SCRIPT CHECK · 60 SECONDS
Five quick questions show how often it appears, how believable it feels, and what it makes you avoid. You’ll get one private next step.
This is not a diagnosis and there is no pass or fail. It measures the current frequency, credibility, and behavioral cost of “His contribution graph is greener than mine, so he's better than me”, including the private rule underneath it: If the visible grid of green squares is lighter than his, that gap is a scoreboard proving he is the better engineer — regardless of what actually filled your white weeks, and regardless of what his own graph leaves out too.
QUIET
“His contribution graph is greener than mine, so he's better than me” appears, but it rarely gets the final say. Keep this line available for higher-pressure moments: “A green square only shows a public push, not what the week actually held.”
PRESENT
“His contribution graph is greener than mine, so he's better than me” wins some small decisions before you catch it. Your useful interruption is: “His grid can't see my on-call week or my mentoring hour, and mine can't see his either.”
ACTIVE
“His contribution graph is greener than mine, so he's better than me” is shaping action often enough to deserve a deliberate counterexample. Start privately and concretely: Open your own commit history for the past month and privately write down three things you did that a contribution graph can't show, no comparison tab open.
DOMINANT
Right now, “His contribution graph is greener than mine, so he's better than me” is steering many of the moments you measured. That is a pattern reading, not a diagnosis or character verdict. Begin with one reversible receipt: Open your own commit history for the past month and privately write down three things you did that a contribution graph can't show, no comparison tab open.