Evaluating Code Quality

Green Flags:
✓ Consistent style across codebase
✓ Linters/formatters configured
✓ Style guide documented
✓ CI checks code style

Red Flags:
✗ Inconsistent naming
✗ No linters
✗ Chaotic formatting
✗ No style enforcement

Go to: GitHub repo → Click "code"

Look for:
- /tests folder (exists?)
- test_*.py or *.test.js files (many?)
- .github/workflows or .circleci (CI configured?)

Signs of good testing:
- Tests folder is as large as source folder
- Recent test additions (not neglected)
- CI runs tests on every PR

Signs of bad testing:
- Few/no test files
- Tests folder is tiny
- CI doesn't check tests

Go to: Pull Requests → Merged

Pick 3 random merged PRs from last month:

For each PR:
1. Read the description
   Good: "Fixes #123. Changes X because Y."
   Bad: "Fix bug" (no detail)

2. Look at code changes
   Good: Clear changes, easy to understand
   Bad: Huge file, 500+ line diffs

3. Check reviews
   Good: Reviewers asked questions, suggested improvements
   Bad: No reviews or "LGTM" only

Score each PR:
Good description + Good code + Good reviews = Healthy project

Look for:
- README explains what project does? ✓
- Architecture.md or docs/ folder? ✓
- CONTRIBUTING.md with setup steps? ✓
- Code comments on complex logic? ✓

Missing docs = Harder to contribute
Lots of docs = Community values onboarding

From the README:
1. Clone project
2. Follow setup steps
3. Try to run it

Did it work first try? ✓ Good sign
Did you hit errors? ⚠️ Either docs are incomplete
                          or environment is fragile

If it works:
- Try to understand one code section
- Find function names (are they meaningful?)
- Check: Is code readable?

Readable code = Easier to learn and contribute

ARCHITECTURE (How organized is the code?)
1 - "Everything in one file"
2 - "Files exist but no clear organization"
3 - "Some separation, mostly clear"
4 - "Well-organized, clear modules"
5 - "Excellent structure, easy to navigate"

TESTING (How thoroughly tested?)
1 - "No tests or under 20% coverage"
2 - "Some tests, ~40% coverage"
3 - "Decent tests, ~70% coverage"
4 - "Good tests, ~85% coverage"
5 - "Excellent tests, >90% coverage"

DOCUMENTATION (How well explained?)
1 - "Almost no docs"
2 - "Minimal docs, hard to understand"
3 - "Basic docs, covers main concepts"
4 - "Good docs, easy to understand"
5 - "Excellent docs, every part explained"

CODE STYLE (How consistent and clean?)
1 - "No linting, messy"
2 - "Some linting, inconsistent"
3 - "Decent style, mostly consistent"
4 - "Good style, well-formatted"
5 - "Excellent, auto-formatted"

TOTAL SCORE:

4-6:   Red flag - Don't contribute here
7-12:  Caution - Okay, but could be better
13-18: Good - Solid project, worth learning
19-22: Excellent - Great place to contribute
23-25: Outstanding - Top-tier codebase

Architecture: ✓ (4)
- /src: core code
- /tests: test files
- /docs: documentation
- /config: configuration
Clear separation of concerns

Testing: ✓ (4)
- 82% code coverage
- Tests run on every PR
- Integration tests exist
- Most functions have tests

Documentation: ✓ (4)
- Clear README
- Architecture.md explains design
- Functions have docstrings
- CONTRIBUTING guide exists

Code Style: ✓ (5)
- ESLint configured (auto-format)
- Prettier on all commits
- No style inconsistencies
- CI checks code quality

SCORE: 17/20 - Great place to contribute
Verdict: Yes, contribute here

Architecture: ✗ (2)
- No clear folder structure
- Thousands of files in /src
- Hard to find anything

Testing: ✗ (1)
- 5% code coverage
- No tests on most code
- Tests haven't run in 6 months

Documentation: ✗ (1)
- README just says "It's a project"
- No architecture docs
- No code comments

Code Style: ✗ (1)
- No linter
- Inconsistent naming
- Different indentation throughout

SCORE: 5/20 - Problematic project
Verdict: Avoid this one (unless you like pain)