Free & open source · from JAK Labs

A developer rank that
never sees your code

One command, entirely offline. It reads your repositories and grades them out of 100 — and your source never leaves the machine, in a way you can verify before you run it.

$ aura scan ~/code/my-project

SEALED · 76 / 100

a strong, well-maintained library others do rely on

self-assessed · 4 of 8 dimensions measured · nothing left this machine

Why it exists

There is no signal for a developer without a logo behind them. Stars measure marketing. Years measure patience. LeetCode measures LeetCode. The people who are actually good — running production systems alone, for real businesses, with no famous employer on the résumé — have nothing legible to point at.

And the obvious fix is unacceptable. Nobody is uploading their private codebase to a website for a score. Not their client’s code, not their startup’s, not their own. Any tool that asks is dead on arrival, and deserves to be.

Don’t trust us. Grep the file.

The scanner imports no HTTP client and opens no socket. That is not a privacy policy — it is a property of the source, and you can confirm it in one command before you ever run the thing.

verify before you run it

grep -rnE 'requests|urllib|http|socket|subprocess|eval' aura/

the only matches are the docstrings telling you to run this command

Numbers, not source

Output is integers and ratios. No file contents, no absolute paths. Author emails are hashed on read.

Read it first

--print shows the exact payload before you share it with anyone. Nothing is sent by default, or at all.

Network is a separate tool

Anything touching the internet lives in a different binary. The scanner provably cannot phone home.

Four things it measures. Four it refuses to.

A tool claiming to judge whether you can sit with a customer by reading your AST would be nonsense, and every good engineer would spot it in a second. So it does not.

measured

Ship

tests, CI, release tags, tenure, project shape

Architecture

function length and nesting distributions, real typing

Judgment

revisit ratio, exception precision, sustained cadence

Transmission

doc ratio, docstring coverage, contributors

refused

Embed

whether you can map a messy business is not in your AST

Fundamentals

a timed exercise, not a property of a repository

Reach

public dependents and installs — verifiable, not local

Renown

public record — verifiable, not local

the load-bearing signal

revisit_ratio

The share of files you touched in more than one calendar month. It separates maintained work from dump-and-run, it is invisible to anyone optimising for stars, and it cannot be faked without actually doing it. Every vanity metric rewards volume. This one rewards coming back.

Eight grades

No stars, no belts, no borrowed hierarchy. Every grade says what it actually describes, so a low one is a diagnosis rather than a scolding.

Dormant0–14little engineering signal yet — a scratch or scratch-shaped repo
Kindled15–29working code, shipped, but no test or CI discipline behind it
Drawn30–44discipline appearing — some tests, some structure
Formed45–59real practice: tested, documented, maintained over time
Marked60–72professional open-source standard — others could rely on this
Sealed73–81a strong, well-maintained library others do rely on
Sovereign82–88flagship quality — among the best-run projects in its language
Apex89–100best-in-class. Reference-grade engineering

Check it against code you already know

Bands are set against 52 public repositories, then validated rather than percentile-fitted. Clone any of these and run it yourself — you should get the same number.

scrapy 88flask 87fastapi 86requests 84express 78axios 76zod 72react-window 55

A typical solo project lands in the 15–45 range. That is not an insult — it is what an untested, un-CI’d, actively used codebase actually looks like, and most working software is exactly that.

What it isn’t

A ranking system that hides its own uncertainty deserves to be ignored. So:

  • Not official. No one can declare a standard; that gets earned by adoption or not at all.
  • Not verified. The scan runs on your machine and the file is yours, so it is trivially editable. Every output says self-assessed, and always will.
  • Not fully calibrated. 52 repositories is a small, elite sample. It anchors the top of the scale credibly and says less about the middle.
  • Not a measure of you. It reads repositories. Half of what makes someone good — judgment under ambiguity, working with people, knowing what not to build — leaves no trace in a git history.

The scoring spec is a versioned file in the repo. When someone finds a way to game it, they publish it and it gets patched like a CVE. That only works in the open, which is why it is open.

Run it on something you built

Sixty seconds, offline, no account. Python 3.9+ and git — there are no dependencies, deliberately.

$ git clone https://github.com/jaklabs/aura-rank

$ cd aura-rank

$ python3 -m aura.scan ~/code/your-project

Aura is free and permissively licensed, and it is here because auditability is the whole point — a restrictive licence would defeat it. If you want the same standard applied to software you actually depend on, that is what JAK Labs does for a living.