I built a peer-review platform for open-source repos. here's why and where it's at.
the problem
product hunt, and other "launch" platforms are for finished products. reporanker is a place to get help and feedback while you're still working on the project... not once it's completed.
i wanted a place where open-source maintainers could get real technical feedback from real developers... not just hearts and upvotes.
what i built
reporanker is a GitHub peer-review platform. you submit your repo, real developers review it (800+ character minimum, GitHub-authenticated, no self-reviews), and the ranking is based on review quality
the mechanics:
free to submit
reviews earn 10 credits, which you spend on visibility boosts ($2–$15)
ranking algorithm is published publicly. no black box.
GitHub OAuth only. no real account, no review.
the core bet: quality over velocity. the platform is deliberately slower than upvoting. that's a feature, not a bug.
where it's at
soft-launched in april. infrastructure is solid. leaderboard, review system, credit economy, stripe, email notifications all working.
this week i caught a ranking bug where 2-star repos were outranking repos with 10,000+ stars. fixed it. (the kind of thing you only catch if you're using your own product.)
what i'm looking for
feedback on the concept. and if you've got an open-source project you want real technical eyes on... submit it. free to give, free to get.
genuinely curious what the IH community thinks about the credit economy at reporanker.
the instinct was to make quality the currency instead of just money. but i'm still figuring out if that's the right call or if i'm making it too complicated.
if you've submitted on product hunt before, i'd especially love to hear what felt broken about it.