How do you grade open source work?

What things do you look at when evaluating student work on open source? I had to do this recently for an RIT team working on Sugar Labs Activities, and here's what I used:

the product. As someone trying to be a user (rather than a developer) of their code, can I get their code and run it? Does it work for me?
the project. How's the wiki page and supporting documentation? Who wrote what? Does it pass the FAILmeter? What was the project plan - were milestones deliberately planned for and hit (and adjusted over time), or was this more improvisational? What kind of reflection on the project process has taken place?
design. Since Sugar is an education project, it is important to the culture of the Sugar Labs community that all their work be designed to support learning - what kind of pedagogic thought has gone into this project? (In other communities, pedagogical design might be less important than something else, such as UI innovation, cross-platform compatibility, etc.)
developer docs. As someone who might pick up on the code and try to extend it, can I quickly figure out how to do that - to go from running it to pushing up a patch?
the code. Who wrote which code when, and what did it do?
mailing list archives. How did the team coordinate?
meeting logs. (I had logs from lurking in-channel for the quarter, so I simply used those.) Who spoke? How did they interact? Did they bring any people from the community other than their immediate team in?
blog posts. How did they present their work to an external audience? How did they phrase that conversation?

What am I missing? What's extraneous? What are cues you look for, or quick tools/commands/pages you use to get an overall gauge that you can use to dive in for more detail on areas you should pay more attention to - what do you use as "should look at this more closely because it might be interesting" flags? (For instance, Special:Contributions makes it easy to look at one student's wiki work.)