In my experience github has no value in your cv/resume at all
Something people often miss is that it's not enough to just link someone to your GH profile. If it's full of half-finished projects, they will likely look at your pinned ones (if you have those set), and not bother with the rest. The crucial thing is linking them directly to specific files of a project, specific PRs and contributions, that showcase the value you can bring. This makes the job much easier for the other side, while highlighting your strengths.
You are fortunate, which is great for you, but your advice will not work for most people.
Because GP implies only github matters and that does not seem like truth to me.
gitlab would hint me "you absolutely don't care about an UI which is slow as mollasses but you maybe have stronger moral principles."
The other issue is that commit activity is just a very poor signal for engineer quality. I've met truly terrible engineers with the brightest green activity boards you'll ever see. And I've met absolutely brilliant wizards whose activity board is very sparse.
Seniority is another issue -- as you grow in an org, you won't always grow in a way that leads to more contributions. I personally am spending a lot of time pairing, a lot of time leading, and a lot less time busting out individual tickets with constant commits.
I've also found that instead of taking 30 commits over 2 weeks to finish a project, the more experienced I get, I can do the same work in 5 commits over 3 days. It's just the nature of experience. But which one looks better on the github activity graph?
Granted this was mostly done for junior-level positions to gauge their level of proficiency in pretty much the basic tooling for the job.