phishdestroy/destroylist
Grade a repo

0

/ 100

GradeD

Popular for its size, but the engineering basics lag behind the interest.

Higher than 46% of 5,156 graded repos

Real-time phishing & scam domain blocklist — 160k+ curated threats, 888K+ community, free API, multiple formats

Documentation82
Engineering35
Health100
HTML984MIT1mo ago

A low grade is a to-do list, not a judgment of your code

Most gaps here are documentation, tests, and setup, not the code itself. Closing your top 3 gaps alone would lift this repo to A (94).

See your top fixes
Now
D
62
Potential
A
94

Top fixes

Highest-impact changes first, ranked by point weight

13 to address
  1. 1
    Tests18pt

    Add automated tests. They prove the code works and give contributors confidence to make changes.

  2. 2
    CI/CD14pt

    Add a step like `run: npm test`, `run: pytest`, or `run: tox` to your workflow file.

  3. 3
    CI/CD14pt

    Add `pull_request:` to the workflow `on:` triggers.

  4. 4
    CI/CD14pt

    Add a lint step to catch style issues automatically.

Working through the fixes? Let every push regrade itself.

The free GitHub App rescans this repo on every push and posts the grade as a commit check, so the score climbs without coming back to rescan by hand.

Install the GitHub App

Scorecard

Every check, grouped by category and sorted worst-first

Documentation

82

Install and run instructions9pt45

No install instructions found in the README (−45 pts).

→ Add a section showing how to install dependencies.

Contributing guide5pt83

Contributing guide is too short for full depth credit (−6 pts). 400+ words earns the full +12 pts.

→ Add setup instructions, code style notes, and how to run tests.

README12pt100

README is present.

License6pt100

Licensed under MIT.

Engineering

35

Tests18pt0

No tests detected anywhere in the repository.

→ Add automated tests. They prove the code works and give contributors confidence to make changes.

Linting and formatting5pt0

No linter or formatter config found.

→ Add a linter config such as .eslintrc.json, .prettierrc, ruff.toml, or .golangci.yml to enforce consistent code style.

CI/CD14pt40

CI is configured (.github/workflows/check_links.yml).

Reproducibility6pt90

Lockfile present (requirements.txt). Installs are reproducible.

Issue and PR templates6pt100

Issue or PR templates present.

Project health

100

Dependency manifest6pt100

Dependency manifest found (requirements.txt).

Repository metadata5pt100

Repository has a description.

Activity5pt100

Actively maintained (pushed within the last month).

Housekeeping3pt100

.gitignore present.

Repository health signals

Activity, community, and responsiveness at scan time

Activity

  • -
    Commits (30d / 90d)
  • 153
    Forks
  • 1
    Releaseslatest 9mo ago

Community

  • -
    Community health
  • -
    authors own >50% of commits
  • 984
    Watchers

Responsiveness

  • 21h
    Median issue response
  • 10h
    Median PR merge time
  • 1
    Open issues
Repository files20 root entries
  • .github
    Good: CI is configured (.github/workflows/check_links.yml).
    Good: Dependabot covers 2 ecosystems (pip, github-actions). Dependencies stay current.
    Good: Issue or PR templates present.
  • allow
  • archives
  • community
  • dns
  • rootlist
  • scripts
  • _config.yml
  • .gitattributes
  • .gitignore
    Good: .gitignore present.
  • CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md
    Good: Code of conduct present.
  • CONTRIBUTING.md
    Issue: Contributing guide is too short for full depth credit (−6 pts). 400+ words earns the full +12 pts.Fix: Add setup instructions, code style notes, and how to run tests.
    Good: Contributing guide includes setup/install instructions.
    Issue: Contributing guide lacks a code style section (−8 pts).Fix: Describe your linting/formatting rules and how to run them.
    Issue: Contributing guide lacks a testing section (−8 pts).Fix: Show contributors how to run the test suite (e.g. npm test, pytest, cargo test).
    Good: Contributing guide describes the PR/review workflow.
    Good: Contributing guide includes code examples.
  • count.json
  • LICENSE
    Good: Licensed under MIT.
  • list.json
  • list.txt
  • README.md
    Good: README is present.
    Good: README is well structured with multiple sections.
    Good: README includes screenshots or visuals. Great for first impressions.
    Good: README has code examples.
    Good: README links to a live demo or deployed app.
    Good: README includes status badges.
    Issue: No install instructions found in the README (−45 pts).Fix: Add a section showing how to install dependencies.
    Good: README documents how to run the project.
  • requirements.txt
    Good: Lockfile present (requirements.txt). Installs are reproducible.
    Good: Dependency manifest found (requirements.txt).
  • robots.txt
  • SECURITY.md
    Good: Security policy present.
RepoGrade badge preview

Add this badge to your README

It updates automatically each time the repo is re-graded.

[![RepoGrade](https://www.repo-grade.com/api/badge/phishdestroy/destroylist)](https://www.repo-grade.com/report/phishdestroy/destroylist)

More graded HTML repos