RepoTrust

Leaderboard github.com

AdrianVollmer/XTreeViewer

A blazing fast TUI (Terminal User Interface) application for viewing tree structures from serialized data files.

  • View repository ↗
  • Rust
  • ★ 0
  • commit 8450f4e545fb
  • scored 2026-11-14
  • scoring prov-5+qual-2+sec-2

unreviewed-ai-risk

AI provenance

85%

explicit

Confidence
87%
Coverage
100%

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

Code quality

63/100

weak

Confidence
90%
Coverage
100%

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

Security

77/100

adequate

Confidence
85%
Coverage
100%

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

AI provenance

85% explicit

Explicit AI attribution on 85% of first-party code added; an estimated 85% including velocity signals.

How the score is built

  • Explicitly attributed share85%
  • Unattributed share in AI-pace bursts0%
  • Estimated AI-generated share85%
  • AI tool configuration files0
  • Work sessions at AI pace1
  • Releases at AI pace0
  • Coding-style index (1.0+ means possible)0.00

Attributed AI tools

ToolCommitsLines addedFirst seenLast seen
Claude Code395,8092025-12-212026-01-15

Lines added per month all AI-attributed share

  1. 2025-126,697 · 85% AI
  2. 2026-01141 · 100% AI

Findings in AI-attributed lines vs the rest

From git blame: 5,000 lines trace to AI-attributed commits, 820 to others. Reported, not scored.

Findings per 1,000 linesAI-attributedOtherRatio
Code quality0.000.00—
Security0.000.00—

Evidence by analyzer

Explicit AI attributionok26 items
attributed_commit_share
56.5%
attributed_commits
39
attributed_loc
5,809
attributed_loc_share
85.0%
commits
69
effective_loc
6,838
tools_detected
1
AI tool configurationok
artifacts
0
tools_configured
0
workflow_agents
0
Commit velocityok1 item
excluded_import_loc
0
flagged_loc
1,346
flagged_loc_share
19.7%
flagged_units
1
max_loc_per_hour
549.57
measured_loc
6,838
median_loc_per_hour
153.63
pr_timed_units
0
pre_ai_era_burst_loc
0
pre_ai_era_bursts
0
pre_ai_era_measured_loc
0
work_units
13
Release velocityok
flagged_releases
0
max_loc_per_day
7.70
releases
2
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
5,820
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
5,000
blame_failures
0
files_blamed
20
other_lines
820
quality:ai_findings
0
quality:ai_per_kloc
0
quality:other_findings
0
quality:other_per_kloc
0
security:ai_findings
0
security:ai_per_kloc
0
security:other_findings
0
security:other_per_kloc
0

Code quality

63 weak

Code quality is weak: test-to-source ratio 0.04, no CI test run detected; 20% of function code in complex or long functions; 8% duplicated lines. Weakest area: testing.

How the score is built

  • Complexity55
  • Duplication63
  • Lint and smells100
  • Tests and CI42
  • Documentation80
  • Type safetynot measured
  • Review processnot measured

Evidence by analyzer

Complexity (lizard)ok8 items
complex_functions
8
function_nloc
3,372
functions
217
long_functions
2
many_param_functions
0
mean_ccn
3.42
p90_ccn
8
risky_nloc_share
20.1%
Duplication (jscpd)ok9 items
compared_lines
3,944
duplicated_lines
303
duplicated_share
7.7%
files
20
Lintok
findings
0
scanned_lines
5,820
weighted_findings
0
Tests and CIok1 item
  • CI config: .github/workflows/release.yml .github/workflows/release.yml
check:ci_present
yes
check:ci_runs_lint
no
check:ci_runs_tests
no
check:has_tests
yes
check:test_ratio
no
check:tests_cochange
no
ci_files
1
cochange_commits
43
cochange_share
11.6%
source_lines
5,820
test_lines
214
test_ratio
0.04
Documentationok3 items
  • README.md README.md
  • LICENSE LICENSE
  • CONTRIBUTING.md CONTRIBUTING.md
check:changelog
no
check:contributing
yes
check:license
yes
check:readme
yes
readme_lines
44
Type safetyskipped

Security

77 adequate

Security posture is adequate: 4 high-severity workflow issues. Weakest area: posture.

How the score is built

  • Secrets100
  • Static analysis (SAST)100
  • Vulnerable dependenciesnot measured
  • CI workflows44
  • Security posture20
  • OpenSSF Scorecardnot measured

Evidence by analyzer

OpenSSF Scorecardskipped

no published OpenSSF Scorecard result for this repo

Package registriesok
checked
18
declared
18
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
5,820
weighted_findings
0
Dependencies (osv-scanner)skipped
CI workflows (zizmor)ok
findings
6
findings_high
4
findings_low
1
findings_medium
1
penalty
49.20
workflows
1
Security postureok1 item
  • Cargo.toml has no lockfile alongside it (unpinned dependencies) Cargo.toml
check:dependency_updates
no
check:lockfiles
no
check:security_policy
no
check:signed_commits
yes
signed_commit_share
60.9%
unpinned_manifests
1
Release downloadsok5 items
binary_assets
16
signals
1
suspicious
0

Findings

4 high1 medium1 info

SeverityRuleLocationMessageTool
high zizmor/unpinned-uses .github/workflows/release.yml:49 unpinned action reference [confidence high] CI workflows (zizmor)
high zizmor/unpinned-uses .github/workflows/release.yml:50 unpinned action reference [confidence high] CI workflows (zizmor)
high zizmor/unpinned-uses .github/workflows/release.yml:80 unpinned action reference [confidence high] CI workflows (zizmor)
high zizmor/unpinned-uses .github/workflows/release.yml:87 unpinned action reference [confidence high] CI workflows (zizmor)
medium zizmor/artipacked .github/workflows/release.yml:49 credential persistence through GitHub Actions artifacts [confidence low] CI workflows (zizmor)
info zizmor/superfluous-actions .github/workflows/release.yml:87 action functionality is already included by the runner [confidence high] CI workflows (zizmor)

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-40
Coding styleAI provenanceok—0
Commit velocityAI provenanceokprov-40
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 f1d2b562b4140
Tests and CICode qualityok—0
Type safetyCode qualityskipped—0
CI workflows (zizmor)Securityokzizmor 1.32.06
Dependencies (osv-scanner)Securityskipped—0
Release downloadsSecurityok—0
Security postureSecurityok—0
Package registriesSecurityok—0
Static analysis (opengrep)Securityokopengrep 1.33.1; rules f1d2b562b4140
OpenSSF ScorecardSecurityskipped—0no published OpenSSF Scorecard result for this repo
Secrets (gitleaks)Securityokgitleaks 8.30.10

Score history

Scores from different scoring versions aren't directly comparable.

ScoredCommitScoringAI provenanceQualitySecurity
2026-11-148450f4e545fbprov-5+qual-2+sec-285%6377
2026-11-148450f4e545fbprov-4+qual-2+sec-285%6377

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

Scores

Unreviewed AI code risk: a large share of this code is explicitly AI-attributed, and its tests or review process are weak while quality or security scores are low.

Pillar Score Signal Confidence Coverage
AI provenance (estimated AI-generated share) 85 explicit 87% 100%
Code quality 63 weak 90% 100%
Security 77 adequate 85% 100%

AI provenance

Explicit AI attribution on 85% of first-party code added; an estimated 85% including velocity signals.

  • Explicitly attributed share (lower bound): 85.0%
  • Unattributed share in AI-consistent velocity bursts: 0.0%
  • Estimated AI-generated share: 85.0%
AI tool Attributed commits Lines added
Claude Code 39 5,809

Current source lines last changed by AI-attributed commits: 5,000 of 5,820.

Findings per 1,000 lines AI-attributed Other Ratio
Quality 0.0 0.0 n/a
Security 0.0 0.0 n/a
Month Lines added Attributed to AI
2025-12 6,697 85%
2026-01 141 100%

Evidence

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 weak: test-to-source ratio 0.04, no CI test run detected; 20% of function code in complex or long functions; 8% duplicated lines. Weakest area: testing.

Area Score
Complexity (lizard) 55
Duplication 63
Code smells (Opengrep) 100
Tests and CI 42
Documentation 80
Type safety n/a
Process (Scorecard review/maintenance) n/a
  • Functions: 217; mean complexity 3.4, 90th percentile 8; 8 complex and 2 long functions
  • Duplicated lines: 7.7% of 3,944 compared
  • Tests: 214 test lines for 5,820 source lines (ratio 0.04); CI test commands: none detected; 12% of recent source commits also change tests
  • Docs missing or thin: changelog

Most complex functions:

Security

Security posture is adequate: 4 high-severity workflow issues. Weakest area: posture.

Area Score
Secrets (gitleaks, tree + history) 100
Static analysis (Opengrep) 100
Vulnerable dependencies (OSV) n/a
CI workflows (zizmor) 44
Posture (policy, updates, signing, lockfiles) 20
OpenSSF Scorecard n/a
  • Posture checks passed: signed commits; missing: security policy, dependency updates, lockfiles

Top findings

Severity Finding Location
high zizmor/unpinned-uses: unpinned action reference [confidence high] .github/workflows/release.yml:49
high zizmor/unpinned-uses: unpinned action reference [confidence high] .github/workflows/release.yml:50
high zizmor/unpinned-uses: unpinned action reference [confidence high] .github/workflows/release.yml:80
high zizmor/unpinned-uses: unpinned action reference [confidence high] .github/workflows/release.yml:87
medium zizmor/artipacked: credential persistence through GitHub Actions artifacts [confidence low] .github/workflows/release.yml:49
info zizmor/superfluous-actions: action functionality is already included by the runner [confidence high] .github/workflows/release.yml:87

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.

Distribution signals

Signals consistent with a repository that exists to distribute a download. They are heuristics, not a verdict; release files were not downloaded or inspected.

Repository profile

  • Source lines: 5,820; test lines: 214
Language Lines
Rust 6,034