Leaderboard github.com
Alamofire/Alamofire
Elegant HTTP Networking in Swift
AI provenance
0%
possible
- Confidence
- 65%
- Coverage
- 100%
Estimated share of AI-generated code. Explicit attribution is a lower bound.
Code quality
61/100
weak
- Confidence
- 90%
- Coverage
- 100%
Complexity, duplication, lint density, tests, CI, docs and review process.
Security
68/100
weak
- Confidence
- 85%
- Coverage
- 100%
Secrets, static analysis, vulnerable dependencies, CI and supply-chain posture.
AI provenance
0% possible
Weak signals consistent with AI-assisted development. 1 commit(s) carry explicit AI attribution, too few to characterize the codebase.
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)0.15
Attributed AI tools
| Tool | Commits | Lines added | First seen | Last seen |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Code | 1 | 0 | 2026-11-11 | 2026-11-11 |
Lines added per month all AI-attributed share
- 2014-071,495 · 0% AI
- 2014-081,148 · 0% AI
- 2014-091,826 · 0% AI
- 2014-10182 · 0% AI
- 2014-1150 · 0% AI
- 2014-12116 · 0% AI
- 2015-01166 · 0% AI
- 2015-02194 · 0% AI
- 2015-03117 · 0% AI
- 2015-04231 · 0% AI
- 2015-053,834 · 0% AI
- 2015-063,391 · 0% AI
- 2015-075,688 · 0% AI
- 2015-081,265 · 0% AI
- 2015-091,585 · 0% AI
- 2015-10325 · 0% AI
- 2015-1131 · 0% AI
- 2015-1270 · 0% AI
- 2016-0189 · 0% AI
- 2016-02963 · 0% AI
- 2016-03288 · 0% AI
- 2016-04394 · 0% AI
- 2016-05955 · 0% AI
- 2016-062,346 · 0% AI
- 2016-07856 · 0% AI
- 2016-086,274 · 0% AI
- 2016-097,390 · 0% AI
- 2016-10103 · 0% AI
- 2016-11807 · 0% AI
- 2016-1264 · 0% AI
- 2017-01437 · 0% AI
- 2017-02692 · 0% AI
- 2017-0310 · 0% AI
- 2017-048 · 0% AI
- 2017-052 · 0% AI
- 2017-06576 · 0% AI
- 2017-070 · 0% AI
- 2017-083,314 · 0% AI
- 2017-0973 · 0% AI
- 2017-102 · 0% AI
- 2017-11424 · 0% AI
- 2017-120 · 0% AI
- 2018-02152 · 0% AI
- 2018-03140 · 0% AI
- 2018-0411 · 0% AI
- 2018-060 · 0% AI
- 2018-0712 · 0% AI
- 2018-080 · 0% AI
- 2018-11175 · 0% AI
- 2018-128,603 · 0% AI
- 2019-011,972 · 0% AI
- 2019-021,016 · 0% AI
- 2019-032,980 · 0% AI
- 2019-041,134 · 0% AI
- 2019-05224 · 0% AI
- 2019-061,639 · 0% AI
- 2019-071,259 · 0% AI
- 2019-083,700 · 0% AI
- 2019-09587 · 0% AI
- 2019-10302 · 0% AI
- 2019-1116 · 0% AI
- 2019-1245 · 0% AI
- 2020-015 · 0% AI
- 2020-02102 · 0% AI
- 2020-031,253 · 0% AI
- 2020-041,760 · 0% AI
- 2020-053,547 · 0% AI
- 2020-06661 · 0% AI
- 2020-07192 · 0% AI
- 2020-08156 · 0% AI
- 2020-0975 · 0% AI
- 2020-10601 · 0% AI
- 2020-112 · 0% AI
- 2020-121 · 0% AI
- 2021-021,484 · 0% AI
- 2021-03154 · 0% AI
- 2021-0472 · 0% AI
- 2021-0586 · 0% AI
- 2021-06288 · 0% AI
- 2021-072 · 0% AI
- 2021-081 · 0% AI
- 2021-0923 · 0% AI
- 2021-101,198 · 0% AI
- 2021-11417 · 0% AI
- 2021-121,308 · 0% AI
- 2022-01128 · 0% AI
- 2022-0268 · 0% AI
- 2022-034 · 0% AI
- 2022-04110 · 0% AI
- 2022-051 · 0% AI
- 2022-06429 · 0% AI
- 2022-0712 · 0% AI
- 2022-1030 · 0% AI
- 2022-1129 · 0% AI
- 2022-12219 · 0% AI
- 2023-010 · 0% AI
- 2023-02273 · 0% AI
- 2023-03385 · 0% AI
- 2023-0552 · 0% AI
- 2023-0675 · 0% AI
- 2023-0727 · 0% AI
- 2023-081,080 · 0% AI
- 2023-09302 · 0% AI
- 2023-100 · 0% AI
- 2023-111,762 · 0% AI
- 2024-014,086 · 0% AI
- 2024-0213 · 0% AI
- 2024-0315 · 0% AI
- 2024-051 · 0% AI
- 2024-07110 · 0% AI
- 2024-080 · 0% AI
- 2024-09561 · 0% AI
- 2024-101,270 · 0% AI
- 2024-1126 · 0% AI
- 2025-010 · 0% AI
- 2025-050 · 0% AI
- 2025-090 · 0% AI
- 2025-101,958 · 0% AI
- 2025-114 · 0% AI
- 2025-122,525 · 0% AI
- 2026-01137 · 0% AI
- 2026-021 · 0% AI
- 2026-031 · 0% AI
- 2026-0440 · 0% AI
- 2026-051,965 · 0% AI
- 2026-060 · 0% AI
- 2026-070 · 0% AI
- 2026-09144 · 0% AI
- 2026-101 · 0% AI
- 2026-110 · 0% AI
Findings in AI-attributed lines vs the rest
From git blame: 0 lines trace to AI-attributed commits, 47,432 to others. Too few lines in one group for a fair comparison. Reported, not scored.
| Findings per 1,000 lines | AI-attributed | Other | Ratio |
|---|---|---|---|
| Code quality | — | 0.00 | — |
| Security | — | 0.84 | — |
Evidence by analyzer
Explicit AI attributionok2 items
- Claude Code: 1 attributed commits, 0 lines added
- Claude Code: trailer 'Co-authored-by: Claude'
- attributed_commit_share
- 0.1%
- attributed_commits
- 1
- attributed_loc
- 0
- attributed_loc_share
- 0.0%
- commits
- 1,530
- effective_loc
- 102,980
- tools_detected
- 1
AI tool configurationok
- artifacts
- 0
- tools_configured
- 0
- workflow_agents
- 0
Commit velocityok
- excluded_import_loc
- 12,645
- flagged_loc
- 0
- flagged_loc_share
- 0.0%
- flagged_units
- 0
- max_loc_per_hour
- 1,992
- measured_loc
- 90,335
- median_loc_per_hour
- 40.85
- pr_timed_units
- 312
- pre_ai_era_burst_loc
- 3,612
- pre_ai_era_bursts
- 2
- pre_ai_era_measured_loc
- 73,600
- work_units
- 661
Release velocityok
- flagged_releases
- 0
- max_loc_per_day
- 154,033.70
- releases
- 99
Coding styleok3 items
- step-by-step narration comment: // First, trigger a retry-path refresh that fails, putting interceptor into .failed state.
- step-by-step narration comment: // First, proactive refresh fails and the deferred request gets an adaptation error.
- step-by-step narration comment: // First, one successful refresh consumes the entire budget (maximumAttempts: 1).
- count:assistant_voice
- 0
- count:emoji_in_code
- 8
- count:narrated_steps
- 3
- count:placeholder
- 0
- files:assistant_voice
- 0
- files:emoji_in_code
- 5
- files:narrated_steps
- 1
- files:placeholder
- 0
- index
- 0.15
- lines_scanned
- 47,432
- per_kloc:assistant_voice
- 0
- per_kloc:emoji_in_code
- 0.17
- per_kloc:narrated_steps
- 0.06
- per_kloc:placeholder
- 0
Findings in AI-written linesok
- ai_lines
- 0
- blame_failures
- 0
- files_blamed
- 107
- other_lines
- 47,432
- quality:ai_findings
- 0
- quality:other_findings
- 0
- quality:other_per_kloc
- 0
- security:ai_findings
- 0
- security:other_findings
- 40
- security:other_per_kloc
- 0.84
Code quality
61 weak
Code quality is weak: test-to-source ratio 0.00, CI runs tests; 1% of function code in complex or long functions; 40% duplicated lines. Weakest area: duplication.
How the score is built
- Complexity98
- Duplication9
- Lint and smells100
- Tests and CI35
- Documentation100
- Type safetynot measured
- Review process35
Evidence by analyzer
Complexity (lizard)ok3 items
- string in Tests/TestHelpers.swift: complexity 26, 54 lines
- cURLDescription in Source/Core/Request.swift: complexity 23, 55 lines
- errorDescription in Source/Core/AFError.swift: complexity 18, 46 lines
- complex_functions
- 3
- function_nloc
- 27,382
- functions
- 2,872
- long_functions
- 0
- many_param_functions
- 19
- mean_ccn
- 1.74
- p90_ccn
- 3
- risky_nloc_share
- 0.6%
Duplication (jscpd)ok10 items
- 6+ duplicated lines: Example/Source/AppDelegate.swift:4 and Example/Source/DetailViewController.swift:4
- 6+ duplicated lines: Package.swift:5 and [email protected]:5
- 6+ duplicated lines: Package.swift:19 and [email protected]:19
- 6+ duplicated lines: [email protected]:5 and Tests/InternalHelpers.swift:4
- 6+ duplicated lines: [email protected]:20 and [email protected]:20
- 6+ duplicated lines: [email protected]:3 and [email protected]:3
- 6+ duplicated lines: Source/Core/AFError.swift:18 and Source/Features/ServerTrustEvaluation.swift:18
- 6+ duplicated lines: Source/Core/AFError.swift:625 and Source/Core/AFError.swift:645
- 6+ duplicated lines: Source/Core/DataRequest.swift:4 and Source/Core/DataStreamRequest.swift:4
- 6+ duplicated lines: Source/Core/DataRequest.swift:66 and Source/Core/DownloadRequest.swift:163
- compared_lines
- 33,527
- duplicated_lines
- 13,468
- duplicated_share
- 40.2%
- files
- 107
Lintok
- findings
- 0
- scanned_lines
- 47,432
- weighted_findings
- 0
Tests and CIok2 items
- CI config: .github/workflows/ci.yml
.github/workflows/ci.yml - CI runs tests (swift test)
- check:ci_present
- yes
- check:ci_runs_lint
- no
- check:ci_runs_tests
- yes
- check:has_tests
- no
- check:test_ratio
- no
- check:tests_cochange
- no
- ci_files
- 1
- cochange_commits
- 198
- cochange_share
- 0.0%
- source_lines
- 47,432
- test_lines
- 0
- test_ratio
- 0
Documentationok4 items
- README.md
README.md - LICENSE
LICENSE - CONTRIBUTING.md
CONTRIBUTING.md - CHANGELOG.md
CHANGELOG.md
- check:changelog
- yes
- check:contributing
- yes
- check:license
- yes
- check:readme
- yes
- readme_lines
- 193
Type safetyskipped
Security
68 weak
Security posture is weak: 1 known vulnerabilities in 1 dependencies; 21 high-severity workflow issues. Weakest area: ci actions.
How the score is built
- Secrets100
- Static analysis (SAST)93
- Vulnerable dependencies88
- CI workflows1
- Security posture20
- OpenSSF Scorecard47
Evidence by analyzer
OpenSSF Scorecardok11 items
- Scorecard Code-Review: 2/10 (Found 5/24 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2)
- Scorecard Dangerous-Workflow: 10/10 (no dangerous workflow patterns detected)
- Scorecard Maintained: 5/10 (6 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 5)
- Scorecard Token-Permissions: 0/10 (detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions)
- Scorecard Binary-Artifacts: 10/10 (no binaries found in the repo)
- Scorecard CII-Best-Practices: 0/10 (no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected)
- Scorecard Pinned-Dependencies: 0/10 (dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0)
- Scorecard Security-Policy: 0/10 (security policy file not detected)
- Scorecard Fuzzing: 0/10 (project is not fuzzed)
- Scorecard License: 10/10 (license file detected)
- Scorecard SAST: 8/10 (SAST tool detected but not run on all commits)
- aggregate
- 4.50
- check:Binary-Artifacts
- yes
- check:CII-Best-Practices
- no
- check:Code-Review
- yes
- check:Dangerous-Workflow
- yes
- check:Fuzzing
- no
- check:License
- yes
- check:Maintained
- yes
- check:Pinned-Dependencies
- no
- check:SAST
- yes
- check:Security-Policy
- no
- check:Token-Permissions
- no
Package registriesskipped
no registry dependencies declared
Secrets (gitleaks)ok
- secrets_current
- 0
- secrets_history
- 0
- secrets_low_confidence
- 0
- secrets_nonprod
- 0
Static analysis (opengrep)ok
- findings
- 40
- findings_high
- 0
- findings_low
- 0
- findings_medium
- 40
- parse_errors
- 1
- scanned_lines
- 47,432
- weighted_findings
- 10
Dependencies (osv-scanner)ok
- penalty
- 8
- vulnerabilities
- 1
- vulnerable_packages
- 1
- vulns_critical
- 0
- vulns_high
- 1
- vulns_low
- 0
- vulns_medium
- 0
- vulns_unknown
- 0
CI workflows (zizmor)ok
- findings
- 44
- findings_high
- 21
- findings_low
- 11
- findings_medium
- 12
- penalty
- 284.10
- workflows
- 1
Security postureok
- check:dependency_updates
- no
- check:lockfiles
- yes
- check:security_policy
- no
- check:signed_commits
- yes
- signed_commit_share
- 100.0%
- unpinned_manifests
- 0
Release downloadsok1 item
- gives an archive password
README.md
- binary_assets
- 0
- signals
- 1
- suspicious
- 0
Findings
22 high52 medium11 low
85 findings
| Severity | Rule | Location | Message | Tool |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| high | zizmor/unpinned-uses |
.github/workflows/ci.yml:129 | unpinned action reference [confidence high] | CI workflows (zizmor) |
| high | zizmor/unpinned-uses |
.github/workflows/ci.yml:135 | unpinned action reference [confidence high] | CI workflows (zizmor) |
| high | zizmor/unpinned-uses |
.github/workflows/ci.yml:207 | unpinned action reference [confidence high] | CI workflows (zizmor) |
| high | zizmor/unpinned-uses |
.github/workflows/ci.yml:213 | unpinned action reference [confidence high] | CI workflows (zizmor) |
| high | zizmor/unpinned-uses |
.github/workflows/ci.yml:269 | unpinned action reference [confidence high] | CI workflows (zizmor) |
| high | zizmor/unpinned-uses |
.github/workflows/ci.yml:275 | unpinned action reference [confidence high] | CI workflows (zizmor) |
| high | zizmor/unpinned-uses |
.github/workflows/ci.yml:335 | unpinned action reference [confidence high] | CI workflows (zizmor) |
| high | zizmor/unpinned-uses |
.github/workflows/ci.yml:341 | unpinned action reference [confidence high] | CI workflows (zizmor) |
| high | zizmor/unpinned-uses |
.github/workflows/ci.yml:401 | unpinned action reference [confidence high] | CI workflows (zizmor) |
| high | zizmor/unpinned-uses |
.github/workflows/ci.yml:407 | unpinned action reference [confidence high] | CI workflows (zizmor) |
| high | zizmor/unpinned-uses |
.github/workflows/ci.yml:459 | unpinned action reference [confidence high] | CI workflows (zizmor) |
| high | zizmor/unpinned-uses |
.github/workflows/ci.yml:491 | unpinned action reference [confidence high] | CI workflows (zizmor) |
| high | zizmor/unpinned-uses |
.github/workflows/ci.yml:504 | unpinned action reference [confidence high] | CI workflows (zizmor) |
| high | zizmor/unpinned-uses |
.github/workflows/ci.yml:509 | unpinned action reference [confidence high] | CI workflows (zizmor) |
| high | zizmor/unpinned-uses |
.github/workflows/ci.yml:535 | unpinned action reference [confidence high] | CI workflows (zizmor) |
| high | zizmor/unpinned-uses |
.github/workflows/ci.yml:540 | unpinned action reference [confidence high] | CI workflows (zizmor) |
| high | zizmor/unpinned-uses |
.github/workflows/ci.yml:552 | unpinned action reference [confidence high] | CI workflows (zizmor) |
| high | zizmor/unpinned-uses |
.github/workflows/ci.yml:554 | unpinned action reference [confidence high] | CI workflows (zizmor) |
| high | zizmor/unpinned-uses |
.github/workflows/ci.yml:560 | unpinned action reference [confidence high] | CI workflows (zizmor) |
| high | zizmor/unpinned-uses |
.github/workflows/ci.yml:71 | unpinned action reference [confidence high] | CI workflows (zizmor) |
| high | zizmor/unpinned-uses |
.github/workflows/ci.yml:77 | unpinned action reference [confidence high] | CI workflows (zizmor) |
| high | osv/GHSA-8474-xrp6-wh69 |
Gemfile.lock | [email protected] (RubyGems) is affected by GHSA-8474-xrp6-wh69 | Dependencies (osv-scanner) |
| medium | zizmor/excessive-permissions |
.github/workflows/ci.yml:1 | overly broad permissions [confidence medium] | CI workflows (zizmor) |
| medium | zizmor/excessive-permissions |
.github/workflows/ci.yml:140 | overly broad permissions [confidence medium] | CI workflows (zizmor) |
| medium | zizmor/excessive-permissions |
.github/workflows/ci.yml:218 | overly broad permissions [confidence medium] | CI workflows (zizmor) |
| medium | zizmor/excessive-permissions |
.github/workflows/ci.yml:24 | overly broad permissions [confidence medium] | CI workflows (zizmor) |
| medium | zizmor/excessive-permissions |
.github/workflows/ci.yml:280 | overly broad permissions [confidence medium] | CI workflows (zizmor) |
| medium | zizmor/excessive-permissions |
.github/workflows/ci.yml:346 | overly broad permissions [confidence medium] | CI workflows (zizmor) |
| medium | zizmor/excessive-permissions |
.github/workflows/ci.yml:412 | overly broad permissions [confidence medium] | CI workflows (zizmor) |
| medium | zizmor/excessive-permissions |
.github/workflows/ci.yml:464 | overly broad permissions [confidence medium] | CI workflows (zizmor) |
| medium | zizmor/excessive-permissions |
.github/workflows/ci.yml:497 | overly broad permissions [confidence medium] | CI workflows (zizmor) |
| medium | zizmor/excessive-permissions |
.github/workflows/ci.yml:513 | overly broad permissions [confidence medium] | CI workflows (zizmor) |
| medium | zizmor/excessive-permissions |
.github/workflows/ci.yml:544 | overly broad permissions [confidence medium] | CI workflows (zizmor) |
| medium | zizmor/excessive-permissions |
.github/workflows/ci.yml:82 | overly broad permissions [confidence medium] | CI workflows (zizmor) |
| medium | opengrep/javascript.jquery.security.audit.jquery-insecure-selector |
docs/docsets/Alamofire.docset/Contents/Resources/Documents/js/jazzy.js:30 | User controlled data in a `$(...)` is an anti-pattern that can lead to XSS vulnerabilities [confidence low] | Static analysis (opengrep) |
| medium | opengrep/javascript.jquery.security.audit.jquery-insecure-selector |
docs/docsets/Alamofire.docset/Contents/Resources/Documents/js/typeahead.jquery.js:1480 | User controlled data in a `$(...)` is an anti-pattern that can lead to XSS vulnerabilities [confidence low] | Static analysis (opengrep) |
| medium | opengrep/javascript.jquery.security.audit.jquery-insecure-selector |
docs/docsets/Alamofire.docset/Contents/Resources/Documents/js/typeahead.jquery.js:1486 | User controlled data in a `$(...)` is an anti-pattern that can lead to XSS vulnerabilities [confidence low] | Static analysis (opengrep) |
| medium | opengrep/javascript.jquery.security.audit.jquery-insecure-selector |
docs/docsets/Alamofire.docset/Contents/Resources/Documents/js/typeahead.jquery.js:1580 | User controlled data in a `$(...)` is an anti-pattern that can lead to XSS vulnerabilities [confidence low] | Static analysis (opengrep) |
| medium | opengrep/javascript.jquery.security.audit.jquery-insecure-selector |
docs/docsets/Alamofire.docset/Contents/Resources/Documents/js/typeahead.jquery.js:1587 | User controlled data in a `$(...)` is an anti-pattern that can lead to XSS vulnerabilities [confidence low] | Static analysis (opengrep) |
| medium | opengrep/javascript.jquery.security.audit.jquery-insecure-selector |
docs/docsets/Alamofire.docset/Contents/Resources/Documents/js/typeahead.jquery.js:1691 | User controlled data in a `$(...)` is an anti-pattern that can lead to XSS vulnerabilities [confidence low] | Static analysis (opengrep) |
| medium | opengrep/javascript.jquery.security.audit.jquery-insecure-selector |
docs/docsets/Alamofire.docset/Contents/Resources/Documents/js/typeahead.jquery.js:271 | User controlled data in a `$(...)` is an anti-pattern that can lead to XSS vulnerabilities [confidence low] | Static analysis (opengrep) |
| medium | opengrep/javascript.jquery.security.audit.jquery-insecure-selector |
docs/docsets/Alamofire.docset/Contents/Resources/Documents/js/typeahead.jquery.js:492 | User controlled data in a `$(...)` is an anti-pattern that can lead to XSS vulnerabilities [confidence low] | Static analysis (opengrep) |
| medium | opengrep/javascript.jquery.security.audit.jquery-insecure-selector |
docs/docsets/Alamofire.docset/Contents/Resources/Documents/js/typeahead.jquery.js:493 | User controlled data in a `$(...)` is an anti-pattern that can lead to XSS vulnerabilities [confidence low] | Static analysis (opengrep) |
| medium | opengrep/javascript.jquery.security.audit.jquery-insecure-selector |
docs/docsets/Alamofire.docset/Contents/Resources/Documents/js/typeahead.jquery.js:494 | User controlled data in a `$(...)` is an anti-pattern that can lead to XSS vulnerabilities [confidence low] | Static analysis (opengrep) |
| medium | opengrep/javascript.jquery.security.audit.jquery-insecure-selector |
docs/docsets/Alamofire.docset/Contents/Resources/Documents/js/typeahead.jquery.js:740 | User controlled data in a `$(...)` is an anti-pattern that can lead to XSS vulnerabilities [confidence low] | Static analysis (opengrep) |
| medium | opengrep/javascript.jquery.security.audit.jquery-insecure-selector |
docs/docsets/Alamofire.docset/Contents/Resources/Documents/js/typeahead.jquery.js:743 | User controlled data in a `$(...)` is an anti-pattern that can lead to XSS vulnerabilities [confidence low] | Static analysis (opengrep) |
| medium | opengrep/javascript.jquery.security.audit.prohibit-jquery-html |
docs/docsets/Alamofire.docset/Contents/Resources/Documents/js/typeahead.jquery.js:782 | JQuery's `html` function is susceptible to Cross Site Scripting (XSS) attacks. If you're just passing text, consider `text` instead. Otherwise, use a function that escapes HTML such as edX's `HtmlUtils.setHtml()`. [confidence low] | Static analysis (opengrep) |
| medium | opengrep/javascript.jquery.security.audit.prohibit-jquery-html |
docs/docsets/Alamofire.docset/Contents/Resources/Documents/js/typeahead.jquery.js:794 | JQuery's `html` function is susceptible to Cross Site Scripting (XSS) attacks. If you're just passing text, consider `text` instead. Otherwise, use a function that escapes HTML such as edX's `HtmlUtils.setHtml()`. [confidence low] | Static analysis (opengrep) |
| medium | opengrep/javascript.jquery.security.audit.prohibit-jquery-html |
docs/docsets/Alamofire.docset/Contents/Resources/Documents/js/typeahead.jquery.js:802 | JQuery's `html` function is susceptible to Cross Site Scripting (XSS) attacks. If you're just passing text, consider `text` instead. Otherwise, use a function that escapes HTML such as edX's `HtmlUtils.setHtml()`. [confidence low] | Static analysis (opengrep) |
| medium | opengrep/javascript.jquery.security.audit.jquery-insecure-selector |
docs/docsets/Alamofire.docset/Contents/Resources/Documents/js/typeahead.jquery.js:817 | User controlled data in a `$(...)` is an anti-pattern that can lead to XSS vulnerabilities [confidence low] | Static analysis (opengrep) |
| medium | opengrep/javascript.jquery.security.audit.jquery-insecure-selector |
docs/docsets/Alamofire.docset/Contents/Resources/Documents/js/typeahead.jquery.js:913 | User controlled data in a `$(...)` is an anti-pattern that can lead to XSS vulnerabilities [confidence low] | Static analysis (opengrep) |
| medium | opengrep/javascript.jquery.security.audit.jquery-insecure-selector |
docs/docsets/Alamofire.docset/Contents/Resources/Documents/js/typeahead.jquery.js:913 | User controlled data in a `$(...)` is an anti-pattern that can lead to XSS vulnerabilities [confidence low] | Static analysis (opengrep) |
| medium | opengrep/javascript.jquery.security.audit.jquery-insecure-selector |
docs/docsets/Alamofire.docset/Contents/Resources/Documents/js/typeahead.jquery.js:932 | User controlled data in a `$(...)` is an anti-pattern that can lead to XSS vulnerabilities [confidence low] | Static analysis (opengrep) |
| medium | opengrep/javascript.jquery.security.audit.jquery-insecure-selector |
docs/docsets/Alamofire.docset/Contents/Resources/Documents/js/typeahead.jquery.js:943 | User controlled data in a `$(...)` is an anti-pattern that can lead to XSS vulnerabilities [confidence low] | Static analysis (opengrep) |
| medium | opengrep/javascript.jquery.security.audit.jquery-insecure-selector |
docs/js/jazzy.js:30 | User controlled data in a `$(...)` is an anti-pattern that can lead to XSS vulnerabilities [confidence low] | Static analysis (opengrep) |
| medium | opengrep/javascript.jquery.security.audit.jquery-insecure-selector |
docs/js/typeahead.jquery.js:1480 | User controlled data in a `$(...)` is an anti-pattern that can lead to XSS vulnerabilities [confidence low] | Static analysis (opengrep) |
| medium | opengrep/javascript.jquery.security.audit.jquery-insecure-selector |
docs/js/typeahead.jquery.js:1486 | User controlled data in a `$(...)` is an anti-pattern that can lead to XSS vulnerabilities [confidence low] | Static analysis (opengrep) |
| medium | opengrep/javascript.jquery.security.audit.jquery-insecure-selector |
docs/js/typeahead.jquery.js:1580 | User controlled data in a `$(...)` is an anti-pattern that can lead to XSS vulnerabilities [confidence low] | Static analysis (opengrep) |
| medium | opengrep/javascript.jquery.security.audit.jquery-insecure-selector |
docs/js/typeahead.jquery.js:1587 | User controlled data in a `$(...)` is an anti-pattern that can lead to XSS vulnerabilities [confidence low] | Static analysis (opengrep) |
| medium | opengrep/javascript.jquery.security.audit.jquery-insecure-selector |
docs/js/typeahead.jquery.js:1691 | User controlled data in a `$(...)` is an anti-pattern that can lead to XSS vulnerabilities [confidence low] | Static analysis (opengrep) |
| medium | opengrep/javascript.jquery.security.audit.jquery-insecure-selector |
docs/js/typeahead.jquery.js:271 | User controlled data in a `$(...)` is an anti-pattern that can lead to XSS vulnerabilities [confidence low] | Static analysis (opengrep) |
| medium | opengrep/javascript.jquery.security.audit.jquery-insecure-selector |
docs/js/typeahead.jquery.js:492 | User controlled data in a `$(...)` is an anti-pattern that can lead to XSS vulnerabilities [confidence low] | Static analysis (opengrep) |
| medium | opengrep/javascript.jquery.security.audit.jquery-insecure-selector |
docs/js/typeahead.jquery.js:493 | User controlled data in a `$(...)` is an anti-pattern that can lead to XSS vulnerabilities [confidence low] | Static analysis (opengrep) |
| medium | opengrep/javascript.jquery.security.audit.jquery-insecure-selector |
docs/js/typeahead.jquery.js:494 | User controlled data in a `$(...)` is an anti-pattern that can lead to XSS vulnerabilities [confidence low] | Static analysis (opengrep) |
| medium | opengrep/javascript.jquery.security.audit.jquery-insecure-selector |
docs/js/typeahead.jquery.js:740 | User controlled data in a `$(...)` is an anti-pattern that can lead to XSS vulnerabilities [confidence low] | Static analysis (opengrep) |
| medium | opengrep/javascript.jquery.security.audit.jquery-insecure-selector |
docs/js/typeahead.jquery.js:743 | User controlled data in a `$(...)` is an anti-pattern that can lead to XSS vulnerabilities [confidence low] | Static analysis (opengrep) |
| medium | opengrep/javascript.jquery.security.audit.prohibit-jquery-html |
docs/js/typeahead.jquery.js:782 | JQuery's `html` function is susceptible to Cross Site Scripting (XSS) attacks. If you're just passing text, consider `text` instead. Otherwise, use a function that escapes HTML such as edX's `HtmlUtils.setHtml()`. [confidence low] | Static analysis (opengrep) |
| medium | opengrep/javascript.jquery.security.audit.prohibit-jquery-html |
docs/js/typeahead.jquery.js:794 | JQuery's `html` function is susceptible to Cross Site Scripting (XSS) attacks. If you're just passing text, consider `text` instead. Otherwise, use a function that escapes HTML such as edX's `HtmlUtils.setHtml()`. [confidence low] | Static analysis (opengrep) |
| medium | opengrep/javascript.jquery.security.audit.prohibit-jquery-html |
docs/js/typeahead.jquery.js:802 | JQuery's `html` function is susceptible to Cross Site Scripting (XSS) attacks. If you're just passing text, consider `text` instead. Otherwise, use a function that escapes HTML such as edX's `HtmlUtils.setHtml()`. [confidence low] | Static analysis (opengrep) |
| medium | opengrep/javascript.jquery.security.audit.jquery-insecure-selector |
docs/js/typeahead.jquery.js:817 | User controlled data in a `$(...)` is an anti-pattern that can lead to XSS vulnerabilities [confidence low] | Static analysis (opengrep) |
| medium | opengrep/javascript.jquery.security.audit.jquery-insecure-selector |
docs/js/typeahead.jquery.js:913 | User controlled data in a `$(...)` is an anti-pattern that can lead to XSS vulnerabilities [confidence low] | Static analysis (opengrep) |
| medium | opengrep/javascript.jquery.security.audit.jquery-insecure-selector |
docs/js/typeahead.jquery.js:913 | User controlled data in a `$(...)` is an anti-pattern that can lead to XSS vulnerabilities [confidence low] | Static analysis (opengrep) |
| medium | opengrep/javascript.jquery.security.audit.jquery-insecure-selector |
docs/js/typeahead.jquery.js:932 | User controlled data in a `$(...)` is an anti-pattern that can lead to XSS vulnerabilities [confidence low] | Static analysis (opengrep) |
| medium | opengrep/javascript.jquery.security.audit.jquery-insecure-selector |
docs/js/typeahead.jquery.js:943 | User controlled data in a `$(...)` is an anti-pattern that can lead to XSS vulnerabilities [confidence low] | Static analysis (opengrep) |
| low | zizmor/artipacked |
.github/workflows/ci.yml:129 | credential persistence through GitHub Actions artifacts [confidence low] | CI workflows (zizmor) |
| low | zizmor/artipacked |
.github/workflows/ci.yml:207 | credential persistence through GitHub Actions artifacts [confidence low] | CI workflows (zizmor) |
| low | zizmor/artipacked |
.github/workflows/ci.yml:269 | credential persistence through GitHub Actions artifacts [confidence low] | CI workflows (zizmor) |
| low | zizmor/artipacked |
.github/workflows/ci.yml:335 | credential persistence through GitHub Actions artifacts [confidence low] | CI workflows (zizmor) |
| low | zizmor/artipacked |
.github/workflows/ci.yml:401 | credential persistence through GitHub Actions artifacts [confidence low] | CI workflows (zizmor) |
| low | zizmor/artipacked |
.github/workflows/ci.yml:459 | credential persistence through GitHub Actions artifacts [confidence low] | CI workflows (zizmor) |
| low | zizmor/artipacked |
.github/workflows/ci.yml:491 | credential persistence through GitHub Actions artifacts [confidence low] | CI workflows (zizmor) |
| low | zizmor/artipacked |
.github/workflows/ci.yml:503 | credential persistence through GitHub Actions artifacts [confidence low] | CI workflows (zizmor) |
| low | zizmor/artipacked |
.github/workflows/ci.yml:539 | credential persistence through GitHub Actions artifacts [confidence low] | CI workflows (zizmor) |
| low | zizmor/artipacked |
.github/workflows/ci.yml:551 | credential persistence through GitHub Actions artifacts [confidence low] | CI workflows (zizmor) |
| low | zizmor/artipacked |
.github/workflows/ci.yml:71 | credential persistence through GitHub Actions artifacts [confidence low] | 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.
| Analyzer | Pillar | Status | Version | Findings | Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AI tool configuration | AI provenance | ok | signatures-v1 | 0 | |
| Explicit AI attribution | AI provenance | ok | signatures-v1 | 0 | |
| Release velocity | AI provenance | ok | prov-5 | 0 | |
| Coding style | AI provenance | ok | — | 0 | |
| Commit velocity | AI provenance | ok | prov-5 | 0 | |
| Findings in AI-written lines | AI provenance | ok | git-blame | 0 | |
| Complexity (lizard) | Code quality | ok | lizard 1.25.1 | 0 | |
| Documentation | Code quality | ok | — | 0 | |
| Duplication (jscpd) | Code quality | ok | repotrust-dup-w6 | 0 | |
| Lint | Code quality | ok | opengrep 1.33.1; rules f1d2b562b414 | 0 | |
| Tests and CI | Code quality | ok | — | 0 | |
| Type safety | Code quality | skipped | — | 0 | |
| CI workflows (zizmor) | Security | ok | zizmor 1.32.0 | 44 | |
| Dependencies (osv-scanner) | Security | ok | osv-scanner version: 2.7.1 | 1 | |
| Release downloads | Security | ok | — | 0 | |
| Security posture | Security | ok | — | 0 | |
| Package registries | Security | skipped | — | 0 | no registry dependencies declared |
| Static analysis (opengrep) | Security | ok | opengrep 1.33.1; rules f1d2b562b414 | 40 | |
| OpenSSF Scorecard | Security | ok | scorecard v5.6.0 | 0 | |
| Secrets (gitleaks) | Security | ok | gitleaks 8.30.1 | 0 |
Score history
| Scored | Commit | Scoring | AI provenance | Quality | Security |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-11-14 | dea4bab91767 | prov-5+qual-2+sec-2 | 0% | 61 | 68 |
Full text report
- Repository: https://github.com/Alamofire/Alamofire
- Commit:
dea4bab91767a971d6e112bc955c6a82295589b7 - Generated: 2026-11-14T15:13:05+00:00
- Scorer 0.1.0, scoring prov-5+qual-2+sec-2, report schema v2
Scores
| Pillar | Score | Signal | Confidence | Coverage |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| AI provenance (estimated AI-generated share) | 0 | possible | 65% | 100% |
| Code quality | 61 | weak | 90% | 100% |
| Security | 68 | weak | 85% | 100% |
AI provenance
Weak signals consistent with AI-assisted development. 1 commit(s) carry explicit AI attribution, too few to characterize the codebase.
- 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 | 1 | 0 |
Current source lines last changed by AI-attributed commits: 0 of 47,432.
Too few lines in one group to compare finding densities.
- Stylometry index: 0.15 per 1,000 lines (narrated steps 3, placeholders 0, assistant phrasing 0, emoji 8). Reported as a signal, not scored.
| Month | Lines added | Attributed to AI |
|---|---|---|
| 2024-10 | 1,270 | 0% |
| 2024-11 | 26 | 0% |
| 2025-10 | 1,958 | 0% |
| 2025-11 | 4 | 0% |
| 2025-12 | 2,525 | 0% |
| 2026-01 | 137 | 0% |
| 2026-02 | 1 | 0% |
| 2026-03 | 1 | 0% |
| 2026-04 | 40 | 0% |
| 2026-05 | 1,965 | 0% |
| 2026-09 | 144 | 0% |
| 2026-10 | 1 | 0% |
Evidence
- Claude Code: trailer 'Co-authored-by: Claude' (b3e74e8301cc)
- step-by-step narration comment: // First, trigger a retry-path refresh that fails, putting interceptor into .failed state. (Tests/Authen)
- step-by-step narration comment: // First, proactive refresh fails and the deferred request gets an adaptation error. (Tests/Authen)
- step-by-step narration comment: // First, one successful refresh consumes the entire budget (maximumAttempts: 1). (Tests/Authen)
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 0.00, CI runs tests; 1% of function code in complex or long functions; 40% duplicated lines. Weakest area: duplication.
| Area | Score |
|---|---|
| Complexity (lizard) | 98 |
| Duplication | 9 |
| Code smells (Opengrep) | 100 |
| Tests and CI | 35 |
| Documentation | 100 |
| Type safety | n/a |
| Process (Scorecard review/maintenance) | 35 |
- Functions: 2,872; mean complexity 1.7, 90th percentile 3; 3 complex and 0 long functions
- Duplicated lines: 40.2% of 33,527 compared
- Tests: 0 test lines for 47,432 source lines (ratio 0.00); CI test commands: swift test; 0% of recent source commits also change tests
- Docs missing or thin: none
Most complex functions:
- string in Tests/TestHelpers.swift: complexity 26, 54 lines
- cURLDescription in Source/Core/Request.swift: complexity 23, 55 lines
- errorDescription in Source/Core/AFError.swift: complexity 18, 46 lines
Security
Security posture is weak: 1 known vulnerabilities in 1 dependencies; 21 high-severity workflow issues. Weakest area: ci actions.
| Area | Score |
|---|---|
| Secrets (gitleaks, tree + history) | 100 |
| Static analysis (Opengrep) | 93 |
| Vulnerable dependencies (OSV) | 88 |
| CI workflows (zizmor) | 1 |
| Posture (policy, updates, signing, lockfiles) | 20 |
| OpenSSF Scorecard | 47 |
-
Known vulnerabilities: 1 in 1 packages (critical 0, high 1, medium 0, low 0)
-
Posture checks passed: signed commits, lockfiles; missing: security policy, dependency updates
-
OpenSSF Scorecard aggregate: 4.5/10 (published 2026-11-09)
Top findings
| Severity | Finding | Location |
|---|---|---|
| high | osv/GHSA-8474-xrp6-wh69: [email protected] (RubyGems) is affected by GHSA-8474-xrp6-wh69 |
Gemfile.lock |
| high | zizmor/unpinned-uses: unpinned action reference [confidence high] |
.github/workflows/ci.yml:71 |
| high | zizmor/unpinned-uses: unpinned action reference [confidence high] |
.github/workflows/ci.yml:77 |
| high | zizmor/unpinned-uses: unpinned action reference [confidence high] |
.github/workflows/ci.yml:129 |
| high | zizmor/unpinned-uses: unpinned action reference [confidence high] |
.github/workflows/ci.yml:135 |
| high | zizmor/unpinned-uses: unpinned action reference [confidence high] |
.github/workflows/ci.yml:207 |
| high | zizmor/unpinned-uses: unpinned action reference [confidence high] |
.github/workflows/ci.yml:213 |
| high | zizmor/unpinned-uses: unpinned action reference [confidence high] |
.github/workflows/ci.yml:269 |
| high | zizmor/unpinned-uses: unpinned action reference [confidence high] |
.github/workflows/ci.yml:275 |
| high | zizmor/unpinned-uses: unpinned action reference [confidence high] |
.github/workflows/ci.yml:335 |
| high | zizmor/unpinned-uses: unpinned action reference [confidence high] |
.github/workflows/ci.yml:341 |
| high | zizmor/unpinned-uses: unpinned action reference [confidence high] |
.github/workflows/ci.yml:401 |
| high | zizmor/unpinned-uses: unpinned action reference [confidence high] |
.github/workflows/ci.yml:407 |
| high | zizmor/unpinned-uses: unpinned action reference [confidence high] |
.github/workflows/ci.yml:459 |
| high | zizmor/unpinned-uses: unpinned action reference [confidence high] |
.github/workflows/ci.yml:491 |
| high | zizmor/unpinned-uses: unpinned action reference [confidence high] |
.github/workflows/ci.yml:504 |
| high | zizmor/unpinned-uses: unpinned action reference [confidence high] |
.github/workflows/ci.yml:509 |
| high | zizmor/unpinned-uses: unpinned action reference [confidence high] |
.github/workflows/ci.yml:535 |
| high | zizmor/unpinned-uses: unpinned action reference [confidence high] |
.github/workflows/ci.yml:540 |
| high | zizmor/unpinned-uses: unpinned action reference [confidence high] |
.github/workflows/ci.yml:552 |
| high | zizmor/unpinned-uses: unpinned action reference [confidence high] |
.github/workflows/ci.yml:554 |
| high | zizmor/unpinned-uses: unpinned action reference [confidence high] |
.github/workflows/ci.yml:560 |
| medium | opengrep/javascript.jquery.security.audit.jquery-insecure-selector: User controlled data in a $(...) is an anti-pattern that can lead to XSS vulnerabilities [confidence low] |
docs/docsets/Alamofire.docset/Contents/Resources/Documents/js/jazzy.js:30 |
| medium | opengrep/javascript.jquery.security.audit.jquery-insecure-selector: User controlled data in a $(...) is an anti-pattern that can lead to XSS vulnerabilities [confidence low] |
docs/docsets/Alamofire.docset/Contents/Resources/Documents/js/typeahead.jquery.js:271 |
| medium | opengrep/javascript.jquery.security.audit.jquery-insecure-selector: User controlled data in a $(...) is an anti-pattern that can lead to XSS vulnerabilities [confidence low] |
docs/docsets/Alamofire.docset/Contents/Resources/Documents/js/typeahead.jquery.js:492 |
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
- readme-download-lure: gives an archive password
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: 47,432; test lines: 0
| Language | Lines |
|---|---|
| Swift | 43,746 |
| JavaScript | 3,686 |