Non-reproducibility doesn't imply shoddy work so it isn't fair to damage people's reputations for this reason. A paper may be non-reproducible because it isn't

Non-reproducibility doesn't imply shoddy work so it isn't fair to damage people's reputations for this reason. A paper may be non-reproducible because it isn't descriptive enough, because their data is not published yet, because a software library is deprecated, because a URL has changed etc, all of which are only discovered when somebody goes to reproduce it. Researchers can strive to make their work reproducible and still unwittingly fail. If Github goes bust in 20 years you'll find a significant chunk of current work is non-reproducible despite author's best efforts.