Building an Awesome List That Actually Gets Stars (Step-by-Step)

A few months ago, I decided to start an awesome list. Not because I thought I'd become famous - mostly because I was frustrated that no single repository existed as a definitive guide to codebase intelligence tools and practices. I wanted to solve my own problem and maybe help others along the way.

Fast forward six months: the awesome-codebase-intelligence list has earned over 2,500 GitHub stars, gets contributions from developers worldwide, and was featured in several newsletters. More importantly, it's become a genuine resource people refer to when evaluating tools.

I've learned what makes awesome lists succeed and what makes them fade into obscurity. Here's exactly how I built it - the strategy, the execution, and the specific steps that actually work.

First, let's be clear: awesome lists aren't just vanity projects. They're discovery engines for the developer community. When someone needs to evaluate a new technology category, they often search "awesome [topic]" on GitHub before they Google it. Awesome lists rank well in both GitHub's search and Google's index.

For project maintainers, an awesome list mention means traffic, credibility, and potential users. For developers, a well-curated list saves hours of research. For the person who creates it, it's community building at its finest.

But here's what I discovered: most awesome lists stagnate. They start with enthusiasm, pick up 100-200 stars, then plateau. The creators get busy. Updates become sporadic. Contributions slow down. The repository becomes a time capsule rather than a living resource.

The difference between a list that gets 500 stars and one that gets 5,000? It's not luck. It's strategy applied consistently.

The first instinct is to choose a broad topic. "Awesome DevTools" or "Awesome Backend Frameworks." Don't do this. You'll compete with established lists that have network effects and a decade of momentum.

Instead, look for the white space. Find a topic that:

1. Has growing demand - Something developers are actively searching for and discussing, but not well-served by existing awesome lists
2. Has clear boundaries - You can define what goes in and what doesn't
3. Isn't already owned - Check if an awesome list for your topic already exists (search on GitHub and awesome-awesomeness)
4. Serves a specific audience - Not "developers" but "DevOps engineers interested in container orchestration" or "Python maintainers managing technical debt"

For codebase intelligence, I noticed:

• Developers were increasingly concerned about code quality, documentation, and onboarding complexity
• No single resource existed that covered tools, practices, and metrics together
• The topic was specific enough to have clear boundaries, broad enough to attract ongoing contributions

I could own this niche because it was genuinely underserved.

Narrow your focus ruthlessly. A list with 150 carefully chosen items beats a list with 500 items where you're not sure why half of them are included.

This is where most awesome lists fail. They become "a list of tools I've heard of" rather than "the definitive guide to this topic."

Here's my methodology:

First, define your inclusion criteria. For codebase intelligence, I decided a tool must:

• Address at least one aspect of understanding, monitoring, or improving codebases
• Have active maintenance (commits in the last 6 months)
• Be open-source or have meaningful community adoption
• Solve a real problem (no vaporware or abandoned projects)

Second, do the research. I spent two weeks:

• Scrolling GitHub with relevant search terms: "codebase metrics," "code quality," "technical debt," "onboarding complexity"
• Checking Product Hunt, Hacker News, and Reddit for discussions
• Reading research papers on code complexity and maintainability
• Talking to actual developers about what tools they use

Third, evaluate everything personally. This is tedious but essential. Don't add a tool based on description alone. Clone the repo, read the docs, understand what it actually does. You'll discover tools that sound impressive but don't deliver, and hidden gems nobody talks about.

I created a spreadsheet tracking each tool: name, GitHub link, category, why it matters, active/maintained status, and personal notes. This transparency is invisible to list visitors, but it's your backbone.

Fourth, look for patterns. As you research, you'll notice natural categories emerge. Don't force them. Your categories should reflect how people actually think about the space.

The best awesome lists are navigable in under two minutes. A developer should be able to scan the table of contents and find what they need immediately.

For awesome-codebase-intelligence, I organized by:

• Core Concepts - What codebase intelligence actually is
• Code Analysis & Metrics - SonarQube, Semgrep, CodeClimate
• Documentation Tools - Mintlify, Docusaurus, Typedoc
• Onboarding & Knowledge - Backstage, Port, codebase-health-score
• Monitoring & Trends - Grafana, Datadog, custom dashboards
• Research & Reading - Academic papers, articles, benchmarks
• Contributing - How to add to the list

Each category has 8-15 items (not 50). Each item has: name, one-line description, GitHub link, and 2-3 sentences on why it matters.

Your structure should tell a story. Someone reading from top to bottom should understand both the category and why these tools exist.

Most awesome lists have generic "how to contribute" sections that nobody reads. Make yours specific and friendly.

Here's what worked:

## How to Contribute

Want to add a tool? Great! A few guidelines:

1. **Does it fit?** Check our inclusion criteria (active maintenance, solves a real problem, fits our scope)
2. **Format it right:** - [Tool Name](https://github.com/user/repo) - Brief description (1-2 sentences)
3. **Add it to the right category** (or suggest a new one)
4. **Submit a PR** with your addition

We review PRs within 48 hours. If we suggest changes, don't take it personally - we just want to keep the list high-quality.

No experience with Git? [Here's a beginner-friendly guide](https://opensource.guide/how-to-contribute/).

Lower the barrier to contribution. Don't require a specific commit message format or extensive justification. Make it as simple as: "Here's a tool, here's why it matters, here's the link."

I respond to every PR within 48 hours, either merging it or explaining why it doesn't fit. This encourages more contributions. People want to feel heard, not ignored.

There's a meta-awesome-list: awesome-awesomeness. Getting listed there is a multiplier.

The process:

1. Make sure your list meets the awesome criteria (quality over quantity, curated not exhaustive, consistent formatting)
2. Submit a PR to awesome-awesomeness with your list
3. Wait for review (this can take weeks)

It's not a guarantee of stars, but it's visibility. More importantly, it signals legitimacy. People trust lists that made the official awesome list.

My list got approved because I'd already done the work: consistent formatting, thoughtful curation, clear contribution guidelines, and an active maintenance commitment.

Here's the unsexy truth: a great awesome list that nobody knows about gets zero stars.

I promoted awesome-codebase-intelligence through:

GitHub: I added it to every relevant discussion. Someone asking about code quality tools? I'd link it. Not as spam, but as a genuine resource. GitHub threads get indexed by Google, so this helped SEO.

Twitter/X: Short, genuine posts. "Just published a list of codebase intelligence tools. If you care about code quality, onboarding complexity, or technical debt metrics, check it out." Nothing salesy, just sharing work I'm proud of.

Dev Communities: I posted to:

• Dev.to (with a link back to the GitHub repo)
• Hacker News (formatted as a submission, not a link dump)
• Engineering subreddits (r/webdev, r/devops, r/golang for language-specific sections)
• Discord communities for relevant topics

Backlinks: I wrote blog posts and articles that naturally referenced the list. When you write an article about codebase health, linking to an awesome list on the same topic feels natural, not forced.

Collaborators: I reached out to maintainers of popular tools in the list and said: "I've curated a list of codebase intelligence tools. You're included because your tool is genuinely excellent. Would you be willing to share it with your community?" Most said yes.

The key: every mention was authentic. I wasn't promoting for traffic; I was sharing a resource I'd actually put work into.

By month three, I had ~1,000 stars. By month six, 2,500. Here's what created the jump:

Consistency. I updated the list weekly. Added new tools, fixed broken links, responded to issues. The algorithm favors active repositories.

Community involvement. I didn't gatekeep contributions. If someone suggested a tool that fit the criteria, it went in. People star lists they've contributed to.

SEO and discoverability. I optimized the README for search: clear headings, keyword-rich descriptions, links to related resources. When someone searched "codebase health metrics," the list ranked #3 on Google by month four.

Strategic partnerships. I reached out to newsletter authors (like TLDR Dev) and asked if they'd include the list. One mention in a 100K-subscriber newsletter drove 300 stars in a week.

Genuine value. This sounds obvious, but most awesome lists fail because they're not actually awesome. They're "lists of things in a category." Make sure each item deserves to be there. Quality over quantity.

Building an awesome list isn't a sprint. It's a sustained effort that pays off when you're consistent. My biggest mistake early on was assuming I could maintain it without ongoing work. I can't. I spend 2-3 hours every week on it now (reviewing PRs, researching new tools, fixing links).

But that investment has paid for itself. The list drives traffic, credibility, and community engagement. It's become a reference point in the codebase intelligence space.

If you're thinking about starting an awesome list:

1. Pick a niche worth owning. Don't fight battles in crowded categories.
2. Do the research. Actually evaluate the tools you include.
3. Make contributing easy. Let the community help you maintain it.
4. Be consistent. Show up weekly, not monthly.
5. Promote authentically. Share it because it's genuinely useful.

The best awesome lists aren't built by people who wanted to be famous. They're built by people who wanted to solve a problem and happened to share the solution with the world.

Good luck with yours.