Below is an English rating list for evaluating a repository's relevance to an ecosystem, formatted as requested. Scores range from **0 (irrelevant/excluded)** to **10 (core project)**, with clear descriptions for each level:

---

### Ecosystem Repository Relevance Score
*(0 = excluded, 10 = critical core project)*

| Score | Label | Description |
|-------|-------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| **0** | **Irrelevant** | No meaningful relationship to the ecosystem. **Exclude entirely** (not counted in metrics). |
| **1** | **Tangential** | Loosely related; only worth **recording user participation** (no functional/non-functional relevance). |
| **2** | **Peripheral** | Superficial connection; minor ecosystem overlap (e.g., shared tooling but no integration). |
| **3** | **Incidental** | Niche utility; limited ecosystem value (e.g., minor utility scripts used in a few projects). |
| **4** | **Marginal** | Narrow use case; solves isolated problems but lacks broader adoption/impact. |
| **5** | **Relevant** | Clearly aligned; provides ecosystem value but **not widely adopted** (e.g., community plugins). |
| **6** | **Notable** | Actively used; integrates with core tools/docs but **not mission-critical**. |
| **7** | **Important** | High impact; widely relied upon for key workflows (e.g., CI/CD utilities or major libraries). |
| **8** | **Strategic** | Foundation-level; shapes best practices or enables major ecosystem capabilities. |
| **9** | **Pillar** | Near-core; anchors critical infrastructure (e.g., governance tools, security frameworks, or key SDKs). |
| **10**| **Core** | **Essential project**—central to the ecosystem’s identity, functionality, or growth (e.g., core APIs). |

---

### Key Guidelines:
- **≤4**: Low significance (optional inclusion).
- **5–7**: Important but **not decisive**.
- **≥8**: Priority review—high strategic value.
- **0**: Automatic exclusion (ignore metrics).
- **1**: Track contributor activity **only**.

This scale emphasizes **user impact** (especially at low scores) and **functional centrality** (at high scores) to ensure consistent evaluation.