Leaderboard github.com

BeanYa/csanno

View repository ↗
C#
★ 0
commit 56a6595be302
scored 2026-11-14
scoring prov-5+qual-2+sec-2

AI provenance

95%

explicit

Confidence: 87%
Coverage: 100%

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

Code quality

80/100

adequate

Confidence: 90%
Coverage: 100%

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

Security

69/100

weak

Confidence: 85%
Coverage: 100%

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

Dispute or request a re-score Full report JSON

AI provenance

95% explicit

Explicit AI attribution on 95% of first-party code added; an estimated 95% including velocity signals.

How the score is built

Explicitly attributed share95%
Unattributed share in AI-pace bursts0%
Estimated AI-generated share95%
AI tool configuration files3
Work sessions at AI pace1
Releases at AI pace0
Coding-style index (1.0+ means possible)0.00

Attributed AI tools

Tool	Commits	Lines added	First seen	Last seen
Claude Code	64	11,131	2026-01-20	2026-02-02

Lines added per month all AI-attributed share

2026-0110,586 · 94% AI
2026-021,165 · 100% AI

Findings in AI-attributed lines vs the rest

From git blame: 2,699 lines trace to AI-attributed commits, 0 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	0.00	—	—

Evidence by analyzer

Explicit AI attributionok26 items

attributed_commit_share: 95.5%
attributed_commits: 64
attributed_loc: 11,131
attributed_loc_share: 94.7%
commits: 67
effective_loc: 11,751
tools_detected: 1

AI tool configurationok3 items

artifacts: 3
earliest_adoption: 2026-01-20
tools_configured: 2
workflow_agents: 0

Commit velocityok1 item

4,061 lines of first-party code in ~4.3h (945 lines/hour, 2 commit session)

excluded_import_loc: 0
flagged_loc: 4,061
flagged_loc_share: 34.6%
flagged_units: 1
max_loc_per_hour: 944.78
measured_loc: 11,751
median_loc_per_hour: 155
pr_timed_units: 0
pre_ai_era_burst_loc: 0
pre_ai_era_bursts: 0
pre_ai_era_measured_loc: 0
work_units: 16

Release velocityok

flagged_releases: 0
max_loc_per_day: 3,803.60
releases: 4

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: 2,699
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: 2,699
blame_failures: 0
files_blamed: 28
other_lines: 0
quality:ai_findings: 0
quality:ai_per_kloc: 0
quality:other_findings: 0
security:ai_findings: 0
security:ai_per_kloc: 0
security:other_findings: 0

Code quality

80 adequate

Code quality is adequate: test-to-source ratio 1.29, CI runs tests; 13% of function code in complex or long functions; 9% duplicated lines. Weakest area: duplication.

How the score is built

Complexity67
Duplication57
Lint and smells100
Tests and CI90
Documentation80
Type safetynot measured
Review processnot measured

Evidence by analyzer

Complexity (lizard)ok2 items

complex_functions: 2
function_nloc: 1,437
functions: 64
long_functions: 1
many_param_functions: 0
mean_ccn: 3.39
p90_ccn: 8
risky_nloc_share: 13.2%

Duplication (jscpd)ok4 items

compared_lines: 1,725
duplicated_lines: 160
duplicated_share: 9.3%
files: 28

Lintok

findings: 0
scanned_lines: 2,699
weighted_findings: 0

Tests and CIok3 items

CI config: .github/workflows/build-test.yml .github/workflows/build-test.yml
CI config: .github/workflows/publish.yml .github/workflows/publish.yml
CI runs tests (dotnet test)

check:ci_present: yes
check:ci_runs_lint: no
check:ci_runs_tests: yes
check:has_tests: yes
check:test_ratio: yes
check:tests_cochange: yes
ci_files: 2
cochange_commits: 16
cochange_share: 93.8%
source_lines: 2,699
test_lines: 3,479
test_ratio: 1.29

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: 427

Type safetyskipped

Security

69 weak

Security posture is weak: 7 high-severity workflow issues. Weakest area: posture.

How the score is built

Secrets100
Static analysis (SAST)100
Vulnerable dependenciesnot measured
CI workflows23
Security posture0
OpenSSF Scorecardnot measured

Evidence by analyzer

OpenSSF Scorecardskipped

no published OpenSSF Scorecard result for this repo

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: 0
findings_high: 0
findings_low: 0
findings_medium: 0
parse_errors: 0
scanned_lines: 2,699
weighted_findings: 0

Dependencies (osv-scanner)skipped

CI workflows (zizmor)ok

findings: 13
findings_high: 7
findings_low: 3
findings_medium: 3
penalty: 88.80
workflows: 2

Security postureok

check:dependency_updates: no
check:lockfiles: yes
check:security_policy: no
check:signed_commits: no
signed_commit_share: 0.0%
unpinned_manifests: 0

Release downloadsok

binary_assets: 0
signals: 0
suspicious: 0

Findings

7 high3 medium3 info

Severity	Rule	Location	Message	Tool
high	`zizmor/unpinned-uses`	.github/workflows/build-test.yml:12	unpinned action reference [confidence high]	CI workflows (zizmor)
high	`zizmor/unpinned-uses`	.github/workflows/build-test.yml:15	unpinned action reference [confidence high]	CI workflows (zizmor)
high	`zizmor/unpinned-uses`	.github/workflows/publish.yml:22	unpinned action reference [confidence high]	CI workflows (zizmor)
high	`zizmor/unpinned-uses`	.github/workflows/publish.yml:25	unpinned action reference [confidence high]	CI workflows (zizmor)
high	`zizmor/template-injection`	.github/workflows/publish.yml:45	code injection via template expansion [confidence high]	CI workflows (zizmor)
high	`zizmor/template-injection`	.github/workflows/publish.yml:45	code injection via template expansion [confidence high]	CI workflows (zizmor)
high	`zizmor/unpinned-uses`	.github/workflows/publish.yml:69	unpinned action reference [confidence high]	CI workflows (zizmor)
medium	`zizmor/artipacked`	.github/workflows/build-test.yml:12	credential persistence through GitHub Actions artifacts [confidence low]	CI workflows (zizmor)
medium	`zizmor/excessive-permissions`	.github/workflows/build-test.yml:8	overly broad permissions [confidence medium]	CI workflows (zizmor)
medium	`zizmor/artipacked`	.github/workflows/publish.yml:22	credential persistence through GitHub Actions artifacts [confidence low]	CI workflows (zizmor)
info	`zizmor/template-injection`	.github/workflows/publish.yml:62	code injection via template expansion [confidence low]	CI workflows (zizmor)
info	`zizmor/use-trusted-publishing`	.github/workflows/publish.yml:65	prefer trusted publishing for authentication [confidence high]	CI workflows (zizmor)
info	`zizmor/superfluous-actions`	.github/workflows/publish.yml:69	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.

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-4`	0
Coding style	AI provenance	ok	`—`	0
Commit velocity	AI provenance	ok	`prov-4`	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`	13
Dependencies (osv-scanner)	Security	skipped	`—`	0
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`	0
OpenSSF Scorecard	Security	skipped	`—`	0	no published OpenSSF Scorecard result for this repo
Secrets (gitleaks)	Security	ok	`gitleaks 8.30.1`	0

Score history

Scores from different scoring versions aren't directly comparable.

Scored	Commit	Scoring	AI provenance	Quality	Security
2026-11-14	`56a6595be302`	`prov-5+qual-2+sec-2`	95%	80	69
2026-11-14	`56a6595be302`	`prov-4+qual-2+sec-2`	95%	80	69

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/BeanYa/csanno/ai.svg)](https://repotrust.synapticcyber.com/r/github.com/BeanYa/csanno/)

[![RepoTrust quality](https://repotrust.synapticcyber.com/badge/github.com/BeanYa/csanno/quality.svg)](https://repotrust.synapticcyber.com/r/github.com/BeanYa/csanno/)

[![RepoTrust security](https://repotrust.synapticcyber.com/badge/github.com/BeanYa/csanno/security.svg)](https://repotrust.synapticcyber.com/r/github.com/BeanYa/csanno/)

Full text report

Repository: https://github.com/BeanYa/csanno
Commit: 56a6595be302e6deb6f97d6b8a27ef1b8c1891da
Generated: 2026-11-14T14:52:00+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)	95	explicit	87%	100%
Code quality	80	adequate	90%	100%
Security	69	weak	85%	100%

AI provenance

Explicit AI attribution on 95% of first-party code added; an estimated 95% including velocity signals.

Explicitly attributed share (lower bound): 94.7%
Unattributed share in AI-consistent velocity bursts: 0.0%
Estimated AI-generated share: 94.7%

AI tool	Attributed commits	Lines added
Claude Code	64	11,131

AI tooling configured in repo: claude-code, generic-agent

Current source lines last changed by AI-attributed commits: 2,699 of 2,699.

Too few lines in one group to compare finding densities.

Month	Lines added	Attributed to AI
2026-01	10,586	94%
2026-02	1,165	100%

Evidence

Claude Code: author Claude (78f68ae1f1f9)
Claude Code: author Claude (8bb92bd052e1)
Claude Code: author Claude (b70e42aa86ff)
Claude Code: author Claude (e1dc3de97ed2)
Claude Code: author Claude (e7885adc1719)
Claude Code: author Claude (cf394f7186ee)
Claude Code: author Claude (d0327db44cea)
Claude Code: author Claude (622f08a91892)
Claude Code: author Claude (c3470e4f7926)
Claude Code: author Claude (41bae14f699c)
Claude Code: author Claude (47ecea0ecf69)
Claude Code: author Claude (143890db2b46)
Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude' (8a84d32c8021)
Claude Code: author Claude (8e8a3537078f)
Claude Code: author Claude (cc5ff310830d)

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 adequate: test-to-source ratio 1.29, CI runs tests; 13% of function code in complex or long functions; 9% duplicated lines. Weakest area: duplication.

Area	Score
Complexity (lizard)	67
Duplication	57
Code smells (Opengrep)	100
Tests and CI	90
Documentation	80
Type safety	n/a
Process (Scorecard review/maintenance)	n/a

Functions: 64; mean complexity 3.4, 90th percentile 8; 2 complex and 1 long functions
Duplicated lines: 9.3% of 1,725 compared
Tests: 3,479 test lines for 2,699 source lines (ratio 1.29); CI test commands: dotnet test; 94% of recent source commits also change tests
Docs missing or thin: changelog

Most complex functions:

Security

Security posture is weak: 7 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)	23
Posture (policy, updates, signing, lockfiles)	0
OpenSSF Scorecard	n/a

Posture checks passed: lockfiles; missing: security policy, dependency updates, signed commits

Top findings

Severity	Finding	Location
high	`zizmor/unpinned-uses`: unpinned action reference [confidence high]	.github/workflows/build-test.yml:12
high	`zizmor/unpinned-uses`: unpinned action reference [confidence high]	.github/workflows/build-test.yml:15
high	`zizmor/template-injection`: code injection via template expansion [confidence high]	.github/workflows/publish.yml:45
high	`zizmor/template-injection`: code injection via template expansion [confidence high]	.github/workflows/publish.yml:45
high	`zizmor/unpinned-uses`: unpinned action reference [confidence high]	.github/workflows/publish.yml:22
high	`zizmor/unpinned-uses`: unpinned action reference [confidence high]	.github/workflows/publish.yml:25
high	`zizmor/unpinned-uses`: unpinned action reference [confidence high]	.github/workflows/publish.yml:69
medium	`zizmor/artipacked`: credential persistence through GitHub Actions artifacts [confidence low]	.github/workflows/build-test.yml:12
medium	`zizmor/excessive-permissions`: overly broad permissions [confidence medium]	.github/workflows/build-test.yml:8
medium	`zizmor/artipacked`: credential persistence through GitHub Actions artifacts [confidence low]	.github/workflows/publish.yml:22
info	`zizmor/use-trusted-publishing`: prefer trusted publishing for authentication [confidence high]	.github/workflows/publish.yml:65
info	`zizmor/template-injection`: code injection via template expansion [confidence low]	.github/workflows/publish.yml:62
info	`zizmor/superfluous-actions`: action functionality is already included by the runner [confidence high]	.github/workflows/publish.yml:69

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: 2,699; test lines: 3,479

Language	Lines
C#	6,178