repo·evals
· 2026-05-19 ·main@HEAD (pushed 2026-05-18) · docker latest 2026-05-11

WeRSS (we-mp-rss)

rachelos/we-mp-rss

🛠

68 / 100Available

📝
⚛
→
⚗
→
🧬

🛑
0–29
⚠️
30–49
🛠
50–79
🏭
80–100
▼
68
🛠· 68 / 100
  • ✓7 claims passed, no critical failures
  • ✓MIT / Apache / etc., installable per deployment.install_methods
  • ✓release_pipeline_score=2 + pushed in 90-day window
  • ✓multilingual_readme=true
  • ⚪static-only eval; live e2e pending

#1👤
#2🎯
#3🧭
#4⇄

docker run … ghcr.io/rachelos/we-mp-rss:latestany (Docker)easy
docker run … rachelos/we-mp-rss:latest (Docker Hub)any (Docker)easy
docker run … docker.1ms.run/rachelos/we-mp-rss:latest (China mirror)any (Docker, CN)easy
python main.py (from source)Python 3.13.1+moderate
  • 🌐
WeChat / WeRead login
Auth source — service scrapes content via a logged-in WeChat / WeRead account (QR-code login flow)
Free WeChat account works; recommend a throwaway, not main account
SQLite or MySQL
Persistence — accounts, subscriptions, articles, schedule state
Self-hosted; SQLite is default
Redis / Memcached (optional)
Config cache for read perf — fallback to in-memory
Optional
ghcr.io / Docker Hub
Image registry
Public pulls, rate-limited on Docker Hub for anonymous
· 8
7 1
+40
+8
+12
+3
+5
0

8 / 8
passed claim-001

passed claim-003

failed claim-004

passed claim-006

input_contract
output_contract
determinism
idempotence
no_skill_callouts
failure_mode_clarity

  • evidence_completeness='partial' (not portable) → capped at 'usable'

archetype: api-service→core_layer_tested? True→evidence: partial→recommended: usable→final: usable
ceiling 1 · evidence_completeness='partial' (not portable) → capped at 'usable'
claim-001rachelos/we-mp-rss Docker 镜像存在且 1 周内有推送criticalshipped-artifacts● passed
claim-002项目主页 werss.csol.store 当前可达mediumdependency-liveness● passed
claim-003LICENSE 实质 MIT，自动分类器误判 NOASSERTIONhighmaintainer● passed
claim-004README 徽章引用 RSSNext/Folo 而非本项目highmarketing-vs-reality✕ failed
claim-005根目录有 10+ ad-hoc 修复 / 调试脚本而无测试套件mediummaintainer● passed
claim-006archived=false 且 pushed_at 在 48 小时内criticalmaintainer● passed
claim-007仓库根目录同时存在英文和中文 READMElowecosystem● passed
claim-008仓库 description / topics 呈现关键词堆砌lowmarketing-vs-reality● passed

0%
0.00s
0

# Final Verdict

## Repo

- **Name**:
- **Version tested**:
- **Date**:
- **Archetype**:
- **Layer**: (atom | molecule | compound)
- **Score**:  /100  (from `verdict_calculator.py`, not judgement)
- **Category**:  (🏭 Production-ready / 🛠 Available / ⚠️ Risky / 🛑 Don't use)
- **Tier**: (recommend ≥90 / team ≥80 / self ≥65 / try ≥50 / risky ≥30 / broken <30)

## Plain English

Two sentences max. What does the user get if they adopt this repo today, and what would make them regret it?

- Outcome if adopted:
- Regret scenario:

## Why This Score

State the user-visible outcome first, mechanism second. Lead with what the repo *does* for the user, then the evidence.

### Top 3 score drivers

What earned or cost the most points. Reference `breakdown` from the calculator output.

- +/- :
- +/- :
- +/- :

### Core outcome
What observably works end-to-end? What observably does not?

### Scenario breadth
How many real inputs has it been tested against? Which dimensions vary (platform, data shape, scale)?

### Repeatability
Same input twice → same result? Filesystem-level or only log-level?

### Failure transparency
When it fails, do you learn something actionable, or does it swallow the error?

## What Would Move The Score Up

Concrete, testable next actions in score-impact order. Not "be better" — "add X test against Y fixture showing Z (lifts ~+N)".

1. (~+N)
2. (~+N)
3. (~+N)

## Remaining Risks

Ranked. Each risk with severity + impact + mitigation if known.

| Risk | Severity | Impact | Mitigation |
|---|---|---|---|

## Related Artifacts

- Claim map:
- Plan:
- Runs:
- Verdict calculator input:
- Rendered HTML dossier: