RepoTrust

Leaderboard github.com

Jannchie/Historical-ranking-data-visualization-based-on-d3.js

[Deprecated!] This is a data visualization project that converts historical data rankings into dynamic bar charts.

  • View repository ↗
  • JavaScript
  • ★ 4,636
  • commit e94a6e4778fa
  • scored 2026-11-14
  • scoring prov-5+qual-2+sec-2

AI provenance

0%

none-detected

Confidence
64%
Coverage
100%

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

Code quality

36/100

poor

Confidence
90%
Coverage
100%

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

Security

79/100

adequate

Confidence
85%
Coverage
100%

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

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 pacenot measured
  • Coding-style index (1.0+ means possible)0.00

Lines added per month all AI-attributed share

  1. 2018-060 · 0% AI
  2. 2018-0710,147 · 0% AI
  3. 2018-0817 · 0% AI
  4. 2018-090 · 0% AI
  5. 2018-10443 · 0% AI
  6. 2018-11221 · 0% AI
  7. 2018-12135 · 0% AI
  8. 2019-01164 · 0% AI
  9. 2019-02825 · 0% AI
  10. 2019-03141 · 0% AI
  11. 2019-0411 · 0% AI
  12. 2019-053 · 0% AI
  13. 2020-03227 · 0% AI
  14. 2020-080 · 0% AI
  15. 2020-100 · 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
97
effective_loc
12,334
tools_detected
0
AI tool configurationok
artifacts
0
tools_configured
0
workflow_agents
0
Commit velocityok
excluded_import_loc
0
flagged_loc
0
flagged_loc_share
0.0%
flagged_units
0
max_loc_per_hour
2,348.75
measured_loc
12,334
median_loc_per_hour
48.04
pr_timed_units
1
pre_ai_era_burst_loc
9,395
pre_ai_era_bursts
1
pre_ai_era_measured_loc
12,334
work_units
48
Release velocityskipped
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
1,086
per_kloc:assistant_voice
0
per_kloc:emoji_in_code
0
per_kloc:narrated_steps
0
per_kloc:placeholder
0

Code quality

36 poor

Code quality is poor: test-to-source ratio 0.00, no CI test run detected; 48% of function code in complex or long functions; 12% duplicated lines. Weakest area: testing.

How the score is built

  • Complexity24
  • Duplication48
  • Lint and smells79
  • Tests and CI0
  • Documentation65
  • Type safetynot measured
  • Review processnot measured

Evidence by analyzer

Complexity (lizard)ok2 items
complex_functions
1
function_nloc
882
functions
88
long_functions
2
many_param_functions
0
mean_ccn
1.99
p90_ccn
3
risky_nloc_share
48.1%
Duplication (jscpd)ok1 item
compared_lines
842
duplicated_lines
104
duplicated_share
12.3%
files
5
Lintok
category:best-practice
1
findings
1
scanned_lines
1,086
weighted_findings
1
Tests and CIok
check:ci_present
no
check:ci_runs_lint
no
check:ci_runs_tests
no
check:has_tests
no
check:test_ratio
no
check:tests_cochange
no
ci_files
0
cochange_commits
64
cochange_share
0.0%
source_lines
1,086
test_lines
0
test_ratio
0
Documentationok2 items
  • README.md README.md
  • LICENSE LICENSE
check:changelog
no
check:contributing
no
check:license
yes
check:readme
yes
readme_lines
120
Type safetyskipped

Security

79 adequate

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

How the score is built

  • Secrets100
  • Static analysis (SAST)92
  • Vulnerable dependenciesnot measured
  • CI workflowsnot measured
  • 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
1
findings_high
0
findings_low
0
findings_medium
1
parse_errors
0
scanned_lines
1,086
weighted_findings
0.25
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
16.5%
unpinned_manifests
0
Release downloadsok
binary_assets
0
signals
0
suspicious
0

Findings

2 medium

SeverityRuleLocationMessageTool
medium opengrep/javascript.lang.best-practice.javascript-alert src/visual.js:23 found alert() call; should this be in production code? Lint
medium opengrep/javascript.lang.security.audit.incomplete-sanitization src/visual.js:543 `encodeURIComponent(d.name).replace` method will only replace the first occurrence when used with a string argument ("'"). If this method is used for escaping of dangerous data then there is a possibility for a bypass. Try to use... Static analysis (opengrep)

Tools and coverage

Every analyzer that ran on this commit. A failed or skipped tool is a coverage gap: its share of the score is left out and the coverage figure drops.

AnalyzerPillarStatusVersionFindingsNote
AI tool configurationAI provenanceoksignatures-v10
Explicit AI attributionAI provenanceoksignatures-v10
Release velocityAI provenanceskipped—0
Coding styleAI provenanceok—0
Commit velocityAI provenanceokprov-40
Complexity (lizard)Code qualityoklizard 1.25.10
DocumentationCode qualityok—0
Duplication (jscpd)Code qualityokrepotrust-dup-w60
LintCode qualityokopengrep 1.33.1; rules f1d2b562b4141
Tests and CICode qualityok—0
Type safetyCode qualityskipped—0
CI workflows (zizmor)Securityskipped—0
Dependencies (osv-scanner)Securityskipped—0
Release downloadsSecurityok—0
Security postureSecurityok—0
Package registriesSecurityskipped—0no registry dependencies declared
Static analysis (opengrep)Securityokopengrep 1.33.1; rules f1d2b562b4141
OpenSSF ScorecardSecurityskipped—0no published OpenSSF Scorecard result for this repo
Secrets (gitleaks)Securityokgitleaks 8.30.10

Score history

Scores from different scoring versions aren't directly comparable.

ScoredCommitScoringAI provenanceQualitySecurity
2026-11-14e94a6e4778faprov-5+qual-2+sec-20%3679
2026-11-14e94a6e4778faprov-4+qual-2+sec-20%3679

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/Jannchie/Historical-ranking-data-visualization-based-on-d3.js/ai.svg)](https://repotrust.synapticcyber.com/r/github.com/Jannchie/Historical-ranking-data-visualization-based-on-d3.js/)
[![RepoTrust quality](https://repotrust.synapticcyber.com/badge/github.com/Jannchie/Historical-ranking-data-visualization-based-on-d3.js/quality.svg)](https://repotrust.synapticcyber.com/r/github.com/Jannchie/Historical-ranking-data-visualization-based-on-d3.js/)
[![RepoTrust security](https://repotrust.synapticcyber.com/badge/github.com/Jannchie/Historical-ranking-data-visualization-based-on-d3.js/security.svg)](https://repotrust.synapticcyber.com/r/github.com/Jannchie/Historical-ranking-data-visualization-based-on-d3.js/)
Full text report

Scores

Pillar Score Signal Confidence Coverage
AI provenance (estimated AI-generated share) 0 none-detected 64% 100%
Code quality 36 poor 90% 100%
Security 79 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%
Month Lines added Attributed to AI
2018-07 10,147 0%
2018-08 17 0%
2018-10 443 0%
2018-11 221 0%
2018-12 135 0%
2019-01 164 0%
2019-02 825 0%
2019-03 141 0%
2019-04 11 0%
2019-05 3 0%
2020-03 227 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 poor: test-to-source ratio 0.00, no CI test run detected; 48% of function code in complex or long functions; 12% duplicated lines. Weakest area: testing.

Area Score
Complexity (lizard) 24
Duplication 48
Code smells (Opengrep) 79
Tests and CI 0
Documentation 65
Type safety n/a
Process (Scorecard review/maintenance) n/a
  • Functions: 88; mean complexity 2.0, 90th percentile 3; 1 complex and 2 long functions
  • Duplicated lines: 12.3% of 842 compared
  • Tests: 0 test lines for 1,086 source lines (ratio 0.00); CI test commands: none detected; 0% of recent source commits also change tests
  • Docs missing or thin: contributing, 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) 92
Vulnerable dependencies (OSV) n/a
CI workflows (zizmor) n/a
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
medium opengrep/javascript.lang.security.audit.incomplete-sanitization: encodeURIComponent(d.name).replace method will only replace the first occurrence when used with a string argument ("'"). If this method is used for escaping of dangerous data then there is a possibility for a bypass. Try to use sanitization library instead or use a Regex with a global flag. [confidence low] src/visual.js:543

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: 1,086; test lines: 0
Language Lines
JavaScript 1,086