Reproducibility & data-transparency evaluation — feedback welcome

[fractastical]

Hi 👋 — I'm building BioEval, an open evaluation of publicly available insect colony / swarm simulations, scoring each on data transparency, code availability, and computational reproducibility. Your project was included, and I wanted to share the results directly and — more importantly — ask for your feedback. If I've gotten something wrong or missed context, I'd genuinely like to correct it.

Overall: 72.2/100

Dimension	Score
Data Disclosure	72
Dataset Resolvability	68
Code Availability	92
Traceability	62
Simulation Clarity	66
Reproducibility Package	82

(Scores include a documented +20 baseline calibration, capped at 100; the overall is the weighted mean of the six dimensions.)

Ways to improve the score:

• Add an explicit open-source license (e.g., MIT or Apache 2.0) to the repository
• Provide concrete repository URLs / DOIs for cited inspirations (FORMINDEX, MetaInformAnt, ActiveInferAnts) and any external datasets, and deposit the current repo state to Zenodo for a citable DOI
• General: pin dependency versions + add a deterministic seed; add a parameters table mapping each constant to its source; tag a release and archive to Zenodo for a DOI; commit one example output with a checksum.

Methodology and full rubric: https://github.com/fractastical/bioinformatics-eval

Thanks for building and open-sourcing this — any corrections welcome!