Is a bunch of commit history on GitHub enough to prove a project's reliability?

I now prefer to see it as a "thermometer" rather than a "certificate": to check if there are ongoing bug fixes, if there are external contributors, and if key changes are clearly explained.
Audit reports shouldn't be treated as a get-out-of-jail-free card; I mainly focus on the conclusion pages: what was changed, what wasn't, and whether any "known risks" were left.
Upgrading multi-signature setups is the most straightforward—simply put, "who can move your money," including the number of signatures required, thresholds, whether there's a delay, and emergency pause options.
The more transparent, the more at ease I feel.
Recently, the modular/DA narrative has hyped up developers, and it's normal for users to be confused…
I just use this simple method to slowly sift through, even if it’s slower.