Well, that's why we don't use stars on their own. As I explained, we're building an aggregate view across a bunch of metrics with human judgement making the fi

Well, that's why we don't use stars on their own. As I explained, we're building an aggregate view across a bunch of metrics with human judgement making the final call. Further, we're often comparing against alternatives so this isn't really a Yes/No type of thing (especially on stars). It's a general sense of a project's well-being and stability. ---- LangChain is a great example: * 44k stars, 5.1k forks * Roughly 8 months old (very young) * Very active commit history * Insane number of issues * Lots of open PRs This is a tool that we'd be hesitant to use without proper risk mitigations. It's young, it's moving very quickly. While it has a lot of visibility, it's not clear if that's all moving in the right direction. By contrast, underscore: * 27k stars, 5.6k forks * 11+ years old * Stalling commit history * Some issues, but not many. * Not many open PRs This is clearly a project on the opposite side of the spectrum. If you didn't know about mature alternatives (lodash, rambda, etc), it'd be a safe project to approve.