Repository fact25
Adoption
A logarithmic score based on GitHub stars. The curve rewards meaningful adoption without allowing the largest repository to dominate.
Scoring method 1.0
Every point has a published rule.
The index combines repository facts with explicitly labelled editorial assessments. The method is designed to help form a shortlist—not to replace a security, legal, operational, or feature review.
Weights
Six factors add to 100 points
Repository fact15
Community
A logarithmic score based on repository forks, relative to the largest fork count in this snapshot.
Repository fact20
Recent activity
Points based on the number of days since the repository’s latest push, using the public thresholds below.
Editorial review15
Deployment
An assessment of self-hosting documentation, setup path, operating burden, and production readiness.
Editorial review15
GTM fit
How directly the project supports a sales, marketing, support, customer, or revenue workflow.
Licence review10
Licence
Points reflect the licence model. A source-available or unclear licence also removes the project from the ranking.
Calculated inputs
Repository formulas
Adoption
min(25, 25 × ln(stars + 1) ÷ ln(largest stars in dataset + 1))Community
min(15, 15 × ln(forks + 1) ÷ ln(largest fork count in dataset + 1))Both formulas are recalculated against the largest project in each data snapshot, then rounded to one decimal place.
Recent activity
Activity thresholds
| Days since latest push | Points |
|---|---|
| 0–7 days | 20/20 |
| 8–30 days | 18/20 |
| 31–90 days | 14/20 |
| 91–180 days | 10/20 |
| 181–365 days | 5/20 |
| More than 365 days | 0/20 |
Eligibility
Licence points and the ranking gate
Only projects with a verified open-source licence are ranked. Other reviewed projects remain visible on the watchlist.
| Model | Meaning | Points | Ranked? |
|---|---|---|---|
| Permissive open source | Broad rights to use, change and redistribute. | 10/10 | Yes |
| Copyleft open source | Open source with share-alike duties when distributing changes. | 9/10 | Yes |
| Open core (permissive) | Open-source core with separately licensed enterprise features. | 8/10 | Yes |
| Open core (copyleft) | Copyleft core with separately licensed enterprise features. | 7/10 | Yes |
| Source available | Code can be read, but added restrictions prevent strict open-source classification. | 2/10 | No |
| Unlicensed / unclear | No verified licence grant was found. | 0/10 | No |
Worked example
Reproduce Cal.com’s 93.8
On 20 July 2026, Cal.com had 46,636 stars, 14,496 forks, and a repository push 11 days earlier. Those inputs and the published editorial assessments produce the component scores shown here.
Adoption22.6/25
Community14.2/15
Recent activity18/20
Deployment14/15
GTM fit15/15
Licence10/10
22.6 + 14.2 + 18 + 14 + 15 + 10 = 93.8
Editorial evidence
Deployment: Clear self-host path and strong setup documentation; some operating work remains.
GTM fit: Directly supports a central sales, marketing or customer workflow and replaces Calendly, Chili Piper.
Licence: Permissive open source: Broad rights to use, change and redistribute.
Open the full Cal.com evidence pageInterpretation
What the score does not prove
- GitHub stars indicate attention, not installations, market share or revenue.
- Fork counts vary by project type and are an imperfect measure of community participation.
- Recent pushes can be automated and do not prove maintainer health.
- Deployment readiness and go-to-market fit are editorial inputs that involve judgement.
- Licence files can contain exceptions; classifications are corrected when better evidence appears.
- Adoption and community scores are relative to the largest project in this snapshot, so adding or removing projects can change scores.
Review policy
Repository facts are collected from public GitHub metadata. Deployment readiness, go-to-market fit and licence classifications are editorial inputs reviewed against the linked repository and official website.
Challenge an input or rule