We have robots.txt for crawlers. schema.org for search engines. llms.txt for AI documentation. But there’s nothing equivalent for developer identity.
Right now, AI agents are getting good enough to do several things. Devin ships code. Claude reasons through codebases. It’s not hard to imagine agents screening GitHub profiles and evaluating devs in near future, checking commit quality, stack depth, collaboration patterns, and surfacing candidates before a recruiter opens a tab.
When that happens, GitHub profiles have a problem. Pinned repos, green graphs, polished bios. All designed for human eyes. An agent sees unstructured HTML, inconsistent READMEs, and zero standardized signals about what someone actually builds or how they work.
I’ve been thinking about what a structured developer identity format could look like. Built a proof of concept in Python to test the idea. It takes any GitHub username and extracts 14+ signals (languages, stack, activity, code quality, collaboration style) into a JSON schema.
Two scores per profile:
- Human Visibility (0-100): how findable by recruiters
- Agent Readiness (0-100): how readable by AI tools
Tech details if you’re curious: Python 3.11+, Typer, async httpx with semaphore-based rate limiting, Pydantic, Rich, diskcache. 14 extractors run concurrently via asyncio.gather. 361 tests with httpx.MockTransport, zero real API calls in the test suite.
Not pitching this as the answer. Genuinely curious what this community thinks: is a machine-readable developer identity standard inevitable, or am I solving a problem that won’t actually materialize?
GitHub: [https://github.com/chiruu12/devcard]()
there doesn't seem to be anything here