ricardo-woo/artificial-life
Grade a repo

0

/ 100

GradeF

Just launched. The fastest wins are test coverage and CI.

Higher than 41% of 5,156 graded repos

An evolutionary artificial life simulation where neural networks and physical traits evolve through mutation and selection.

Documentation83
Engineering21
Health100
Python0MIT1mo 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 (91).

See your top fixes
Now
F
56
Potential
A
91

Top fixes

Highest-impact changes first, ranked by point weight

12 to address
  1. 1
    Tests18pt

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

  2. 2
    CI/CD14pt

    If your CI lives elsewhere (a private repo that builds this one) or this project is itself a CI/CD tool, mark this check Not Applicable. Otherwise add a GitHub Actions workflow that runs tests on each push. It takes 15 minutes and reassures contributors their changes won't break things.

  3. 3
    README12pt

    Link to a deployed version, docs site, or demo video. Users want to see it running.

  4. 4
    README12pt

    Add CI/build status badges from shields.io or your CI provider to signal project health.

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

83

README12pt70

README is present.

Contributing guide5pt78

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.

Install and run instructions9pt90

README documents how to install the project.

License6pt100

Licensed under MIT.

Engineering

21

Tests18pt0

No tests detected anywhere in the repository.

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

CI/CD14pt0

No CI configuration detected in this repository.

→ If your CI lives elsewhere (a private repo that builds this one) or this project is itself a CI/CD tool, mark this check Not Applicable. Otherwise add a GitHub Actions workflow that runs tests on each push. It takes 15 minutes and reassures contributors their changes won't break things.

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.

Reproducibility6pt70

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)
  • 0
    Forks
  • 0
    Releases

Community

  • 71% - Fair
    Community health
  • 1 bus factorlow
    author own >50% of commits
  • 0
    Watchers

Responsiveness

  • -
    Median issue response
  • <1h
    Median PR merge time
  • 0
    Open issues
Repository files18 root entries
  • .github
    Good: Issue or PR templates present.
  • assets
  • Brain
  • Simulation
  • .gitignore
    Good: .gitignore present.
  • camera.py
  • 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.
  • food.py
  • LICENSE
    Good: Licensed under MIT.
  • main.py
  • noise.py
  • organism.py
  • Population.py
  • 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.
    Issue: No live demo link in the README (−20 pts).Fix: Link to a deployed version, docs site, or demo video. Users want to see it running.
    Issue: No status badges in the README (−10 pts).Fix: Add CI/build status badges from shields.io or your CI provider to signal project health.
    Good: README documents how to install the project.
    Good: README documents how to run the project.
  • requirements.txt
    Good: Lockfile present (requirements.txt). Installs are reproducible.
    Good: Dependency manifest found (requirements.txt).
  • SaveManager.py
  • settings.py
  • ui.py
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/ricardo-woo/artificial-life)](https://www.repo-grade.com/report/ricardo-woo/artificial-life)

More graded Python repos