Leaderboard github.com

Carthage/Carthage

A simple, decentralized dependency manager for Cocoa

View repository ↗
Swift
★ 15,136
commit e33e133a5427
scored 2026-11-14
scoring prov-5+qual-2+sec-2

AI provenance

none-detected

Confidence: 65%
Coverage: 100%

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

Code quality

58/100

weak

Confidence: 90%
Coverage: 100%

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

Security

72/100

adequate

Confidence: 85%
Coverage: 100%

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

Dispute or request a re-score Full report JSON

AI provenance

0% none-detected

No AI attribution or AI-consistent velocity signals detected.

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)0.03

Lines added per month all AI-attributed share

2014-103,609 · 0% AI
2014-1153,184 · 0% AI
2014-123,208 · 0% AI
2015-01383 · 0% AI
2015-02780 · 0% AI
2015-032,050 · 0% AI
2015-04101 · 0% AI
2015-051,247 · 0% AI
2015-06515 · 0% AI
2015-071,122 · 0% AI
2015-081,206 · 0% AI
2015-09563 · 0% AI
2015-102,191 · 0% AI
2015-11356 · 0% AI
2015-121,453 · 0% AI
2016-01680 · 0% AI
2016-021,643 · 0% AI
2016-03370 · 0% AI
2016-041,005 · 0% AI
2016-05191 · 0% AI
2016-06303 · 0% AI
2016-0722 · 0% AI
2016-081,229 · 0% AI
2016-09684 · 0% AI
2016-10115 · 0% AI
2016-112,147 · 0% AI
2016-121,720 · 0% AI
2017-012,089 · 0% AI
2017-022,281 · 0% AI
2017-03808 · 0% AI
2017-04336 · 0% AI
2017-05932 · 0% AI
2017-061,739 · 0% AI
2017-07764 · 0% AI
2017-081,676 · 0% AI
2017-09590 · 0% AI
2017-10126 · 0% AI
2017-11855 · 0% AI
2017-12679 · 0% AI
2018-01264 · 0% AI
2018-02545 · 0% AI
2018-03822 · 0% AI
2018-04420 · 0% AI
2018-05479 · 0% AI
2018-06387 · 0% AI
2018-07552 · 0% AI
2018-08531 · 0% AI
2018-09192 · 0% AI
2018-10372 · 0% AI
2018-11217 · 0% AI
2018-12123 · 0% AI
2019-01427 · 0% AI
2019-02102 · 0% AI
2019-03222 · 0% AI
2019-0421 · 0% AI
2019-05253 · 0% AI
2019-0636 · 0% AI
2019-07198 · 0% AI
2019-09622 · 0% AI
2019-100 · 0% AI
2019-110 · 0% AI
2019-120 · 0% AI
2020-02609 · 0% AI
2020-030 · 0% AI
2020-0458 · 0% AI
2020-06755 · 0% AI
2020-07174 · 0% AI
2020-086 · 0% AI
2020-09423 · 0% AI
2020-10563 · 0% AI
2020-1120 · 0% AI
2020-12103 · 0% AI
2021-0112 · 0% AI
2021-02162 · 0% AI
2021-03103 · 0% AI
2021-04117 · 0% AI
2021-0575 · 0% AI
2021-060 · 0% AI
2021-091 · 0% AI
2021-110 · 0% AI
2022-010 · 0% AI
2022-0718 · 0% AI
2023-011 · 0% AI
2023-0659 · 0% AI
2023-09203 · 0% AI
2024-031 · 0% AI
2024-0669 · 0% AI
2024-092 · 0% AI

Evidence by analyzer

Explicit AI attributionok

attributed_commit_share: 0.0%
attributed_commits: 0
attributed_loc: 0
attributed_loc_share: 0.0%
commits: 3,263
effective_loc: 105,271
tools_detected: 0

AI tool configurationok

artifacts: 0
tools_configured: 0
workflow_agents: 0

Commit velocityok

excluded_import_loc: 45,822
flagged_loc: 0
flagged_loc_share: 0.0%
flagged_units: 0
max_loc_per_hour: 542
measured_loc: 59,449
median_loc_per_hour: 39.25
pr_timed_units: 45
pre_ai_era_burst_loc: 0
pre_ai_era_bursts: 0
pre_ai_era_measured_loc: 59,095
work_units: 1,349

Release velocityok

flagged_releases: 0
max_loc_per_day: 3,466
releases: 76

Coding styleok

count:assistant_voice: 0
count:emoji_in_code: 1
count:narrated_steps: 0
count:placeholder: 0
files:assistant_voice: 0
files:emoji_in_code: 1
files:narrated_steps: 0
files:placeholder: 0
index: 0.03
lines_scanned: 16,592
per_kloc:assistant_voice: 0
per_kloc:emoji_in_code: 0.06
per_kloc:narrated_steps: 0
per_kloc:placeholder: 0

Code quality

58 weak

Code quality is weak: test-to-source ratio 0.00, CI runs tests; 24% of function code in complex or long functions; 5% duplicated lines. Weakest area: process.

How the score is built

Complexity49
Duplication73
Lint and smells98
Tests and CI35
Documentation80
Type safetynot measured
Review process25

Evidence by analyzer

Complexity (lizard)ok10 items

complex_functions: 6
function_nloc: 10,567
functions: 587
long_functions: 11
many_param_functions: 4
mean_ccn: 2.82
p90_ccn: 6
risky_nloc_share: 23.7%

Duplication (jscpd)ok10 items

compared_lines: 11,132
duplicated_lines: 585
duplicated_share: 5.3%
files: 95

Lintok

category:correctness: 6
findings: 6
scanned_lines: 16,592
weighted_findings: 1.50

Tests and CIok2 items

CI config: .travis.yml .travis.yml
CI runs tests (make 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: 236
cochange_share: 0.0%
source_lines: 16,592
test_lines: 0
test_ratio: 0

Documentationok3 items

README.md README.md
LICENSE.md LICENSE.md
CONTRIBUTING.md CONTRIBUTING.md

check:changelog: no
check:contributing: yes
check:license: yes
check:readme: yes
readme_lines: 301

Type safetyskipped

Security

72 adequate

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

How the score is built

Secrets100
Static analysis (SAST)100
Vulnerable dependenciesnot measured
CI workflowsnot measured
Security posture0
OpenSSF Scorecard18

Evidence by analyzer

OpenSSF Scorecardok10 items

aggregate: 2.20
check:Binary-Artifacts: yes
check:Branch-Protection: no
check:CII-Best-Practices: no
check:Code-Review: yes
check:Fuzzing: no
check:License: yes
check:Maintained: no
check:SAST: no
check:Security-Policy: no
check:Signed-Releases: 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: 0
findings_high: 0
findings_low: 0
findings_medium: 0
parse_errors: 2
scanned_lines: 16,592
weighted_findings: 0

Dependencies (osv-scanner)skipped

CI workflows (zizmor)skipped

Security postureok

check:dependency_updates: no
check:lockfiles: yes
check:security_policy: no
check:signed_commits: no
signed_commit_share: 23.0%
unpinned_manifests: 0

Release downloadsok5 items

binary_assets: 10
signals: 1
suspicious: 0

Findings

6 low

Severity	Rule	Location	Message	Tool
low	`opengrep/bash.lang.correctness.unquoted-variable-expansion-in-command`	IntegrationTests/Utilities/TestFramework.bash:15	Variable expansions must be double-quoted so as to prevent being split into multiple pieces according to whitespace or whichever separator is specified by the IFS variable. If you really wish to split the variable's contents, you may...	Lint
low	`opengrep/bash.lang.correctness.unquoted-variable-expansion-in-command`	IntegrationTests/Utilities/TestFramework.bash:16	Variable expansions must be double-quoted so as to prevent being split into multiple pieces according to whitespace or whichever separator is specified by the IFS variable. If you really wish to split the variable's contents, you may...	Lint
low	`opengrep/bash.lang.correctness.unquoted-variable-expansion-in-command`	IntegrationTests/Utilities/TestFramework.bash:23	Variable expansions must be double-quoted so as to prevent being split into multiple pieces according to whitespace or whichever separator is specified by the IFS variable. If you really wish to split the variable's contents, you may...	Lint
low	`opengrep/bash.lang.correctness.unquoted-variable-expansion-in-command`	IntegrationTests/Utilities/TestFramework.bash:24	Variable expansions must be double-quoted so as to prevent being split into multiple pieces according to whitespace or whichever separator is specified by the IFS variable. If you really wish to split the variable's contents, you may...	Lint
low	`opengrep/bash.lang.correctness.unquoted-variable-expansion-in-command`	IntegrationTests/Utilities/TestFramework.bash:36	Variable expansions must be double-quoted so as to prevent being split into multiple pieces according to whitespace or whichever separator is specified by the IFS variable. If you really wish to split the variable's contents, you may...	Lint
low	`opengrep/bash.lang.correctness.unquoted-variable-expansion-in-command`	IntegrationTests/Utilities/TestFramework.bash:6	Variable expansions must be double-quoted so as to prevent being split into multiple pieces according to whitespace or whichever separator is specified by the IFS variable. If you really wish to split the variable's contents, you may...	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.

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
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`	6
Tests and CI	Code quality	ok	`—`	0
Type safety	Code quality	skipped	`—`	0
CI workflows (zizmor)	Security	skipped	`—`	0
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	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	`e33e133a5427`	`prov-5+qual-2+sec-2`	0%	58	72

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

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

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

Full text report

Repository: https://github.com/Carthage/Carthage
Commit: e33e133a5427129b38bfb1ae18d8f56b29a93204
Generated: 2026-11-14T15:16:36+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	none-detected	65%	100%
Code quality	58	weak	90%	100%
Security	72	adequate	85%	100%

AI provenance

No AI attribution or AI-consistent velocity signals detected.

Explicitly attributed share (lower bound): 0.0%
Unattributed share in AI-consistent velocity bursts: 0.0%
Estimated AI-generated share: 0.0%
Stylometry index: 0.03 per 1,000 lines (narrated steps 0, placeholders 0, assistant phrasing 0, emoji 1). Reported as a signal, not scored.

Month	Lines added	Attributed to AI
2021-02	162	0%
2021-03	103	0%
2021-04	117	0%
2021-05	75	0%
2021-09	1	0%
2022-07	18	0%
2023-01	1	0%
2023-06	59	0%
2023-09	203	0%
2024-03	1	0%
2024-06	69	0%
2024-09	2	0%

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; 24% of function code in complex or long functions; 5% duplicated lines. Weakest area: process.

Area	Score
Complexity (lizard)	49
Duplication	73
Code smells (Opengrep)	98
Tests and CI	35
Documentation	80
Type safety	n/a
Process (Scorecard review/maintenance)	25

Functions: 587; mean complexity 2.8, 90th percentile 6; 6 complex and 11 long functions
Duplicated lines: 5.3% of 11,132 compared
Tests: 0 test lines for 16,592 source lines (ratio 0.00); CI test commands: make test; 0% of recent source commits also change tests
Docs missing or thin: changelog

Most complex functions:

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)	n/a
CI workflows (zizmor)	n/a
Posture (policy, updates, signing, lockfiles)	0
OpenSSF Scorecard	18

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.

Distribution signals

binary-release-asset: release 0.40.0 ships Carthage.pkg (84559 downloads)
binary-release-asset: release 0.39.1 ships Carthage.pkg (14330 downloads)
binary-release-asset: release 0.39.0 ships Carthage.pkg (9445 downloads)
binary-release-asset: release 0.38.0 ships Carthage.pkg (53115 downloads)
binary-release-asset: release 0.37.0 ships Carthage.pkg (27912 downloads)

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: 16,592; test lines: 0

Language	Lines
Swift	16,115
C	427
Shell	50