RepoTrust

Leaderboard github.com

Light-City/CPlusPlusThings

C++那些事

  • View repository ↗
  • C++
  • ★ 43,617
  • commit 587ae71edfa7
  • scored 2026-11-14
  • scoring prov-5+qual-2+sec-2

AI provenance

0%

none-detected

Confidence
65%
Coverage
100%

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

Code quality

48/100

poor

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.

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)0.06

Lines added per month all AI-attributed share

  1. 2019-072,293 · 0% AI
  2. 2019-08813 · 0% AI
  3. 2019-112,021 · 0% AI
  4. 2019-122,461 · 0% AI
  5. 2020-011,733 · 0% AI
  6. 2020-02820 · 0% AI
  7. 2020-030 · 0% AI
  8. 2020-0449 · 0% AI
  9. 2020-050 · 0% AI
  10. 2020-06118 · 0% AI
  11. 2020-072,990 · 0% AI
  12. 2020-080 · 0% AI
  13. 2020-090 · 0% AI
  14. 2020-100 · 0% AI
  15. 2020-110 · 0% AI
  16. 2020-120 · 0% AI
  17. 2021-010 · 0% AI
  18. 2021-023 · 0% AI
  19. 2021-030 · 0% AI
  20. 2021-040 · 0% AI
  21. 2021-050 · 0% AI
  22. 2021-071 · 0% AI
  23. 2021-080 · 0% AI
  24. 2021-090 · 0% AI
  25. 2021-113 · 0% AI
  26. 2021-120 · 0% AI
  27. 2022-015 · 0% AI
  28. 2022-022 · 0% AI
  29. 2022-0312 · 0% AI
  30. 2022-0420 · 0% AI
  31. 2022-050 · 0% AI
  32. 2022-080 · 0% AI
  33. 2022-090 · 0% AI
  34. 2022-100 · 0% AI
  35. 2022-111 · 0% AI
  36. 2022-120 · 0% AI
  37. 2023-017 · 0% AI
  38. 2023-020 · 0% AI
  39. 2023-037,699 · 0% AI
  40. 2024-031 · 0% AI
  41. 2024-050 · 0% AI
  42. 2024-060 · 0% AI
  43. 2024-120 · 0% AI
  44. 2025-051 · 0% AI
  45. 2025-063 · 0% AI
  46. 2025-1266 · 0% AI
  47. 2026-035 · 0% AI
  48. 2026-050 · 0% AI
  49. 2026-1058 · 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
244
effective_loc
21,185
tools_detected
0
AI tool configurationok
artifacts
0
tools_configured
0
workflow_agents
0
Commit velocityok
excluded_import_loc
7,699
flagged_loc
0
flagged_loc_share
0.0%
flagged_units
0
max_loc_per_hour
624.25
measured_loc
13,486
median_loc_per_hour
73
pr_timed_units
1
pre_ai_era_burst_loc
2,497
pre_ai_era_bursts
1
pre_ai_era_measured_loc
13,301
work_units
59
Release velocityskipped
Coding styleok
count:assistant_voice
0
count:emoji_in_code
2
count:narrated_steps
0
count:placeholder
0
files:assistant_voice
0
files:emoji_in_code
2
files:narrated_steps
0
files:placeholder
0
index
0.06
lines_scanned
16,659
per_kloc:assistant_voice
0
per_kloc:emoji_in_code
0.12
per_kloc:narrated_steps
0
per_kloc:placeholder
0

Code quality

48 poor

Code quality is poor: test-to-source ratio 0.00, no CI test run detected; 0% of function code in complex or long functions; 21% duplicated lines. Weakest area: testing.

How the score is built

  • Complexity100
  • Duplication28
  • Lint and smells100
  • Tests and CI0
  • Documentation40
  • Type safetynot measured
  • Review process20

Evidence by analyzer

Complexity (lizard)ok
complex_functions
0
function_nloc
7,314
functions
1,543
long_functions
0
many_param_functions
0
mean_ccn
1.26
p90_ccn
2
risky_nloc_share
0.0%
Duplication (jscpd)ok10 items
compared_lines
10,355
duplicated_lines
2,190
duplicated_share
21.1%
files
447
Lintok
findings
0
scanned_lines
16,659
weighted_findings
0
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
71
cochange_share
0.0%
source_lines
16,659
test_lines
0
test_ratio
0
Documentationok1 item
  • README.md README.md
check:changelog
no
check:contributing
no
check:license
no
check:readme
yes
readme_lines
314
Type safetyskipped

Security

72 adequate

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

How the score is built

  • Secrets100
  • Static analysis (SAST)100
  • Vulnerable dependenciesnot measured
  • CI workflowsnot measured
  • Security posture20
  • OpenSSF Scorecard0

Evidence by analyzer

OpenSSF Scorecardok8 items
aggregate
0.70
check:Binary-Artifacts
no
check:CII-Best-Practices
no
check:Code-Review
yes
check:Fuzzing
no
check:License
no
check:Maintained
yes
check:SAST
no
check:Security-Policy
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
3
scanned_lines
16,659
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
yes
signed_commit_share
58.5%
unpinned_manifests
0
Release downloadsok
binary_assets
0
signals
0
suspicious
0

Findings

No line-level findings.

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-50
Complexity (lizard)Code qualityoklizard 1.25.10
DocumentationCode qualityok—0
Duplication (jscpd)Code qualityokrepotrust-dup-w60
LintCode qualityokopengrep 1.33.1; rules f1d2b562b4140
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 f1d2b562b4140
OpenSSF ScorecardSecurityokscorecard v5.6.00
Secrets (gitleaks)Securityokgitleaks 8.30.10

Score history

ScoredCommitScoringAI provenanceQualitySecurity
2026-11-14587ae71edfa7prov-5+qual-2+sec-20%4872

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/Light-City/CPlusPlusThings/ai.svg)](https://repotrust.synapticcyber.com/r/github.com/Light-City/CPlusPlusThings/)
[![RepoTrust quality](https://repotrust.synapticcyber.com/badge/github.com/Light-City/CPlusPlusThings/quality.svg)](https://repotrust.synapticcyber.com/r/github.com/Light-City/CPlusPlusThings/)
[![RepoTrust security](https://repotrust.synapticcyber.com/badge/github.com/Light-City/CPlusPlusThings/security.svg)](https://repotrust.synapticcyber.com/r/github.com/Light-City/CPlusPlusThings/)
Full text report

Scores

Pillar Score Signal Confidence Coverage
AI provenance (estimated AI-generated share) 0 none-detected 65% 100%
Code quality 48 poor 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: 0.06 per 1,000 lines (narrated steps 0, placeholders 0, assistant phrasing 0, emoji 2). Reported as a signal, not scored.

Month Lines added Attributed to AI
2022-02 2 0%
2022-03 12 0%
2022-04 20 0%
2022-11 1 0%
2023-01 7 0%
2023-03 7,699 0%
2024-03 1 0%
2025-05 1 0%
2025-06 3 0%
2025-12 66 0%
2026-03 5 0%
2026-10 58 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; 0% of function code in complex or long functions; 21% duplicated lines. Weakest area: testing.

Area Score
Complexity (lizard) 100
Duplication 28
Code smells (Opengrep) 100
Tests and CI 0
Documentation 40
Type safety n/a
Process (Scorecard review/maintenance) 20
  • Functions: 1,543; mean complexity 1.3, 90th percentile 2; 0 complex and 0 long functions
  • Duplicated lines: 21.1% of 10,355 compared
  • Tests: 0 test lines for 16,659 source lines (ratio 0.00); CI test commands: none detected; 0% of recent source commits also change tests
  • Docs missing or thin: license, contributing, changelog

Security

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

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) 20
OpenSSF Scorecard 0
  • Posture checks passed: signed commits, lockfiles; missing: security policy, dependency updates
  • OpenSSF Scorecard aggregate: 0.7/10 (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.

Repository profile

  • Source lines: 16,659; test lines: 0
Language Lines
C++ 15,760
C 899