RepoTrust

Leaderboard github.com

521xueweihan/HelloGitHub

:octocat: 分享 GitHub 上有趣、入门级的开源项目。Share interesting, entry-level open source projects on GitHub.

  • View repository ↗
  • Python
  • ★ 188,826
  • commit d65699c2892f
  • scored 2026-11-14
  • scoring prov-5+qual-2+sec-2

AI provenance

0%

explicit

Confidence
95%
Coverage
100%

Estimated share of AI-generated code. Explicit attribution is a lower bound.

Code quality

48/100

poor

Confidence
90%
Coverage
100%

Complexity, duplication, lint density, tests, CI, docs and review process.

Security

79/100

adequate

Confidence
85%
Coverage
100%

Secrets, static analysis, vulnerable dependencies, CI and supply-chain posture.

Dispute or request a re-score Full report JSON RepoTrust ai badgeRepoTrust quality badgeRepoTrust security badge

AI provenance

0% explicit

Explicit AI attribution on 0% of first-party code added; an estimated 0% including velocity signals.

How the score is built

  • Explicitly attributed share0%
  • Unattributed share in AI-pace bursts0%
  • Estimated AI-generated share0%
  • AI tool configuration files0
  • Work sessions at AI pace0
  • Releases at AI pace0
  • Coding-style index (1.0+ means possible)0.00

Attributed AI tools

ToolCommitsLines addedFirst seenLast seen
Claude Code302026-10-312026-10-31

Lines added per month all AI-attributed share

  1. 2016-050 · 0% AI
  2. 2018-11313 · 0% AI
  3. 2018-120 · 0% AI
  4. 2019-010 · 0% AI
  5. 2019-020 · 0% AI
  6. 2019-030 · 0% AI
  7. 2019-040 · 0% AI
  8. 2019-050 · 0% AI
  9. 2019-060 · 0% AI
  10. 2019-070 · 0% AI
  11. 2019-080 · 0% AI
  12. 2019-090 · 0% AI
  13. 2019-100 · 0% AI
  14. 2019-110 · 0% AI
  15. 2019-120 · 0% AI
  16. 2020-010 · 0% AI
  17. 2020-020 · 0% AI
  18. 2020-030 · 0% AI
  19. 2020-040 · 0% AI
  20. 2020-050 · 0% AI
  21. 2020-060 · 0% AI
  22. 2020-070 · 0% AI
  23. 2020-080 · 0% AI
  24. 2020-090 · 0% AI
  25. 2020-100 · 0% AI
  26. 2020-110 · 0% AI
  27. 2020-120 · 0% AI
  28. 2021-010 · 0% AI
  29. 2021-020 · 0% AI
  30. 2021-030 · 0% AI
  31. 2021-040 · 0% AI
  32. 2021-050 · 0% AI
  33. 2021-060 · 0% AI
  34. 2021-070 · 0% AI
  35. 2021-080 · 0% AI
  36. 2021-090 · 0% AI
  37. 2021-100 · 0% AI
  38. 2021-110 · 0% AI
  39. 2021-120 · 0% AI
  40. 2022-010 · 0% AI
  41. 2022-020 · 0% AI
  42. 2022-030 · 0% AI
  43. 2022-040 · 0% AI
  44. 2022-050 · 0% AI
  45. 2022-060 · 0% AI
  46. 2022-070 · 0% AI
  47. 2022-080 · 0% AI
  48. 2022-090 · 0% AI
  49. 2022-100 · 0% AI
  50. 2022-110 · 0% AI
  51. 2022-120 · 0% AI
  52. 2023-010 · 0% AI
  53. 2023-020 · 0% AI
  54. 2023-030 · 0% AI
  55. 2023-040 · 0% AI
  56. 2023-050 · 0% AI
  57. 2023-060 · 0% AI
  58. 2023-070 · 0% AI
  59. 2023-080 · 0% AI
  60. 2023-090 · 0% AI
  61. 2023-100 · 0% AI
  62. 2023-110 · 0% AI
  63. 2023-120 · 0% AI
  64. 2024-010 · 0% AI
  65. 2024-020 · 0% AI
  66. 2024-030 · 0% AI
  67. 2024-040 · 0% AI
  68. 2024-050 · 0% AI
  69. 2024-060 · 0% AI
  70. 2024-070 · 0% AI
  71. 2024-080 · 0% AI
  72. 2024-090 · 0% AI
  73. 2024-100 · 0% AI
  74. 2024-110 · 0% AI
  75. 2024-120 · 0% AI
  76. 2025-010 · 0% AI
  77. 2025-020 · 0% AI
  78. 2025-030 · 0% AI
  79. 2025-040 · 0% AI
  80. 2025-050 · 0% AI
  81. 2025-060 · 0% AI
  82. 2025-070 · 0% AI
  83. 2025-080 · 0% AI
  84. 2025-090 · 0% AI
  85. 2025-100 · 0% AI
  86. 2025-110 · 0% AI
  87. 2025-120 · 0% AI
  88. 2026-010 · 0% AI
  89. 2026-020 · 0% AI
  90. 2026-030 · 0% AI
  91. 2026-040 · 0% AI
  92. 2026-050 · 0% AI
  93. 2026-060 · 0% AI
  94. 2026-070 · 0% AI
  95. 2026-080 · 0% AI
  96. 2026-090 · 0% AI
  97. 2026-100 · 0% AI

Findings in AI-attributed lines vs the rest

From git blame: 0 lines trace to AI-attributed commits, 313 to others. Too few lines in one group for a fair comparison. Reported, not scored.

Findings per 1,000 linesAI-attributedOtherRatio
Code quality—15.97—
Security—0.00—

Evidence by analyzer

Explicit AI attributionok4 items
attributed_commit_share
1.3%
attributed_commits
3
attributed_loc
0
attributed_loc_share
0.0%
commits
225
effective_loc
313
tools_detected
1
AI tool configurationok
artifacts
0
tools_configured
0
workflow_agents
0
Commit velocityok
excluded_import_loc
0
flagged_loc
0
flagged_loc_share
0.0%
flagged_units
0
max_loc_per_hour
78.25
measured_loc
313
median_loc_per_hour
78.25
pr_timed_units
0
pre_ai_era_burst_loc
0
pre_ai_era_bursts
0
pre_ai_era_measured_loc
313
work_units
1
Release velocityok
flagged_releases
0
max_loc_per_day
0
releases
62
Coding styleok
count:assistant_voice
0
count:emoji_in_code
0
count:narrated_steps
0
count:placeholder
0
files:assistant_voice
0
files:emoji_in_code
0
files:narrated_steps
0
files:placeholder
0
index
0
lines_scanned
313
per_kloc:assistant_voice
0
per_kloc:emoji_in_code
0
per_kloc:narrated_steps
0
per_kloc:placeholder
0
Findings in AI-written linesok
ai_lines
0
blame_failures
0
files_blamed
2
other_lines
313
quality:ai_findings
0
quality:other_findings
5
quality:other_per_kloc
15.97
security:ai_findings
0
security:other_findings
0
security:other_per_kloc
0

Code quality

48 poor

Code quality is poor: test-to-source ratio 0.00, no CI test run detected; 0% of function code in complex or long functions; 0% duplicated lines. Weakest area: testing.

How the score is built

  • Complexity100
  • Duplication100
  • Lint and smells29
  • Tests and CI0
  • Documentation40
  • Type safety40
  • Review process25

Evidence by analyzer

Complexity (lizard)ok
complex_functions
0
function_nloc
142
functions
15
long_functions
0
many_param_functions
0
mean_ccn
2.80
p90_ccn
5
risky_nloc_share
0.0%
Duplication (jscpd)ok
compared_lines
222
duplicated_lines
0
duplicated_share
0.0%
files
2
Lintok
category:best-practice
5
findings
5
scanned_lines
313
weighted_findings
5
Tests and CIok
check:ci_present
no
check:ci_runs_lint
no
check:ci_runs_tests
no
check:has_tests
no
check:test_ratio
no
check:tests_cochange
no
ci_files
0
cochange_commits
1
cochange_share
0.0%
source_lines
313
test_lines
0
test_ratio
0
Documentationok1 item
  • README.md README.md
check:changelog
no
check:contributing
no
check:license
no
check:readme
yes
readme_lines
72
Type safetyok
check:low_escape_density
yes
check:strict_config
no
escapes
0
escapes_per_kloc
0

Security

79 adequate

Security posture is adequate: no high-impact findings. Weakest area: posture.

How the score is built

  • Secrets100
  • Static analysis (SAST)100
  • Vulnerable dependencies100
  • CI workflowsnot measured
  • Security posture0
  • OpenSSF Scorecard25

Evidence by analyzer

OpenSSF Scorecardok9 items
aggregate
2.20
check:Binary-Artifacts
yes
check:Branch-Protection
no
check:CII-Best-Practices
no
check:Code-Review
no
check:Fuzzing
no
check:License
no
check:Maintained
yes
check:SAST
no
check:Security-Policy
no
Package registriesok
checked
1
declared
1
lookup_errors
0
missing
0
recent
0
Secrets (gitleaks)ok
secrets_current
0
secrets_history
0
secrets_low_confidence
0
secrets_nonprod
0
Static analysis (opengrep)ok
findings
0
findings_high
0
findings_low
0
findings_medium
0
parse_errors
0
scanned_lines
313
weighted_findings
0
Dependencies (osv-scanner)ok
penalty
0
vulnerabilities
0
vulnerable_packages
0
vulns_critical
0
vulns_high
0
vulns_low
0
vulns_medium
0
vulns_unknown
0
CI workflows (zizmor)skipped
Security postureok
check:dependency_updates
no
check:lockfiles
yes
check:security_policy
no
check:signed_commits
no
signed_commit_share
13.0%
unpinned_manifests
0
Release downloadsok
binary_assets
0
signals
0
suspicious
0

Findings

5 medium

SeverityRuleLocationMessageTool
medium opengrep/python.requests.best-practice.use-raise-for-status script/github_bot/github_bot.py:148 There's an HTTP request made with requests, but the raise_for_status() utility method isn't used. This can result in request errors going unnoticed and your code behaving in unexpected ways, such as if your authorization API returns a... Lint
medium opengrep/python.requests.best-practice.use-raise-for-status script/github_bot/github_bot.py:79 There's an HTTP request made with requests, but the raise_for_status() utility method isn't used. This can result in request errors going unnoticed and your code behaving in unexpected ways, such as if your authorization API returns a... Lint
medium opengrep/python.requests.best-practice.use-timeout script/github_bot/github_bot.py:79 Detected a 'requests' call without a timeout set. By default, 'requests' calls wait until the connection is closed. This means a 'requests' call without a timeout will hang the program if a response is never received. Consider setting a... Lint
medium opengrep/python.lang.best-practice.unspecified-open-encoding script/make_content/make_content.py:45 Missing 'encoding' parameter. 'open()' uses device locale encodings by default, corrupting files with special characters. Specify the encoding to ensure cross-platform support when opening files in text mode (e.g. encoding="utf-8"). Lint
medium opengrep/python.lang.best-practice.unspecified-open-encoding script/make_content/make_content.py:50 Missing 'encoding' parameter. 'open()' uses device locale encodings by default, corrupting files with special characters. Specify the encoding to ensure cross-platform support when opening files in text mode (e.g. encoding="utf-8"). Lint

Tools and coverage

Every analyzer that ran on this commit. A failed or skipped tool is a coverage gap: its share of the score is left out and the coverage figure drops.

AnalyzerPillarStatusVersionFindingsNote
AI tool configurationAI provenanceoksignatures-v10
Explicit AI attributionAI provenanceoksignatures-v10
Release velocityAI provenanceokprov-50
Coding styleAI provenanceok—0
Commit velocityAI provenanceokprov-50
Findings in AI-written linesAI provenanceokgit-blame0
Complexity (lizard)Code qualityoklizard 1.25.10
DocumentationCode qualityok—0
Duplication (jscpd)Code qualityokrepotrust-dup-w60
LintCode qualityokopengrep 1.33.1; rules f1d2b562b4145
Tests and CICode qualityok—0
Type safetyCode qualityok—0
CI workflows (zizmor)Securityskipped—0
Dependencies (osv-scanner)Securityokosv-scanner version: 2.7.10
Release downloadsSecurityok—0
Security postureSecurityok—0
Package registriesSecurityok—0
Static analysis (opengrep)Securityokopengrep 1.33.1; rules f1d2b562b4140
OpenSSF ScorecardSecurityokscorecard v5.6.00
Secrets (gitleaks)Securityokgitleaks 8.30.10

Score history

ScoredCommitScoringAI provenanceQualitySecurity
2026-11-14d65699c2892fprov-5+qual-2+sec-20%4879

Embed a badge

Maintainers can show these in a README. Badges update when the repository is re-scored.

[![RepoTrust ai](https://repotrust.synapticcyber.com/badge/github.com/521xueweihan/HelloGitHub/ai.svg)](https://repotrust.synapticcyber.com/r/github.com/521xueweihan/HelloGitHub/)
[![RepoTrust quality](https://repotrust.synapticcyber.com/badge/github.com/521xueweihan/HelloGitHub/quality.svg)](https://repotrust.synapticcyber.com/r/github.com/521xueweihan/HelloGitHub/)
[![RepoTrust security](https://repotrust.synapticcyber.com/badge/github.com/521xueweihan/HelloGitHub/security.svg)](https://repotrust.synapticcyber.com/r/github.com/521xueweihan/HelloGitHub/)
Full text report

Scores

Pillar Score Signal Confidence Coverage
AI provenance (estimated AI-generated share) 0 explicit 95% 100%
Code quality 48 poor 90% 100%
Security 79 adequate 85% 100%

AI provenance

Explicit AI attribution on 0% of first-party code added; an estimated 0% including velocity signals.

  • Explicitly attributed share (lower bound): 0.0%
  • Unattributed share in AI-consistent velocity bursts: 0.0%
  • Estimated AI-generated share: 0.0%
AI tool Attributed commits Lines added
Claude Code 3 0

Current source lines last changed by AI-attributed commits: 0 of 313.

Too few lines in one group to compare finding densities.

Month Lines added Attributed to AI
2018-11 313 0%

Evidence

  • Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude' (d65699c2892f)
  • Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude' (bb1661671e23)
  • Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude' (9823c5536b36)

AI provenance describes how code was produced; it is not a quality judgment. Unless attribution is explicit, these are signals consistent with AI generation, not proof. Squash/rebase workflows, imported code, and rewritten history reduce accuracy.

Code quality

Code quality is poor: test-to-source ratio 0.00, no CI test run detected; 0% of function code in complex or long functions; 0% duplicated lines. Weakest area: testing.

Area Score
Complexity (lizard) 100
Duplication 100
Code smells (Opengrep) 29
Tests and CI 0
Documentation 40
Type safety 40
Process (Scorecard review/maintenance) 25
  • Functions: 15; mean complexity 2.8, 90th percentile 5; 0 complex and 0 long functions
  • Duplicated lines: 0.0% of 222 compared
  • Tests: 0 test lines for 313 source lines (ratio 0.00); CI test commands: none detected; 0% of recent source commits also change tests
  • Docs missing or thin: license, contributing, changelog

Security

Security posture is adequate: no high-impact findings. Weakest area: posture.

Area Score
Secrets (gitleaks, tree + history) 100
Static analysis (Opengrep) 100
Vulnerable dependencies (OSV) 100
CI workflows (zizmor) n/a
Posture (policy, updates, signing, lockfiles) 0
OpenSSF Scorecard 25
  • Posture checks passed: lockfiles; missing: security policy, dependency updates, signed commits
  • OpenSSF Scorecard aggregate: 2.2/10 (published 2026-11-09)

Static signals only: the scorer never runs the project's code. Secret findings are pattern matches that were not verified, and secret values are never stored.

Repository profile

  • Source lines: 313; test lines: 0
Language Lines
Python 313