Ask HN: Do we need a stronger process for vetting code?

Now that writing code is largely automated, I've seen Github being filled to the brims with slop, and it feels like the overall quality of everything produced with code (either the tooling or the software itself) has been getting worse. Pre-AI, times were a bit simpler: You looked at the stars, looked at the issues, poked around the code, and gave the repository a chance. Today there's just way too much stuff being produced. I don't see this changing in the future, so I was thinking that I'd be cool to make some spin out of it: My idea is to create a data aggregator based on https://github.com/explore that is targeted towards developers. Think of it as the "Rotten Tomatoes" of code. Here are a few ideas that I've been bouncing around: Repositories having different scores and being organized by tech stack, language, etc. Certified classics by category and technology.

Each repository has a scorecard. - its dependencies (too much - potential bloat) - issue progression over time (number of issues, time to close issues) - by maintainer count and reputation (changes hands often - bad). - by funding

Allows users to set their own rating, giving a more nuanced distribution than just github stars. It also allows users to blacklist repositories, and exposes an MCP server that allows one's own agents to know what to avoid.

What do you think?