I audited the 12 fastest-growing new GitHub repos for fake stars. Here's the base rate.
An audit of the fastest-growing new GitHub repositories revealed insights into the prevalence of fake stars. The analysis focused on the top 12 repositories created in the last 90 days, examining their star counts for signs of purchased engagement. The findings indicated that while most repositories appeared organic, a few showed patterns consistent with star buying, warranting further investigation.
- ▪The audit examined the top 12 most-starred public repositories created in the last 90 days.
- ▪Out of the 12 repositories, 9 were deemed to have organic growth, while 3 showed signs of potentially purchased stars.
- ▪The methodology involved using a tool called fake-star-audit to analyze star patterns and timing.
Opening excerpt (first ~120 words) tap to expand
try { if(localStorage) { let currentUser = localStorage.getItem('current_user'); if (currentUser) { currentUser = JSON.parse(currentUser); if (currentUser.id === 3919132) { document.getElementById('article-show-container').classList.add('current-user-is-article-author'); } } } } catch (e) { console.error(e); } ardev Posted on May 27 I audited the 12 fastest-growing new GitHub repos for fake stars. Here's the base rate. #security #github #devops #opensource New repositories are where bought stars cluster, because the point of buying stars is to fake early traction. So I pointed an open-source auditor at a reproducible slice of GitHub: the most-starred public repos created in the last 90 days. Method Population: GitHub Search created:>2026-02-26 stars:>1000, sorted by stars (684 matched).
…
Excerpt limited to ~120 words for fair-use compliance. The full article is at DEV.to (Top).
Discussion
0 commentsMore from DEV.to (Top)
