Leaderboard github.com
Ginger-Hermit/Fishing-cat-data
Fishing For Cat Data
AI provenance
100%
explicit
- Confidence
- 95%
- Coverage
- 100%
Estimated share of AI-generated code. Explicit attribution is a lower bound.
Code quality
59/100
weak
- Confidence
- 90%
- Coverage
- 100%
Complexity, duplication, lint density, tests, CI, docs and review process.
Security
55/100
weak
- Confidence
- 85%
- Coverage
- 100%
Secrets, static analysis, vulnerable dependencies, CI and supply-chain posture.
AI provenance
100% explicit
Explicit AI attribution on 100% of first-party code added; an estimated 100% including velocity signals.
How the score is built
- Explicitly attributed share100%
- Unattributed share in AI-pace bursts0%
- Estimated AI-generated share100%
- AI tool configuration files1
- Work sessions at AI pace0
- 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 | 588 | 1,863 | 2026-11-11 | 2026-11-14 |
Lines added per month all AI-attributed share
- 2026-111,863 · 100% AI
Findings in AI-attributed lines vs the rest
From git blame: 2,298 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 | 7.83 | — | — |
| Security | 6.96 | — | — |
Evidence by analyzer
Explicit AI attributionok26 items
- Claude Code: 588 attributed commits, 1,863 lines added
- Claude Code: author email [email protected]
- Claude Code: author email [email protected]
- Claude Code: author email [email protected]
- Claude Code: author email [email protected]
- Claude Code: author email [email protected]
- Claude Code: author email [email protected]
- Claude Code: author email [email protected]
- Claude Code: author email [email protected]
- Claude Code: author email [email protected]
- Claude Code: author email [email protected]
- Claude Code: author email [email protected]
- Claude Code: author email [email protected]
- Claude Code: author email [email protected]
- Claude Code: author email [email protected]
- Claude Code: author email [email protected]
- Claude Code: author email [email protected]
- Claude Code: author email [email protected]
- Claude Code: author email [email protected]
- Claude Code: author email [email protected]
- Claude Code: author email [email protected]
- Claude Code: author email [email protected]
- Claude Code: author email [email protected]
- Claude Code: author email [email protected]
- Claude Code: author email [email protected]
- Claude Code: author email [email protected]
- attributed_commit_share
- 99.5%
- attributed_commits
- 588
- attributed_loc
- 1,863
- attributed_loc_share
- 100.0%
- commits
- 591
- effective_loc
- 1,863
- tools_detected
- 1
AI tool configurationok1 item
- artifacts
- 1
- earliest_adoption
- 2026-11-11
- tools_configured
- 1
- workflow_agents
- 0
Commit velocityok
- excluded_import_loc
- 0
- flagged_loc
- 0
- flagged_loc_share
- 0.0%
- flagged_units
- 0
- max_loc_per_hour
- 302
- measured_loc
- 1,863
- median_loc_per_hour
- 59.62
- pr_timed_units
- 1
- pre_ai_era_burst_loc
- 0
- pre_ai_era_bursts
- 0
- pre_ai_era_measured_loc
- 0
- work_units
- 14
Release velocityok
- flagged_releases
- 0
- max_loc_per_day
- 768
- releases
- 13
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
- 2,298
- 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
- 2,298
- blame_failures
- 0
- files_blamed
- 4
- other_lines
- 0
- quality:ai_findings
- 18
- quality:ai_per_kloc
- 7.83
- quality:other_findings
- 0
- security:ai_findings
- 16
- security:ai_per_kloc
- 6.96
- security:other_findings
- 0
Code quality
59 weak
Code quality is weak: test-to-source ratio 0.24, no CI test run detected; 18% of function code in complex or long functions; 0% duplicated lines. Weakest area: lint.
How the score is built
- Complexity58
- Duplication100
- Lint and smells21
- Tests and CI52
- Documentation85
- Type safety40
- Review processnot measured
Evidence by analyzer
Complexity (lizard)ok10 items
- postJson in app.js: complexity 60, 44 lines
- buildWorkbook in app.js: complexity 36, 171 lines
- readSheet in app.js: complexity 35, 21 lines
- readHistory in app.js: complexity 30, 37 lines
- hookSend in app.js: complexity 24, 14 lines
- (anonymous) in app.js: complexity 23, 12 lines
- kwhFor in app.js: complexity 22, 12 lines
- showTab in app.js: complexity 20, 15 lines
- dcPrev in app.js: complexity 20, 19 lines
- aiStats in app.js: complexity 20, 6 lines
- complex_functions
- 13
- function_nloc
- 2,324
- functions
- 635
- long_functions
- 1
- many_param_functions
- 0
- mean_ccn
- 3.03
- p90_ccn
- 6
- risky_nloc_share
- 18.1%
Duplication (jscpd)ok
- compared_lines
- 2,047
- duplicated_lines
- 0
- duplicated_share
- 0.0%
- files
- 4
Lintok
- category:best-practice
- 10
- category:correctness
- 6
- category:maintainability
- 2
- findings
- 18
- scanned_lines
- 2,298
- weighted_findings
- 14.25
Tests and CIok8 items
- CI config: .github/workflows/check.yml
.github/workflows/check.yml - CI config: .github/workflows/codeql.yml
.github/workflows/codeql.yml - CI config: .github/workflows/golive.yml
.github/workflows/golive.yml - CI config: .github/workflows/live.yml
.github/workflows/live.yml - CI config: .github/workflows/release.yml
.github/workflows/release.yml - CI config: .github/workflows/safety.yml
.github/workflows/safety.yml - CI config: .github/workflows/weekly.yml
.github/workflows/weekly.yml - CI config: .github/workflows/wiki.yml
.github/workflows/wiki.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
- 8
- cochange_commits
- 128
- cochange_share
- 12.5%
- source_lines
- 2,298
- test_lines
- 550
- test_ratio
- 0.24
Documentationok3 items
- README.md
README.md - LICENSE
LICENSE - CHANGELOG.md
CHANGELOG.md
- check:changelog
- yes
- check:contributing
- no
- check:license
- yes
- check:readme
- yes
- readme_lines
- 162
Type safetyok
- check:low_escape_density
- yes
- check:strict_config
- no
- escapes
- 0
- escapes_per_kloc
- 0
Security
55 weak
Security posture is weak: 3 high-severity SAST findings; 20 high-severity workflow issues. Weakest area: ci actions.
How the score is built
- Secrets94
- Static analysis (SAST)45
- Vulnerable dependenciesnot measured
- CI workflows1
- Security posture60
- 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
- 1
- secrets_nonprod
- 1
Static analysis (opengrep)ok
- findings
- 15
- findings_high
- 3
- findings_low
- 0
- findings_medium
- 12
- parse_errors
- 0
- scanned_lines
- 2,298
- weighted_findings
- 5.25
Dependencies (osv-scanner)skipped
CI workflows (zizmor)ok
- findings
- 41
- findings_high
- 20
- findings_low
- 2
- findings_medium
- 19
- penalty
- 270
- workflows
- 8
Security postureok1 item
- Dependency updates: .github/dependabot.yml
.github/dependabot.yml
- check:dependency_updates
- yes
- check:lockfiles
- yes
- check:security_policy
- no
- check:signed_commits
- yes
- signed_commit_share
- 100.0%
- unpinned_manifests
- 0
Release downloadsok
- binary_assets
- 0
- signals
- 0
- suspicious
- 0
Findings
23 high44 medium9 low
76 findings
| Severity | Rule | Location | Message | Tool |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| high | zizmor/unpinned-uses |
.github/workflows/check.yml:27 | unpinned action reference [confidence high] | CI workflows (zizmor) |
| high | zizmor/unpinned-uses |
.github/workflows/check.yml:28 | unpinned action reference [confidence high] | CI workflows (zizmor) |
| high | zizmor/unpinned-uses |
.github/workflows/check.yml:43 | unpinned action reference [confidence high] | CI workflows (zizmor) |
| high | zizmor/unpinned-uses |
.github/workflows/check.yml:53 | unpinned action reference [confidence high] | CI workflows (zizmor) |
| high | zizmor/unpinned-uses |
.github/workflows/check.yml:54 | unpinned action reference [confidence high] | CI workflows (zizmor) |
| high | zizmor/unpinned-uses |
.github/workflows/check.yml:64 | unpinned action reference [confidence high] | CI workflows (zizmor) |
| high | zizmor/unpinned-uses |
.github/workflows/check.yml:8 | unpinned action reference [confidence high] | CI workflows (zizmor) |
| high | zizmor/unpinned-uses |
.github/workflows/codeql.yml:15 | unpinned action reference [confidence high] | CI workflows (zizmor) |
| high | zizmor/unpinned-uses |
.github/workflows/codeql.yml:16 | unpinned action reference [confidence high] | CI workflows (zizmor) |
| high | zizmor/unpinned-uses |
.github/workflows/codeql.yml:20 | unpinned action reference [confidence high] | CI workflows (zizmor) |
| high | zizmor/unpinned-uses |
.github/workflows/golive.yml:16 | unpinned action reference [confidence high] | CI workflows (zizmor) |
| high | zizmor/template-injection |
.github/workflows/golive.yml:21 | code injection via template expansion [confidence high] | CI workflows (zizmor) |
| high | zizmor/dangerous-triggers |
.github/workflows/golive.yml:4 | use of fundamentally insecure workflow trigger [confidence medium] | CI workflows (zizmor) |
| high | zizmor/unpinned-uses |
.github/workflows/live.yml:13 | unpinned action reference [confidence high] | CI workflows (zizmor) |
| high | zizmor/unpinned-uses |
.github/workflows/release.yml:13 | unpinned action reference [confidence high] | CI workflows (zizmor) |
| high | zizmor/unpinned-uses |
.github/workflows/safety.yml:14 | unpinned action reference [confidence high] | CI workflows (zizmor) |
| high | zizmor/unpinned-uses |
.github/workflows/safety.yml:21 | unpinned action reference [confidence high] | CI workflows (zizmor) |
| high | zizmor/unpinned-uses |
.github/workflows/safety.yml:23 | unpinned action reference [confidence high] | CI workflows (zizmor) |
| high | zizmor/unpinned-uses |
.github/workflows/weekly.yml:12 | unpinned action reference [confidence high] | CI workflows (zizmor) |
| high | zizmor/unpinned-uses |
.github/workflows/wiki.yml:13 | unpinned action reference [confidence high] | CI workflows (zizmor) |
| high | opengrep/javascript.browser.security.insecure-document-method |
app.js:88 | User controlled data in methods like `innerHTML`, `outerHTML` or `document.write` is an anti-pattern that can lead to XSS vulnerabilities [confidence low] | Static analysis (opengrep) |
| high | opengrep/javascript.browser.security.insecure-innerhtml |
app.js:88 | User controlled data in a `document.getElementById(box).innerHTML` is an anti-pattern that can lead to XSS vulnerabilities [confidence low] | Static analysis (opengrep) |
| high | opengrep/python.lang.security.audit.dangerous-subprocess-use-audit |
tools/release.py:56 | Detected subprocess function 'run' without a static string. If this data can be controlled by a malicious actor, it may be an instance of command injection. Audit the use of this call to ensure it is not controllable by an external... | Static analysis (opengrep) |
| medium | opengrep/javascript.lang.correctness.no-stringify-keys |
app.js:1117 | JSON stringify does not produce a stable key ordering, and should not be relied on for producing object keys. Consider using json-stable-stringify instead. | Lint |
| medium | opengrep/javascript.lang.best-practice.javascript-confirm |
app.js:1994 | found confirm() call; should this be in production code? | Lint |
| medium | opengrep/python.lang.maintainability.return-not-in-function |
tools/attack.py:173 | `return` only makes sense inside a function | Lint |
| medium | opengrep/python.lang.maintainability.return-not-in-function |
tools/release.py:24 | `return` only makes sense inside a function | Lint |
| medium | opengrep/python.lang.best-practice.unspecified-open-encoding |
tools/wiki_sync.py:16 | 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 |
tools/wiki_sync.py:17 | 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 |
tools/wiki_sync.py:19 | 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 |
tools/wiki_sync.py:22 | 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 |
tools/wiki_sync.py:26 | 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 |
tools/wiki_sync.py:31 | 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 |
tools/wiki_sync.py:39 | 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 |
tools/wiki_sync.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 |
tools/wiki_sync.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 |
| medium | zizmor/dependabot-cooldown |
.github/dependabot.yml:3 | insufficient cooldown in Dependabot updates [confidence high] | CI workflows (zizmor) |
| medium | zizmor/excessive-permissions |
.github/workflows/check.yml:19 | overly broad permissions [confidence medium] | CI workflows (zizmor) |
| medium | zizmor/excessive-permissions |
.github/workflows/check.yml:2 | overly broad permissions [confidence medium] | CI workflows (zizmor) |
| medium | zizmor/artipacked |
.github/workflows/check.yml:27 | credential persistence through GitHub Actions artifacts [confidence low] | CI workflows (zizmor) |
| medium | zizmor/excessive-permissions |
.github/workflows/check.yml:49 | overly broad permissions [confidence medium] | CI workflows (zizmor) |
| medium | zizmor/excessive-permissions |
.github/workflows/check.yml:5 | overly broad permissions [confidence medium] | CI workflows (zizmor) |
| medium | zizmor/artipacked |
.github/workflows/check.yml:53 | credential persistence through GitHub Actions artifacts [confidence low] | CI workflows (zizmor) |
| medium | zizmor/excessive-permissions |
.github/workflows/check.yml:60 | overly broad permissions [confidence medium] | CI workflows (zizmor) |
| medium | zizmor/artipacked |
.github/workflows/check.yml:64 | credential persistence through GitHub Actions artifacts [confidence low] | CI workflows (zizmor) |
| medium | zizmor/artipacked |
.github/workflows/check.yml:8 | credential persistence through GitHub Actions artifacts [confidence low] | CI workflows (zizmor) |
| medium | zizmor/artipacked |
.github/workflows/codeql.yml:15 | credential persistence through GitHub Actions artifacts [confidence low] | CI workflows (zizmor) |
| medium | zizmor/artipacked |
.github/workflows/golive.yml:16 | credential persistence through GitHub Actions artifacts [confidence low] | CI workflows (zizmor) |
| medium | zizmor/artipacked |
.github/workflows/live.yml:13 | credential persistence through GitHub Actions artifacts [confidence low] | CI workflows (zizmor) |
| medium | zizmor/artipacked |
.github/workflows/release.yml:13 | credential persistence through GitHub Actions artifacts [confidence low] | CI workflows (zizmor) |
| medium | zizmor/artipacked |
.github/workflows/safety.yml:14 | credential persistence through GitHub Actions artifacts [confidence low] | CI workflows (zizmor) |
| medium | zizmor/artipacked |
.github/workflows/safety.yml:21 | credential persistence through GitHub Actions artifacts [confidence low] | CI workflows (zizmor) |
| medium | zizmor/artipacked |
.github/workflows/weekly.yml:12 | credential persistence through GitHub Actions artifacts [confidence low] | CI workflows (zizmor) |
| medium | zizmor/excessive-permissions |
.github/workflows/weekly.yml:8 | overly broad permissions [confidence medium] | CI workflows (zizmor) |
| medium | zizmor/artipacked |
.github/workflows/wiki.yml:13 | credential persistence through GitHub Actions artifacts [confidence low] | CI workflows (zizmor) |
| medium | opengrep/javascript.lang.security.audit.unsafe-dynamic-method |
app.js:1161 | Using non-static data to retrieve and run functions from the object is dangerous. If the data is user-controlled, it may allow executing arbitrary code. [confidence low] | Static analysis (opengrep) |
| medium | opengrep/javascript.lang.security.audit.unsafe-dynamic-method |
app.js:1184 | Using non-static data to retrieve and run functions from the object is dangerous. If the data is user-controlled, it may allow executing arbitrary code. [confidence low] | Static analysis (opengrep) |
| medium | opengrep/javascript.lang.security.audit.unsafe-dynamic-method |
app.js:1203 | Using non-static data to retrieve and run functions from the object is dangerous. If the data is user-controlled, it may allow executing arbitrary code. [confidence low] | Static analysis (opengrep) |
| medium | opengrep/javascript.jquery.security.audit.jquery-insecure-selector |
app.js:172 | User controlled data in a `$(...)` is an anti-pattern that can lead to XSS vulnerabilities [confidence low] | Static analysis (opengrep) |
| medium | opengrep/javascript.jquery.security.audit.jquery-insecure-selector |
app.js:192 | User controlled data in a `$(...)` is an anti-pattern that can lead to XSS vulnerabilities [confidence low] | Static analysis (opengrep) |
| medium | opengrep/javascript.lang.security.audit.unsafe-dynamic-method |
app.js:1939 | Using non-static data to retrieve and run functions from the object is dangerous. If the data is user-controlled, it may allow executing arbitrary code. [confidence low] | Static analysis (opengrep) |
| medium | opengrep/javascript.lang.security.audit.unsafe-dynamic-method |
app.js:1964 | Using non-static data to retrieve and run functions from the object is dangerous. If the data is user-controlled, it may allow executing arbitrary code. [confidence low] | Static analysis (opengrep) |
| medium | opengrep/javascript.jquery.security.audit.jquery-insecure-selector |
app.js:318 | User controlled data in a `$(...)` is an anti-pattern that can lead to XSS vulnerabilities [confidence low] | Static analysis (opengrep) |
| medium | opengrep/javascript.jquery.security.audit.jquery-insecure-selector |
app.js:318 | User controlled data in a `$(...)` is an anti-pattern that can lead to XSS vulnerabilities [confidence low] | Static analysis (opengrep) |
| medium | opengrep/javascript.jquery.security.audit.jquery-insecure-selector |
app.js:318 | User controlled data in a `$(...)` is an anti-pattern that can lead to XSS vulnerabilities [confidence low] | Static analysis (opengrep) |
| medium | opengrep/javascript.jquery.security.audit.jquery-insecure-selector |
app.js:318 | User controlled data in a `$(...)` is an anti-pattern that can lead to XSS vulnerabilities [confidence low] | Static analysis (opengrep) |
| medium | opengrep/javascript.lang.security.html-in-template-string |
app.js:88 | This template literal looks like HTML and has interpolated variables. These variables are not HTML-encoded by default. If the variables contain HTML tags, these may be interpreted by the browser, resulting in cross-site scripting (XSS).... | Static analysis (opengrep) |
| low | opengrep/javascript.lang.correctness.missing-template-string-indicator |
app.js:1169 | This looks like a JavaScript template string. Are you missing a '$' in front of '{...}'? | Lint |
| low | opengrep/javascript.lang.correctness.missing-template-string-indicator |
app.js:1169 | This looks like a JavaScript template string. Are you missing a '$' in front of '{...}'? | Lint |
| low | opengrep/javascript.lang.correctness.missing-template-string-indicator |
app.js:1665 | This looks like a JavaScript template string. Are you missing a '$' in front of '{...}'? | Lint |
| low | opengrep/javascript.lang.correctness.missing-template-string-indicator |
app.js:1665 | This looks like a JavaScript template string. Are you missing a '$' in front of '{...}'? | Lint |
| low | opengrep/javascript.lang.correctness.missing-template-string-indicator |
app.js:32 | This looks like a JavaScript template string. Are you missing a '$' in front of '{...}'? | Lint |
| low | zizmor/adhoc-packages |
.github/workflows/check.yml:31 | ad-hoc installation of packages [confidence high] | CI workflows (zizmor) |
| low | zizmor/adhoc-packages |
.github/workflows/check.yml:58 | ad-hoc installation of packages [confidence high] | CI workflows (zizmor) |
| low | gitleaks/generic-api-key |
tests/privacy.test.js:22 | Possible generic-api-key secret in the current tree (test/docs/example file) | Secrets (gitleaks) |
| low | gitleaks/generic-api-key |
tools/attack.py:152 | Possible generic-api-key secret in the current tree | Secrets (gitleaks) |
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 | 18 | |
| Tests and CI | Code quality | ok | — | 0 | |
| Type safety | Code quality | ok | — | 0 | |
| CI workflows (zizmor) | Security | ok | zizmor 1.32.0 | 41 | |
| 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 | 15 | |
| OpenSSF Scorecard | Security | skipped | — | 0 | no published OpenSSF Scorecard result for this repo |
| Secrets (gitleaks) | Security | ok | gitleaks 8.30.1 | 2 |
Score history
Scores from different scoring versions aren't directly comparable.
| Scored | Commit | Scoring | AI provenance | Quality | Security |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-11-14 | c39b6d39fc07 | prov-5+qual-2+sec-2 | 100% | 59 | 55 |
| 2026-11-14 | c39b6d39fc07 | prov-4+qual-2+sec-2 | 100% | 59 | 55 |
Full text report
- Repository: https://github.com/Ginger-Hermit/Fishing-cat-data
- Commit:
c39b6d39fc0706310fb83db1b70a61332b1b126d - 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) | 100 | explicit | 95% | 100% |
| Code quality | 59 | weak | 90% | 100% |
| Security | 55 | weak | 85% | 100% |
AI provenance
Explicit AI attribution on 100% of first-party code added; an estimated 100% including velocity signals.
- Explicitly attributed share (lower bound): 100.0%
- Unattributed share in AI-consistent velocity bursts: 0.0%
- Estimated AI-generated share: 100.0%
| AI tool | Attributed commits | Lines added |
|---|---|---|
| Claude Code | 588 | 1,863 |
- AI tooling configured in repo: claude-code
Current source lines last changed by AI-attributed commits: 2,298 of 2,298.
Too few lines in one group to compare finding densities.
| Month | Lines added | Attributed to AI |
|---|---|---|
| 2026-11 | 1,863 | 100% |
Evidence
- Claude Code: author email [email protected] (c39b6d39fc07)
- Claude Code: author email [email protected] (f2ad6ddf7b9b)
- Claude Code: author email [email protected] (4901f1b07166)
- Claude Code: author email [email protected] (0f48e3b2729f)
- Claude Code: author email [email protected] (ecc41558c896)
- Claude Code: author email [email protected] (5e0b25c9c053)
- Claude Code: author email [email protected] (828c9ef0817a)
- Claude Code: author email [email protected] (ff923fc7b427)
- Claude Code: author email [email protected] (2aa48e4b8d43)
- Claude Code: author email [email protected] (cf01c9556d8b)
- Claude Code: author email [email protected] (364b8921b4ca)
- Claude Code: author email [email protected] (0302d1e1a32b)
- Claude Code: author email [email protected] (cb2073c6cb31)
- Claude Code: author email [email protected] (e47bd015fa9b)
- Claude Code: author email [email protected] (55dad33c7325)
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 0.24, no CI test run detected; 18% of function code in complex or long functions; 0% duplicated lines. Weakest area: lint.
| Area | Score |
|---|---|
| Complexity (lizard) | 58 |
| Duplication | 100 |
| Code smells (Opengrep) | 21 |
| Tests and CI | 52 |
| Documentation | 85 |
| Type safety | 40 |
| Process (Scorecard review/maintenance) | n/a |
- Functions: 635; mean complexity 3.0, 90th percentile 6; 13 complex and 1 long functions
- Duplicated lines: 0.0% of 2,047 compared
- Tests: 550 test lines for 2,298 source lines (ratio 0.24); CI test commands: none detected; 12% of recent source commits also change tests
- Docs missing or thin: contributing
Most complex functions:
- postJson in app.js: complexity 60, 44 lines
- buildWorkbook in app.js: complexity 36, 171 lines
- readSheet in app.js: complexity 35, 21 lines
- readHistory in app.js: complexity 30, 37 lines
- hookSend in app.js: complexity 24, 14 lines
Security
Security posture is weak: 3 high-severity SAST findings; 20 high-severity workflow issues. Weakest area: ci actions.
| Area | Score |
|---|---|
| Secrets (gitleaks, tree + history) | 94 |
| Static analysis (Opengrep) | 45 |
| Vulnerable dependencies (OSV) | n/a |
| CI workflows (zizmor) | 1 |
| Posture (policy, updates, signing, lockfiles) | 60 |
| OpenSSF Scorecard | n/a |
- Posture checks passed: dependency updates, signed commits, lockfiles; missing: security policy
Top findings
| Severity | Finding | Location |
|---|---|---|
| high | opengrep/javascript.browser.security.insecure-document-method: User controlled data in methods like innerHTML, outerHTML or document.write is an anti-pattern that can lead to XSS vulnerabilities [confidence low] |
app.js:88 |
| high | opengrep/javascript.browser.security.insecure-innerhtml: User controlled data in a document.getElementById(box).innerHTML is an anti-pattern that can lead to XSS vulnerabilities [confidence low] |
app.js:88 |
| high | opengrep/python.lang.security.audit.dangerous-subprocess-use-audit: Detected subprocess function 'run' without a static string. If this data can be controlled by a malicious actor, it may be an instance of command injection. Audit the use of this call to ensure it is not controllable by an external resource. You may consider using 'shlex.escape()'. [confidence low] |
tools/release.py:56 |
| high | zizmor/unpinned-uses: unpinned action reference [confidence high] |
.github/workflows/check.yml:8 |
| high | zizmor/unpinned-uses: unpinned action reference [confidence high] |
.github/workflows/check.yml:27 |
| high | zizmor/unpinned-uses: unpinned action reference [confidence high] |
.github/workflows/check.yml:28 |
| high | zizmor/unpinned-uses: unpinned action reference [confidence high] |
.github/workflows/check.yml:43 |
| high | zizmor/unpinned-uses: unpinned action reference [confidence high] |
.github/workflows/check.yml:53 |
| high | zizmor/unpinned-uses: unpinned action reference [confidence high] |
.github/workflows/check.yml:54 |
| high | zizmor/unpinned-uses: unpinned action reference [confidence high] |
.github/workflows/check.yml:64 |
| high | zizmor/unpinned-uses: unpinned action reference [confidence high] |
.github/workflows/codeql.yml:15 |
| high | zizmor/unpinned-uses: unpinned action reference [confidence high] |
.github/workflows/codeql.yml:16 |
| high | zizmor/unpinned-uses: unpinned action reference [confidence high] |
.github/workflows/codeql.yml:20 |
| high | zizmor/dangerous-triggers: use of fundamentally insecure workflow trigger [confidence medium] |
.github/workflows/golive.yml:4 |
| high | zizmor/template-injection: code injection via template expansion [confidence high] |
.github/workflows/golive.yml:21 |
| high | zizmor/unpinned-uses: unpinned action reference [confidence high] |
.github/workflows/golive.yml:16 |
| high | zizmor/unpinned-uses: unpinned action reference [confidence high] |
.github/workflows/live.yml:13 |
| high | zizmor/unpinned-uses: unpinned action reference [confidence high] |
.github/workflows/release.yml:13 |
| high | zizmor/unpinned-uses: unpinned action reference [confidence high] |
.github/workflows/safety.yml:14 |
| high | zizmor/unpinned-uses: unpinned action reference [confidence high] |
.github/workflows/safety.yml:21 |
| high | zizmor/unpinned-uses: unpinned action reference [confidence high] |
.github/workflows/safety.yml:23 |
| high | zizmor/unpinned-uses: unpinned action reference [confidence high] |
.github/workflows/weekly.yml:12 |
| high | zizmor/unpinned-uses: unpinned action reference [confidence high] |
.github/workflows/wiki.yml:13 |
| medium | opengrep/javascript.lang.security.html-in-template-string: This template literal looks like HTML and has interpolated variables. These variables are not HTML-encoded by default. If the variables contain HTML tags, these may be interpreted by the browser, resulting in cross-site scripting (XSS). [confidence low] |
app.js:88 |
| 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] |
app.js:172 |
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: 2,298; test lines: 550
| Language | Lines |
|---|---|
| JavaScript | 2,518 |
| Python | 330 |