I agree. It can be arbitrary and debatable to attach a number such as code quality to a project. Here is the criterion for code quality
1. Poor code quality. No structure. No comments in code. No nimble support. 2. Code is structured. Some comments in code. Nimble enabled. 3. Code is well-structured. Code is commented. Tested and run on a single platform. Code examples. 4. Code is well-structured. Code is commented. Test sets. Tested and run on multiple platforms. Multiple examples provided. Let me take as an example my own project [neo]([https://github.com/unicredit/neo)](https://github.com/unicredit/neo\)), which is rated with 2 on the provided sheet. It is kind of demoralizing to see this number after all the time I dedicated to the project. I don't know if the code is well structured (I find it easy to maintain, other may disagree) and it is certainly not commented. On the other hand, it has test sets, it is tested and run on multiple platforms and it has multiple examples provided (shouldn't this last points affect docs quality?). On the other hand, another project of mine is [csvtools]([https://github.com/unicredit/csvtools](https://github.com/unicredit/csvtools)) which was more like a couple of day project, yet it has code quality 3 (is it because it has comments? It definitely has less structure and less tests). I don't take this personally, I know you had to rate a lot of projects on a lot of aspects, and maybe a 2 is deserved here, I don't really give it much weight. But giving official votes to the quality of various aspects of projects can carry a lot of negative feelings
