If your GitHub contribution graph disappeared tomorrow, would that make you a worse developer?
For years, we’ve been trained — consciously or not ...
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
This resonates deeply. I've been coding professionally for more than 10 years, and my public GitHub graph tells exactly 0% of the story. The most complex, challenging work I've done - distributed systems, performance optimizations, architectural decisions - all lives in private repos.
The irony? Junior devs often have the greenest graphs because they're building portfolio projects. Senior devs are shipping production code that no one will ever see on GitHub. We've somehow gamified the wrong metric.
This is absolutely true - thank you for this comment. You’re right, and honestly I didn’t even think to call this out explicitly in the post.
I feel exactly the same. Some of the most challenging and meaningful work I’ve done lived entirely in private company repos, especially in startups. And startups are a special case on their own - when you’re already working that much, there’s often just no energy left to write code after hours.
The green squares really miss all of that. Thanks for adding this perspective.
totally agree, as you mentioned some devs, even if they code 8hrs/day for whole year, cannot simply show their work on github, bc it is not allowed.
And she/he might not have time or sanity to go further and do some coding for github activity chart.
If this is the only criteria or the major one to evaluate a dev, certainly some are clearly opt out.
I think it might be useful to write on my profile readme: my coding activities at work are not reflected here :)
Exactly - that’s how it is for many people. A lot of real work simply can’t be shown publicly, and after a full day of coding, there’s often no time or energy left to do more just for a chart.
I once interviewed with a company that handled this quite well: they looked at GitHub projects, and if they didn’t see relevant experience there, they simply gave a take-home assignment instead. Of course, with AI today that approach isn’t always perfect - but back then, it was a fair and reasonable solution.
Love this take! A lot of us don’t even push most of our code to GitHub anymore, especially if we work on GitLab (or private company repos). That means your “contribution graph” can look dead while you’re actually shipping real production work every day.
And honestly, most of what ends up on GitHub is side projects, experiments, or unpaid/exploratory work (sometimes open source too), which doesn’t represent the work that actually matters.
I used to obsess over GitHub stats early in my career, but once you start doing real work, you realize how much time goes into planning, reviews, debugging, testing, meetings… not just pushing commits daily.
Thanks for this comment - yes, exactly! I have the same impression: at work, the people who commit the most are usually juniors or mids, because they’re the ones primarily responsible for shipping code. Seniors often spend much more time coordinating, reviewing, planning, and unblocking others. And there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that.
I’ve never really been obsessed with the contribution graph myself, but I’ll admit that when someone had a very green one, it did look impressive to me at first. After hearing a few stories like the ones I mentioned in the article, though, I’ve completely stopped caring about it 😄
Ohh definitely! I know many great senior devs who commit little to nothing at all and yet they still stay up to date, still flying through codes and problems effortlessly.
and speaking of commit graphs, I can assure you despite having heard of them - I have come nowhere close to trying out one of those auto commits tools 😭
mine are mostly from reviewing code lmao.
Hahaha, I could’ve used your graph as the cover photo then 😄
At work we use Bitbucket, so my GitHub is basically just demos and side experiments.
Maybe it’s time to set up a daily job there after all… purely for aesthetic reasons, of course 😅
If a recruiter stops their evaluation at your GitHub graph… poor thing, they’ve completely missed the point. Your contributions go far beyond what you push to GitHub — and that’s without even considering the intrinsic value of each commit.
Your articles are interesting and genuinely inspiring. Having read every one of them, it’s clear you bring so much to your audience by sharing your experience, asking the right questions, and even making people laugh — I’m thinking especially of your piece on commit quality via LLMs.
And just take a moment — literally two seconds — to consider this: if someone fixates on a vanity metric like that, it probably says more about their own life than about your work. Maybe they don’t have much else going on — no partner, no kids, not even a dog or cat… not even a goldfish to keep them company!
Thank you so much for the kind words, Pascal — I really appreciate them 😊
And yes, I agree: focusing on a vanity metric like that often says more about the person doing the judging than about the person being judged.
The only worrying part is when it actually does matter in hiring. I was personally asked about my GitHub activity only once, but who knows how common this is in other companies or countries.
What you wrote about “not having much else going on” really struck a chord with me. I remember a situation where a friend was almost angry at another developer for knowing everything about C++, practically having the documentation memorized. It later turned out that this was his entire world — he didn’t really have much of a life outside of it, and programming was his main source of meaning.
So yes, sometimes that’s the story behind what we call “success”. And it’s worth remembering that there’s usually a lot more going on beneath the surface than a graph full of green squares.
You're right — there are companies out there that still judge candidates by how many green boxes light up their GitHub graph. These are usually the places that hunt for mid-level engineers but pay them like interns, expect a level of devotion normally reserved for cult leaders, and offer absolutely nothing in return except… well, burnout with a complimentary hoodie.
If someone doesn’t know their worth, or feels like this is their last shot at staying employed, or desperately needs those green squares to feel alive… they might want to stock up on vitamins, antidepressants, and a therapist who charges by the hour. They’re going to need the full survival kit.
You, on the other hand, don’t need any of that — your work speaks for itself, loud enough that even the green-box worshippers can probably hear it.
Exactly — I couldn’t agree more. And honestly, I don’t think I’d want to work for a company like that anyway. The way a recruitment process looks usually says a lot about the company itself.
I care a lot about having a healthy work environment, especially considering that we spend around eight hours a day there. If green squares are treated as a serious signal, that’s already a pretty telling red flag for me.
I really loved what you wrote about this topic - nicely put into words what we were discussing about after our previous discussion in that comment section. You nailed it, thanks for sharing your thoughts.
Thanks, Aryan! 😊
Oh yes - discussions like these are a constant source of inspiration. That’s exactly what I love about DEV.
This is such a grounded take, and honestly a necessary one.
The green-square obsession always felt like a leaky proxy pretending to be a signal. Anyone who’s worked on real systems knows that the hardest parts of the job rarely correlate with daily commits — they correlate with thinking, unblocking, designing, and carrying context that never makes it into a public repo. Distributed systems don’t get safer because someone committed every day; they get safer because someone slowed things down and made the right call.
I also appreciated how you called out private repos and lifecycle churn. Whole years of meaningful work can vanish from a graph overnight, even though the experience compounds. I’ve seen the same thing in system-level work: the most valuable contributions are often architectural constraints, invariants, and decisions that prevent bugs from existing at all — which, conveniently, produce fewer commits.
Metrics are tempting because they’re visible. But visibility isn’t value. A contribution graph is at best a trace, never the system. Judging engineers by it feels like evaluating a database by row count instead of correctness.
Really solid piece. It challenges the metric without dismissing contribution itself — that balance is hard to strike, and you nailed it.
Exactly - I completely agree. I often have the impression that the more senior or impactful the role, the less actual coding there is. Seniors frequently spend more time reviewing code than writing it, or doing things like configuration and system-level work.
In my case, I’ll often intentionally delegate tasks to juniors or mids (with proper supervision) if I know they can handle them. And a tech lead? They can easily spend a huge part of their time in calls, coordination, and decision-making - their contribution is the team’s output, not their own commits. A CTO can go weeks without touching code at all 😉
Thank you so much for the comment and the kind words - I really appreciate it.
Absolutely — that’s such an important point. Impact and responsibility tend to pull you away from writing code, not toward more commits. At some level, your output really is the team’s output, not your personal diff count.
Thanks for taking the time to respond — and for articulating this so clearly in the post. It’s refreshing to see senior work described honestly instead of reduced to vanity metrics.
The best coders I've known were already busy enough working on closed-source code to have an impressive contribution graph :/
Exactly! And very often people are so invested in their professional work that they simply don’t have the time or energy in the evenings — especially if they have families, other responsibilities, or even just hobbies unrelated to programming.
You made some good point as usual Sylwia! It is to bad that i can't work for you at that startup for Anti-Money Laundering Technology. It is sound really cool and fun :). You don't know if the person is really busy with work or personal matter throughout the year. Life happens :)
Thanks, Ben 🙂 And unfortunately I’m no longer working at that startup - but yes, it really was a very cool experience. And you’re absolutely right: you never know what someone is dealing with during the year, whether it’s work or personal life. Life definitely happens.
yeah, it happens!
I haven’t been asked directly in an interview. Over the years I’ve worked at companies where I had to use a separate GitHub company account or use gitlab and even bit bucket at some point, I was working and pushing updates, but not on my personal account, as a result my contribution graph was scanty.
I only recently started having lots of ‘greens’ because I began working on a project recently.
Thanks for sharing this - I can really relate. I’ve had the same experience: GitLab, Bitbucket, and sometimes even a separate company GitHub account at work. All the real work was happening there.
On my personal GitHub, I mostly have contributions outside of work as well. If someone judged me by that graph alone, those greens would probably need to count at least triple 😄
🙂
I know right? I love reading your articles too. Great job every time
This reminds me of a comic I coded not too long ago (sorry for the shameless plug):
HAHAHA 😂😂 this is gold.
My GitHub currently looks almost like “Getting Ready to Search for a New Job”, but I swear I’m not actually looking 😄
It originates from the 10x developer myth and then more recently Elon Musk has re awakened the idea that number of commits, or lines of code changed are good metrics to measure productivity of developers.
Personally I'm not sure why people listen to anything that guy says, but hey, he has more money than anyone else, so he must be right 😂
Anyways, thanks for thinking for yourself! We desperately need more people who do that!
Haha, exactly 😄 I’m honestly amazed by some of the “wisdom” attributed to Musk - sometimes I get the feeling his companies function normally because he doesn’t have the time to personally supervise everything.
And funny you mention lines of code - I’ve actually heard that about a company in my city years ago. They evaluated developers based on how many lines of code they wrote. They dropped that idea pretty quickly once they saw the kind of spaghetti it produced 😅
A team I was in tried that once. I just kept changing the automatic CRLF to LF line ending settings for git back and forth so I always touched every line of code on every commit I made 😂 they didn't like that 😂
Haha, so I guess I’m talking to a millionaire then? 😄
I wish 😅 that's what it takes to buy a house here 😢
"We also need people who simply show up and deliver. And yes — we need them very much."
great article, Sylwia! 💯 thank you
Thank you, Aaron! 💚 I’m really glad that line resonated with you.
Failed to even mention that the contribution graph means nothing because it can quite trivially be spoofed, git allows you to set commit and author times to whatever you want. This means that you can automatically push a bunch of empty commits to a useless repository you own with author/commit times in the past, or the future, and that will show on your contribution graph as if those commits were actually made at those times (because according to git, they were)
Thanks for pointing this out - honestly, I hadn’t even thought about that! That’s yet another great argument for how meaningless the contribution graph really is.
At this point I’m seriously considering doing a follow-up article someday and coloring my entire 2023 green 😄
There’s a lot of pressure to have a perfect green graph to look employable, but your point about quality over quantity and the fact that professional work often stays private really puts things into perspective. It’s a good reminder to focus on building meaningful projects rather than just chasing streaks. Thanks for sharing!
Thank you - I’m really glad it helped put things into perspective 😊 Focusing on meaningful work instead of chasing streaks is exactly the takeaway I hoped for.
As for me, no one ever asks me about my contribution graph! But to be honest, as soon as I started my studies in development, students always referred to this graph to guess if a student was a committed student or not 😱
I share your thoughts on it, by the way. I think it just became a part of the "I'm gonna show them" kind of trend.
Haha, that really reminds me of my studies 😄 Some students attended every lecture, took detailed notes, and even rewrote them neatly afterwards - and still didn’t pass, because in the end the teacher only cared about actual knowledge, not the effort around it.
It feels very similar here: the graph looks impressive, but it doesn’t necessarily say much about what someone really knows or can do.
I would consider ending an interview if they look at my GitHub commit graph. Seriously... They are hiring me to work for them. And if they think number of commits has any correlation to my ability I need to consider if they are smart enough for me to work for them. I get that ending the interview isn't always an option. But looking at a graph of your off time is a major red flag.
That’s a fair point. Recruiters and interviews are often the first “showcase” of a company - even though, of course, the reality can vary a lot.
I once had a situation where the choice was simple: either show projects in a given technology on GitHub, or, if I didn’t have any, do a small take-home task instead. That felt much more reasonable. Of course, this was before the AI era 😄
Last year a recruiter contacted me about a position. And they had a hard requirement ent to look at a side project. I told him I have nothing and good luck finding the best.
Thing is, that between my job, keeping up with programming in two ecosystems, and my family there was no time for side projects. And honestly? Only accepting devs with side projects is a major red flag.
Absolutely - that’s a major red flag. There are so many valid reasons why someone doesn’t have side projects.
I’ve been there myself: I once worked at a startup where 10–12 hour days were common, and I was doing genuinely ambitious, challenging work. Whatever time I had left went to my family - and even then I already felt guilty about how much time work was taking.
So yes, I fully agree. Treating side projects as a hard requirement ignores real life and real work. Honestly, “recruitment red flags” might be a good topic for a separate post - this one definitely belongs on the list 🙂
Such a great article. You rarely see this kind of healthy, well-balanced take on GitHub activity and contributions.
Fun fact: I actually had a note about writing on this topic myself (check out the photo), and I already have the initial structure ready, I just need to add the content. You kind of made my task harder though, now I have to match a very high standard! That's not fair! 🤣I'm joking, I love being pushed to the limits. 😂
I'll probably dive deeper into this in my own article than here in the comments section, but the core message you're delivering is absolutely spot on: nobody should ever be judged by their GitHub activity alone. That graph can be misleading in so many different ways.
That's exactly why, when I interview people, I don't even look at the green squares. I focus on the code instead. And if someone doesn't have a single public repository on their GitHub profile, that's perfectly fine too, there are plenty of other ways to figure out whether someone is the right fit.
In fact, quite often, people with less visible activity turn out to be better engineers than those whose contribution graph looks like a Christmas tree.
Haha, looks like great minds think alike 😄
I’m really looking forward to your article - it’s going to be great!
And same here: I never paid attention to the contribution graph during interviews, it honestly never even crossed my mind. The only exception was when hiring true entry-level candidates who chose to share their projects - then I was happy to look at the code itself, but only if they offered it.
Thanks! 😄I'll let you know when I publish it. And I'll reference this article into mine, if you don't mind.
Absolutely - I’d be very happy if you reference it 😄
Looking forward to reading your article when it’s out!
Thanks for opening my eyes
I wasn't particularly worried about my contribution graph, but now I am even less worried.
If there is quality in a Github profile, the contribution graph shouldn't be considered a metric for measuring it.
I’m really glad to hear that - that was exactly what I hoped to achieve with this article 😊
And yes, I completely agree: one solid project or meaningful contributions to an open source project are worth far more than a fully green graph made of tiny typo fixes.
But what if say you are a junior developer, or maybe a university grade and you have done genuine regular contribution to github. Learning new technologies, making project, contributing to open source and you graph is just as green(comitting hardly takes 5 mins). Will it out this developer's profile as red flag to you even though they have done genuine and hard work for it? And does the same thing apply to leetcode, codeforces profile candidates as it's easy to just copy and submit code and make the graph green? What would make a new grad a good potential candidate for you?
Thanks a lot for this question - it’s a really good one.
A green contribution graph is definitely not a red flag for me. It’s just… not a metric at all. I don’t read anything into it, good or bad.
What does matter to me are the actual repositories. Those you can open, explore, and really see what someone is doing - how they structure things, how they think, how they approach problems. That’s where the real value is. When I was hiring junior developers, I was always happy to look at GitHub repos if candidates chose to share them.
That said, the most important part was always the technical interview and the follow-up verification. GitHub can be a great bonus and a conversation starter, but it never replaces talking to someone and understanding how they think.
Thank you for the reply 😄
I barely use GitHub because most of my work is done fully offline. I keep a main projects folder on a separate disk and treat it as my base. When I want to improve something, I copy the project, rename it, and iterate locally.
On older hardware, even a browser can be a bottleneck, so this workflow is simply more practical. Contribution graphs don’t capture any of that, especially when someone can change a single word, push a commit and light up the graph 🤦. The real value is in the project itself.
I totally agree with your approach. At the end of the day, the quality of the project is what matters, not how many green squares you have on a graph. Efficiency and local stability are definitely more important than 'playing' the GitHub game.
Absolutely - and thanks for adding another perspective to the discussion. Not everyone uses GitHub, and in many workflows it simply doesn’t make sense. The graph doesn’t capture any of that, and the real value is clearly in the work and the projects themselves.
Hello, BTW nice article! but i want to be honest, if you think github commit are not matter then it actually working in IT also not matter, myself included i have nearly 4+ years of git commit steaks not because of maintaining just green bar but to stay consistant and build something what matters, commits are just records/history to look back changes and what broken what something like that, as you know in every IT companies use git, it can be self hosted private or 3rd party like GITHUB,GITLAB,BITBUCKET. if commits are not matter then your contribution to your company is also not matter, if it only for money its okay but if its for you to think i am building or contributing something that matter by millions or billions of people then it is not okay.
i can confidentally still say, even now many jobs are recuiting not using github in current AI era, but thats why commit or contribution matters,
lets say you are an developer, who practice DSA for jobs and practing on leetcode or any other platform daily and maintaining steaks. i say in this era its completely useless!
not because of AI, its because Modular Codebase > Optimized Codebases.
what this means if your are building an library or tool or any project all code needed to be modular for reuse. not optimized, because by default all compiler automatically use only needed code which is reusable not optimized!
if you use optimized code on start, all its makes it make forward your project difficult and its like you are an story writer who always try to write an better story, until then u waste your papers and time
so what we needed is first modular reuseable code then u can optimized it in each modules
this is what actually matters , not DSA, Not Commit graph!
as i told commit history are just record and also to stay motivate. it actually matter of user contribution and changes and code technique, i am not talking about green graph bars but its commit changes record
if you are looking for job then github graph or profile not matters but some people may ask, all u needed is little good profile with major impactful project, not small auto commit changes just to stay steak of github
Thanks for sharing your perspective. I think we actually agree on more than it might seem 🙂
I don’t think commits or Git itself are meaningless - they’re essential as a tool, a history of changes, and a way to collaborate. My point was only that the GitHub contribution graph is a very weak signal and shouldn’t be treated as a measure of skill or impact.
If streaks or regular commits help someone stay motivated and build meaningful things, that’s great. The problem starts only when the green graph is used as a shortcut to judge developers, especially in hiring. In the end, real value comes from the projects, the code, and the thinking behind it - not from a chart.
Thanks for the discussion. I agree with many points, but I want to clearly highlight a serious issue we see today among both senior and junior developers, especially in this AI era.
AI is a great innovation. It simplifies daily work, particularly for developers. However, in recent times, there has been a lot of hate from so-called senior developers, mainly because they have work experience in the IT field. Many people fail to realize that open source is what actually shapes the software world, while corporations often restrict users behind paywalls.
In reality, open source helps everyone by making tools freely available. Corporations usually focus on profit first. For example, if Android were not open source, there would be no free apps or games. Imagine a world where every basic app or simple game required payment. Would people really accept that?
That is why every developer should contribute to open source or create their own quality open source project.
At the same time, because of AI, we now see a large amount of AI-generated software, articles, images, and videos. Many people hate these outputs even when they work perfectly. The hate often comes from perceived low quality, not from usefulness. But AI is just a tool.
As Linus Torvalds has said, AI is a great tool to get started, but maintaining software is hard. That is why developers should focus on building and maintaining useful, high-quality open source projects. Consistency and transparency matter. Public contribution history helps people collaborate and learn from each other.
Platforms like GitHub help developers manage projects and connect with the open community. Despite concerns about AI, GitHub is more helpful than harmful when used correctly.
A major problem today is the mindset of some older developers who claim to be senior. They often say juniors are not as good as seniors. In many cases, this is insecurity, not truth. Today, many developers start coding from childhood. They build operating systems, kernels, compilers, and innovative tools. What they often lack is corporate IT experience, not technical ability.
Experience in the IT field is not the same as experience in coding or software development.
The IT field changes constantly. Anyone can see this clearly on GitHub. Every new commit can break old assumptions and existing knowledge. That is why no truly good developer claims to be an expert. Instead, they say they are experienced and continue learning by building, contributing, and maintaining real projects used by millions or even billions of people.
To put it simply, it takes just one commit to expose gaps in your programming knowledge. Most people do not realize this. This is why contribution history matters, not as a green graph bar, but as evidence of real work, learning, and impact.
Using the GitHub contribution graph alone to judge a developer does not make sense. A green bar only shows activity, not quality. What truly matters is the developer’s work, the problems they solve, and the software they build.
Many seniors today focus only on salary and job security. Juniors, meanwhile, are building startups, creating open source projects, and pushing innovation forward. In the long run, open source matters far more than corporate titles. Corporations are temporary. If GitHub disappears, alternatives like GitLab or Codeberg will exist. But open source code itself will remain and continue to be used for decades or even centuries.
Being a developer is not about years in IT or job titles. It is about adaptability, continuous learning, and contribution. Without this mindset, someone may call themselves a developer today, but that identity may disappear in five or ten years.
This situation also affects genuinely good developers in the IT field. It blocks them from helping juniors who have strong ideas and real ability. The real problem is not the GitHub green bar. The real problem is toxic senior developers who exploit juniors and take credit for others’ contributions. This is not a myth. It happens.
For example, in the 1990s, knowing programming syntax was enough. In the 2010s, IT recruitment focused heavily on DSA. In the early 2020s, it shifted to practical skills. In 2024, experience became the filter. In 2025, AI skills are becoming the next filter. Whenever there are too many capable candidates, companies introduce new filtering strategies, often unrelated to the actual job role, just to reduce numbers. the problem here is not github being used ,just to increase profit margin by reducing candidates from job roles in the name of green bar of github.
i honestly thinks if ones github project have good or quality cool projects he is then good/great developer. if he have full green bars of graphs i respect him as an senior developer who actually hard work. i understand it can be simply automatic commit. but i pointing to quality project and commits profiles.
In the end, commits alone do not define a developer, job experience alone does not define a developer, and green bars do not define a developer.
Real work, real contribution, and real impact do.
NOTE: i am myself also coding from childhood, the many things i do or know, even many big company software developers don't know that. this is not hate or anything. its the true fact!
Thanks for sharing your perspective. I agree with your conclusion - real work, real contribution, and real impact matter far more than any single metric or green graph.
You clearly have a lot of thoughts and experience around this topic. It would honestly be a shame for them to get lost in a comment thread - this feels like something that would work really well as a standalone article of your own. I’d be genuinely happy to read it.
Hey! Hope you are well.
In my opinion, I think having more than a GitHub contribution graph on your GitHub helps you into landing a role such as if you have meaningful projects you are working on. Though, having the graph by itself, it has become an issue if someone wants to break into tech.
I have seen many videos talking about how having a lot of green to your GitHub contribution graph shows that you are an active developer and the recruiters love to see you are passionate about being a developer. What they failed to explain is the exploits that goes into it such as having a private repository that consistently spam commits. This creates a "mask" where if you judge too quickly, one may think that "Oh you must be a good developer". In reality, you may not be.
This is an issue because it creates this idea that having a lot of green to your graph means you are a great developer, where there are more factors into becoming a great developer. I have seen my peers getting into a good developer role without having a lot of green to their graphs.
Overall, it is more of the quality than quantity. Sure, you can have a lot of green in your graphs and be a good developer, but it creates this false ideology to new developers where they think that they need to be very active and they will do whatever it takes (especially if it takes to "cheat" their way into this field due to comparing others). Instead, I believe they should be focusing on building projects and learning from it because the results will speak for itself when it comes to interviews and on the job. It's not easy, and I learn this from experience that it takes a lot of time to become a good developer.
Thanks for sharing this - I really agree with you. Meaningful projects and what you actually learn from building them matter far more than how green a graph looks.
I also think you’re spot on about the pressure this creates for new developers. Chasing activity for the sake of visibility can easily distract from real learning, and sometimes even encourage unhealthy comparisons. In the end, quality, understanding, and long-term growth always speak louder - both in interviews and on the job.
Spot on. As someone who balances a full-time role, family, and open-source contributions, I’ve realized that a single thoughtful Pull Request to a complex project is worth more than a year of automated 'green squares.' We should evaluate developers by the impact of their work and their ability to explain it, not by a green graph.
Absolutely - 100% true. Balancing a full-time job, family, and open source is already a huge achievement in itself.
And you’re spot on: people have very different life situations. Some have families and little to no time for side projects, others have more flexibility - and that doesn’t say anything about who is a better developer. What really matters is the impact of the work and the ability to explain and reason about it.
I think this misses the core argument.
No one is saying that building projects or contributing consistently is bad — quite the opposite. Good projects and meaningful contributions absolutely matter, and yes, employers do get impressed by real-world impact.
The point is that the contribution graph itself is a weak proxy. A green square doesn’t tell you what was done, why it was done, or whether it mattered. A typo fix, a formatting change, or an automated commit looks identical on the graph to solving a hard architectural problem or shipping a production-critical feature.
Most experienced developers do contribute a lot — just not always in ways that show up publicly:
private company repositories
long-lived features with few commits
reviews, design decisions, mentoring, and unblocking teams
Those things produce real value, even if they don’t produce daily green squares.
If someone has solid projects, thoughtful commits, and real-world usage, that’s impressive — regardless of how green the graph is. If someone has a perfectly green graph made of low-signal changes, that’s… just activity.
So this isn’t about “shitting on others.”
It’s about not confusing visibility with value and not using a vanity metric as a shortcut for judgment — especially in hiring.
Projects matter. Impact matters. Thinking matters.
The graph alone doesn’t tell that story.
Exactly - that’s precisely the point I was trying to make. Projects, impact, and real contributions absolutely matter; the contribution graph alone just doesn’t tell that story. Thanks for putting it so clearly. 💖
Exactly, we can write a workflow to paint the graph and should not be the criteria to calculate efficiency of a dev. I hope hiring HR understand this soon!
Great post Sylwia
Thank you so much! And yes - I really hope this mindset fades away, especially in hiring and HR. The graph is far too easy to game to be treated as any kind of meaningful signal.
Github streaks, Leetcode and other coding platform streaks are just nothing but vanity..
I wouldn’t go that far 🙂 If streaks work for someone as a form of gamification and motivation to learn or practice, that’s perfectly fine. There’s nothing wrong with that at all.
The only problem is when they’re treated as a measure of quality or skill - and that’s where things start to fall apart.
I think it's more about personal satisfaction for me. It shows me that I'm being consistent and building something meaningful.
And if somebody is using a bot to commit every day, they are just fooling themselves
I do something similar myself - I have an app where I mark my daily workouts, and it works great for keeping me consistent. The problem only starts when someone uses the graph to judge the quality of another person’s work, especially in hiring.
This article makes a solid and realistic point that GitHub contribution graphs are a poor proxy for developer skill or impact. The examples around private repositories, automation, and long problem-solving cycles accurately reflect how misleading commit frequency can be in real-world engineering work. It’s especially strong in calling out how this metric can unfairly bias hiring conversations. Overall, it’s a timely reminder that output, judgment, and problem-solving matter far more than green squares.
Thank you, Alistair - I really appreciate this. I’m glad the examples resonated with you, especially around how this shows up in hiring. That unfair bias was one of the main reasons I felt the need to write this in the first place. Thanks for taking the time to leave such a thoughtful comment.
Also worth mentioning: the contribution graph is partly a personal preference.
You can toggle whether private contributions are shown, which means the graph can look “empty” or “busy” without reflecting real work at all.
Another reason why it’s a pretty unreliable thing to judge developers by.
I have not coded that much, but always seen contribution graphs like personal "gamifications". So completely not relevant for anyone but myself. But just like in other learning apps or games, it is motivating to get streaks etc. =)
But I would feel very strange if it would actually matter. Or yes I can see that a lot of visible contributions could be relevant in certain situations were one need/want to show experience in something. But lack of contributions really should not be used for anything.
Exactly! Gamification is a proven motivator. I do something similar myself - I have an app where I just mark that I exercised that day, and it really works for me 😄
And I fully agree when it comes to recruitment. Visible open source contributions can absolutely be a plus and even a strong card in an interview. But even there, the graph itself doesn’t say much - someone might contribute rarely, but work on big, meaningful changes.
Thanks for the article :) I didn’t realize that if you delete a repo, the contributions tied to it can disappear from your graph and it looks like you weren’t active even when you were 😅 A great example of why the contribution graph doesn’t tell the full story.
Haha, exactly - it can disappear 😅 And as you can see from the comments, you can even “restore” it later by playing with commit dates in Git… which kind of says everything about how much that graph is really worth 😄
It is possible to leave an organization and keep your contributions, GitHub has an article for this here: docs.github.com/en/account-and-pro...
The gist of it, you need to remove the company email and add it back without verifying it. This way the contributions will stay. Can confirm.
Interesting - I actually still have that email connected, and the contributions disappeared anyway, so I honestly have no idea what happened there. Knowing that startup, it’s also very possible they just moved the code somewhere else and deleted the old repo 😄 Everything is possible.
This post makes a compelling case against overvaluing GitHub contribution graphs as indicators of a developer's skill or work ethic. While the green squares are often seen as a measure of productivity or commitment, they can be misleading. Auto-commits, private repositories, or simply not committing frequently can all distort the picture of a developer’s true activity. As the author points out, GitHub should not be used as a shortcut to assess competence or engagement, the quality of contributions, not just quantity, matters.
It’s important to recognize that everyone contributes to the tech community in different ways. Some developers may be less active on GitHub but contribute significantly to their workplaces or other channels, like writing blog posts, creating tutorials, or speaking at conferences. The post emphasizes that not all developers need to follow the same pattern of activity to be effective. Ultimately, true value lies in the quality of work, problem-solving ability, and contributions in a variety of forms-not in an artificially green contribution graph.
Thanks for the thoughtful summary - I’m glad the message came across 😊
Great, now I want to create a cron-job that displays messages on the graph.
I bet society would be better, if more doctors, lawyers and others would use their professional expertise in their free time, to do something for society. I guess lawyers call it "pro bono"?
The cron-job comment made me laugh - that’s actually a perfect summary of the problem 😄
And I agree that sharing expertise can be incredibly valuable. My point isn’t that people shouldn’t contribute, but that it shouldn’t be an expectation or a metric of someone’s professional worth. Pro bono is great when it’s voluntary - not when it becomes implicit pressure.
This was such a refreshing and much-needed read - thank you for putting it into words so clearly.
I appreciate how you challenge the unconscious bias around GitHub contribution graphs and back it up with real, relatable examples. The stories about auto-commits and private repositories highlight how misleading those green squares can be.
I’ll definitely be taking these lessons with me when I migrate to Codeberg, focusing less on metrics and more on meaningful work and intent behind it.
Thank you so much - I’m really glad it resonated with you 😊
That was exactly my intention: to question the bias around those graphs and remind ourselves how little they actually say about meaningful work.
Focusing on intent and real value instead of surface-level metrics sounds like a very healthy approach. I’m happy the article could be useful as you make that shift.
Totally agree! I’ve been coding for a long time too, and there are big stretches where most of my work lived in private repos tied to a work account. From the outside, it can look like “nothing happened,” even though a lot of real systems were built.
With AI in the mix now, commits are easier than ever to generate, but that doesn’t necessarily reflect understanding. It feels like the bar is shifting more toward how well you can reason about systems, tradeoffs, and failure modes, not just how fluent you are in a specific language or framework.
Sometimes that shows up in commits, but it never tells the full story. I’d much rather hear that story than judge a book by its cover of lines of code.
Totally agree! And yes - I didn’t even touch on the AI aspect in the article, although I did consider it. It’s a great example of how easy it is today to generate a lot of code without necessarily understanding it. That’s exactly why reasoning about systems, tradeoffs, and failures matters so much more than what a graph or raw commit count can show.
Roast me! I'm building FDT.
Awww, love it 😄
Now I’m curious - I definitely need to check out FDT!
This really needed to be said. Green squares say almost nothing about real work or skill.
Private repos, long problem-solving cycles, and real jobs don’t show up on a graph. Looking at actual projects and impact matters far more than daily commits.
Exactly - that’s the point. Real work, real impact, and real problem-solving rarely show up as neat daily commits. Thanks for saying this so clearly.
GitHub graph is not important... project idea and its implementation are important.
Exactly - 100% agree 😄
Engagement is great, but it’s only part of the story.
Everyone is important to the team, and I especially admire those working behind the scenes whose contributions don't always show up on a graph.
Exactly - that’s so true. And even a regular tech lead can be a good example of this. They often contribute less code simply because they’re coordinating work, sitting in meetings, answering questions, and unblocking others. They still bring a lot of value to the team - it just doesn’t show up on a graph.
After my military service, I promised myself I would make a commit every day. Even if I forgot occasionally, I made it a habit.
That makes a lot of sense - if you treat it as gamification, it can be a really good habit builder. I do something similar myself with apps that track how often I exercise 🙂
At the same time, just like having my fitness app all green won’t make me an olympian (or even a local league champion 😉), a green contribution graph on its own won’t make anyone a great developer either. It’s a tool for motivation, not a measure of skill.
As soon as a role requires your github link, I plan a red flag.
Yeah, I agree - that’s at least a bit strange. It really depends on how it’s used, but treating a GitHub profile as a requirement rather than an optional bonus can definitely be a red flag.
good
Thank you :)
👍
I agree .But I think for freshers, the GitHub contribution graph may matter.
I’d say that for beginners, projects on GitHub matter much more than the graph itself. The graph can be helpful if it works as motivation, but on its own it doesn’t say much about what someone can actually do.
Right
I used to believe that 3 years ago lol. I have seen engineers who are 10x better but have worse github graphs (cuz most of the time they work in private repos) .. so if I see a lot of green dots, either the person is very active in open source or mostly building small side projects
yet people still judge that a lot of times -- not sure why.
100%
TL;DR: "I don't have an impressive commit graph, and so I proceed to sh!t on others who do, using edge cases of a few who game the system"
Private contributions in an org is no excuse BTW; If you paid attention to GitHub you'll discover they have a settings for making those contributions public, just not the exact code being contributed to.
BTW nothing is valid enough to excuse such an empty graph you had. Also like one of the comments shows, even reviewers and tech lead DO have commits.
Hopefully you're able to contribute more this year, and not sh!t on others actually contributing to open source.
Thanks! I’ll do my best to keep my contribution graph as green as possible this year 😉
It is not a graph, it is Saper ;-)