error. When the third-party tool operates at a different abstraction layer than your equivalent, state that honestly. Don't force-fit the comparison.

⚠️ PITFALL — Adversarial validation before building. After a comparison audit concludes with a "gap," the natural reflex is to build the equivalent immediately. Run a Light 2-Round adversarial consultation (see multi-model-consultation skill) before building. The consultation will catch whether you're building the right tool or just copying the form. Battle-tested: Flutter Design Anti-Patterns audit (2026-07-11) — consultation redirected from 31 regex patterns to 3 custom_lint rules.

Table template and real example in references/comparison-audit-template.md.

Pitfalls

• High star count ≠ quality (viral drops can hit 100K+ stars in days)
• "Source-available" ≠ "open source" (no license = all rights reserved)
• Disabled issues = controlled narrative, not community-driven
• 2-3 contributors = bus factor of 1, high abandonment risk
• Compare age (days since creation) to stars for hype ratio
• GitHub API rate limits (60/hr unauthenticated) — fall back to web_search when hit
• Hardcoded API keys in source may be public demo keys — not always a real secret
• Third-party protocol libraries may violate platform ToS even if code is clean
• "Is it real?" is the most common deep-dive intent — prioritize Layers 1 (stats), 3 (commits), 6 (issues), and 8 (model verification). Skip security-heavy Layer 5 unless the repo is a dev tool the user might install.
• Hugging Face API returns 0-byte sizes for LFS files — this is normal. Download to verify real size.
• When API tools are unavailable, use terminal with curl, saving to temp files before processing
• AI skills repos: see references/ai-skills-ecosystem-audit.md — Claude/Cursor/Codex marketplace repos are predominantly markdown, not software. File-type composition is the #1 signal.
• Single-dominant-contributor (>70% commits) = solo project regardless of listed contributor count. Check distribution, not headline numbers.