TopGit

Editorial Policy

TopGit publishes original reviews of open-source GitHub repositories. This page explains how those reviews are produced, what we will and won't do, and how to flag a mistake.

How a review is made

  • Facts from the source. Stars, forks, language, license, topics and dates come from the GitHub API — never invented or estimated.
  • README is paraphrased, never copied. We summarise a project in our own words and attribute claims the project makes about itself.
  • AI-assisted, human-reviewed. Drafts are written with AI assistance from that public data, then read and edited by a human before anything is published.
  • Honest limitations required. Every review must state real trade-offs and who should skip the tool — not just strengths.
  • A quality gate. A review is only published if it clears our structure, fact-check and quality checks. Anything short of that stays a draft.

What we don't do

  • No fabricated stars, growth numbers, ratings, or social proof.
  • No scraped or copied content from other sites.
  • No pay-to-rank: placement and trending order are never for sale.
  • No thin filler or keyword stuffing.

Corrections

Data changes and mistakes happen. If a review is inaccurate or out of date, tell us via the contact page and we'll fix or update it. Repository metadata shows when it was last synced from GitHub.

See also our methodology, data sources, and disclaimer. Reviews are edited by the TopGit editorial team.
Editorial Policy — How TopGit Writes Reviews