repo-auditlisted

# Repo Audit Score a repository against the ten tips that separate a *technically good repo* from a *product people can actually use and contribute to*. Core premise: **technical excellence ≠ project excellence.** This audit measures the second one only. It says nothing about whether the code is good. ## Workflow 1. **Establish the target.** Default to the cwd. If the user names another path or a GitHub URL, use that. Confirm you are at the repo root (look for `.git/`). 2. **Detect the ecosystem.** Read `references/ecosystems.md` and identify the language/build stack. Every check below has an ecosystem-specific form — apply the right one. Multi-language repos: audit the primary published artifact. 3. **Run the rubric.** Read `references/rubric.md` and work through all ten tips. Each has explicit detection commands and 0/1/2 scoring criteria. 4. **Report.** Use the output format below. Prefer batching the cheap filesystem checks into a few parallel Bash calls rather than one call per check. `gh` is often available for the GitHub-side checks (labels, discussions, releases, Actions); if `gh auth status` fails, mark those checks `UNKNOWN` rather than guessing. ## Scoring Each tip scores **0–2**: | Score | Meaning | |---|---| | **0** | Absent — the practice is simply not there | | **1** | Partial — something exists but misses the point (e.g. a `CHANGELOG.md` of raw commit subjects, or a README with no code sample above the fold) | | **2** | Good — meets the bar described i