Leaderboard github.com

LightForgeLabsStudio/AIDE

AIDE: AI-Assisted Development Environment - Universal framework for AI-assisted software development workflows

View repository ↗
Python
★ 0
commit 6251d6a31fca
scored 2026-11-14
scoring prov-5+qual-2+sec-2

AI provenance

19%

explicit

Confidence: 95%
Coverage: 100%

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

Code quality

29/100

poor

Confidence: 90%
Coverage: 100%

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

Security

58/100

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

19% explicit

Explicit AI attribution on 19% of first-party code added; an estimated 19% including velocity signals.

How the score is built

Explicitly attributed share19%
Unattributed share in AI-pace bursts0%
Estimated AI-generated share19%
AI tool configuration files0
Work sessions at AI pace0
Releases at AI pacenot measured
Coding-style index (1.0+ means possible)0.92

Attributed AI tools

Tool	Commits	Lines added	First seen	Last seen
Claude Code	42	753	2025-12-12	2026-09-19
OpenAI Codex	3	0	2026-01-02	2026-09-30

Lines added per month all AI-attributed share

2025-1299 · 0% AI
2026-012,736 · 28% AI
2026-02544 · 0% AI
2026-03216 · 0% AI
2026-040 · 0% AI
2026-05242 · 0% AI
2026-06101 · 0% AI
2026-080 · 0% AI
2026-098 · 0% AI
2026-100 · 0% AI

Findings in AI-attributed lines vs the rest

From git blame: 573 lines trace to AI-attributed commits, 2,147 to others. Reported, not scored.

Findings per 1,000 lines	AI-attributed	Other	Ratio
Code quality	8.73	1.86	4.68×
Security	3.49	0.93	3.74×

Evidence by analyzer

Explicit AI attributionok27 items

attributed_commit_share: 34.4%
attributed_commits: 45
attributed_loc: 753
attributed_loc_share: 19.1%
commits: 131
effective_loc: 3,946
tools_detected: 2

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: 137.62
measured_loc: 3,946
median_loc_per_hour: 54
pr_timed_units: 8
pre_ai_era_burst_loc: 0
pre_ai_era_bursts: 0
pre_ai_era_measured_loc: 0
work_units: 27

Release velocityskipped

Coding styleok1 item

step-by-step narration comment: # First, update Epic if present

count:assistant_voice: 0
count:emoji_in_code: 3
count:narrated_steps: 1
count:placeholder: 0
files:assistant_voice: 0
files:emoji_in_code: 2
files:narrated_steps: 1
files:placeholder: 0
index: 0.92
lines_scanned: 2,720
per_kloc:assistant_voice: 0
per_kloc:emoji_in_code: 1.10
per_kloc:narrated_steps: 0.37
per_kloc:placeholder: 0

Findings in AI-written linesok

ai_lines: 573
blame_failures: 0
files_blamed: 13
other_lines: 2,147
quality:ai_findings: 5
quality:ai_per_kloc: 8.73
quality:other_findings: 4
quality:other_per_kloc: 1.86
quality:ratio: 4.68
security:ai_findings: 2
security:ai_per_kloc: 3.49
security:other_findings: 2
security:other_per_kloc: 0.93
security:ratio: 3.74

Code quality

29 poor

Code quality is poor: test-to-source ratio 0.00, no CI test run detected; 47% of function code in complex or long functions; 23% duplicated lines. Weakest area: testing.

How the score is built

Complexity24
Duplication25
Lint and smells34
Tests and CI15
Documentation65
Type safety40
Review processnot measured

Evidence by analyzer

Complexity (lizard)ok6 items

complex_functions: 6
function_nloc: 980
functions: 54
long_functions: 1
many_param_functions: 0
mean_ccn: 5.54
p90_ccn: 22
risky_nloc_share: 47.2%

Duplication (jscpd)ok8 items

compared_lines: 1,990
duplicated_lines: 456
duplicated_share: 22.9%
files: 13

Lintok

category:best-practice: 2
category:maintainability: 7
findings: 9
scanned_lines: 2,095
weighted_findings: 9

Tests and CIok3 items

CI config: .github/workflows/codex-skills.yml .github/workflows/codex-skills.yml
CI config: .github/workflows/pr-body-check.yml .github/workflows/pr-body-check.yml
CI config: .github/workflows/workflow-gen-check.yml .github/workflows/workflow-gen-check.yml

check:ci_present: yes
check:ci_runs_lint: no
check:ci_runs_tests: no
check:has_tests: no
check:test_ratio: no
check:tests_cochange: no
ci_files: 3
cochange_commits: 32
cochange_share: 0.0%
source_lines: 2,720
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: 165

Type safetyok

check:low_escape_density: yes
check:strict_config: no
escapes: 1
escapes_per_kloc: 0.61

Security

58 weak

Security posture is weak: 4 high-severity SAST findings; 7 high-severity workflow issues. Weakest area: posture.

How the score is built

Secrets100
Static analysis (SAST)61
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: 4
findings_high: 4
findings_low: 0
findings_medium: 0
parse_errors: 0
scanned_lines: 2,095
weighted_findings: 3

Dependencies (osv-scanner)skipped

CI workflows (zizmor)ok

findings: 13
findings_high: 7
findings_low: 1
findings_medium: 5
penalty: 87.60
workflows: 3

Security postureok

check:dependency_updates: no
check:lockfiles: yes
check:security_policy: no
check:signed_commits: no
signed_commit_share: 16.8%
unpinned_manifests: 0

Release downloadsok

binary_assets: 0
signals: 0
suspicious: 0

Findings

11 high14 medium1 info

Severity	Rule	Location	Message	Tool
high	`zizmor/unpinned-uses`	.github/workflows/codex-skills.yml:16	unpinned action reference [confidence high]	CI workflows (zizmor)
high	`zizmor/unpinned-uses`	.github/workflows/codex-skills.yml:23	unpinned action reference [confidence high]	CI workflows (zizmor)
high	`zizmor/unpinned-uses`	.github/workflows/codex-skills.yml:30	unpinned action reference [confidence high]	CI workflows (zizmor)
high	`zizmor/unpinned-uses`	.github/workflows/pr-body-check.yml:13	unpinned action reference [confidence high]	CI workflows (zizmor)
high	`zizmor/dangerous-triggers`	.github/workflows/pr-body-check.yml:6	use of fundamentally insecure workflow trigger [confidence medium]	CI workflows (zizmor)
high	`zizmor/unpinned-uses`	.github/workflows/workflow-gen-check.yml:11	unpinned action reference [confidence high]	CI workflows (zizmor)
high	`zizmor/unpinned-uses`	.github/workflows/workflow-gen-check.yml:12	unpinned action reference [confidence high]	CI workflows (zizmor)
high	`opengrep/python.lang.security.audit.dangerous-subprocess-use-audit`	tools/issue-creator/issue-creator.py:375	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)
high	`opengrep/python.lang.security.audit.dangerous-subprocess-use-audit`	tools/issue-creator/issue-creator.py:620	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)
high	`opengrep/python.lang.security.audit.dangerous-subprocess-use-audit`	tools/issue-creator/issue-creator.py:629	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)
high	`opengrep/python.lang.security.audit.dangerous-subprocess-use-audit`	tools/issue-creator/issue-creator.py:637	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/python.lang.maintainability.is-function-without-parentheses`	tools/issue-creator/issue-creator.py:1000	Is "is_epic" a function or an attribute? If it is a function, you may have meant spec.is_epic() because spec.is_epic is always true.	Lint
medium	`opengrep/python.lang.best-practice.unspecified-open-encoding`	tools/issue-creator/issue-creator.py:146	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.maintainability.is-function-without-parentheses`	tools/issue-creator/issue-creator.py:705	Is "is_epic" a function or an attribute? If it is a function, you may have meant s.is_epic() because s.is_epic is always true.	Lint
medium	`opengrep/python.lang.maintainability.is-function-without-parentheses`	tools/issue-creator/issue-creator.py:717	Is "is_epic" a function or an attribute? If it is a function, you may have meant s.is_epic() because s.is_epic is always true.	Lint
medium	`opengrep/python.lang.maintainability.is-function-without-parentheses`	tools/issue-creator/issue-creator.py:735	Is "is_epic" a function or an attribute? If it is a function, you may have meant s.is_epic() because s.is_epic is always true.	Lint
medium	`opengrep/python.lang.maintainability.is-function-without-parentheses`	tools/issue-creator/issue-creator.py:747	Is "is_epic" a function or an attribute? If it is a function, you may have meant spec.is_epic() because spec.is_epic is always true.	Lint
medium	`opengrep/python.lang.maintainability.is-function-without-parentheses`	tools/issue-creator/issue-creator.py:811	Is "is_epic" a function or an attribute? If it is a function, you may have meant spec.is_epic() because spec.is_epic is always true.	Lint
medium	`opengrep/python.lang.maintainability.is-function-without-parentheses`	tools/issue-creator/issue-creator.py:856	Is "is_epic" a function or an attribute? If it is a function, you may have meant s.is_epic() because s.is_epic is always true.	Lint
medium	`opengrep/python.lang.best-practice.unspecified-open-encoding`	tools/set-issue-type.py:36	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/artipacked`	.github/workflows/codex-skills.yml:16	credential persistence through GitHub Actions artifacts [confidence low]	CI workflows (zizmor)
medium	`zizmor/excessive-permissions`	.github/workflows/pr-body-check.yml:10	overly broad permissions [confidence medium]	CI workflows (zizmor)
medium	`zizmor/artipacked`	.github/workflows/pr-body-check.yml:13	credential persistence through GitHub Actions artifacts [confidence low]	CI workflows (zizmor)
medium	`zizmor/artipacked`	.github/workflows/workflow-gen-check.yml:11	credential persistence through GitHub Actions artifacts [confidence low]	CI workflows (zizmor)
medium	`zizmor/excessive-permissions`	.github/workflows/workflow-gen-check.yml:8	overly broad permissions [confidence medium]	CI workflows (zizmor)
info	`zizmor/superfluous-actions`	.github/workflows/codex-skills.yml:30	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	skipped	`—`	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`	9
Tests and CI	Code quality	ok	`—`	0
Type safety	Code quality	ok	`—`	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`	4
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	`6251d6a31fca`	`prov-5+qual-2+sec-2`	19%	29	58
2026-11-14	`6251d6a31fca`	`prov-4+qual-2+sec-2`	19%	29	58

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

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

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

Full text report

Repository: https://github.com/LightForgeLabsStudio/AIDE
Commit: 6251d6a31fca563d508f17ddeaf065ad72fe4f18
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)	19	explicit	95%	100%
Code quality	29	poor	90%	100%
Security	58	weak	85%	100%

AI provenance

Explicit AI attribution on 19% of first-party code added; an estimated 19% including velocity signals.

Explicitly attributed share (lower bound): 19.1%
Unattributed share in AI-consistent velocity bursts: 0.0%
Estimated AI-generated share: 19.1%

AI tool	Attributed commits	Lines added
Claude Code	42	753
OpenAI Codex	3	0

Current source lines last changed by AI-attributed commits: 573 of 2,720.

Findings per 1,000 lines	AI-attributed	Other	Ratio
Quality	8.726	1.863	4.68x
Security	3.49	0.932	3.74x

Stylometry index: 0.92 per 1,000 lines (narrated steps 1, placeholders 0, assistant phrasing 0, emoji 3). Reported as a signal, not scored.

Month	Lines added	Attributed to AI
2025-12	99	0%
2026-01	2,736	28%
2026-02	544	0%
2026-03	216	0%
2026-05	242	0%
2026-06	101	0%
2026-09	8	0%

Evidence

OpenAI Codex: on merged branch (a50f7fcb59) (b12b41723eb5)
Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude' (fe45349c6615)
Claude Code: trailer 'Co-authored-by: Claude' (30b374810a24)
Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude' (bd3d6bc48c2b)
Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude' (547e0653169c)
Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude' (fd93cf20bf10)
Claude Code: trailer 'Co-authored-by: Claude' (35c2ca4c64bd)
Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude' (63b10284751d)
Claude Code: trailer 'Co-authored-by: Claude' (fb43b29131c5)
Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude' (c352a0e69ad3)
Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude' (5c33e6c8558b)
Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude' (ecae094535e4)
Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude' (b6944a774759)
Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude' (cc4b36021da2)
Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude' (87379711b815)

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; 47% of function code in complex or long functions; 23% duplicated lines. Weakest area: testing.

Area	Score
Complexity (lizard)	24
Duplication	25
Code smells (Opengrep)	34
Tests and CI	15
Documentation	65
Type safety	40
Process (Scorecard review/maintenance)	n/a

Functions: 54; mean complexity 5.5, 90th percentile 22; 6 complex and 1 long functions
Duplicated lines: 22.9% of 1,990 compared
Tests: 0 test lines for 2,720 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 weak: 4 high-severity SAST findings; 7 high-severity workflow issues. Weakest area: posture.

Area	Score
Secrets (gitleaks, tree + history)	100
Static analysis (Opengrep)	61
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	`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/issue-creator/issue-creator.py:375
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/issue-creator/issue-creator.py:620
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/issue-creator/issue-creator.py:629
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/issue-creator/issue-creator.py:637
high	`zizmor/unpinned-uses`: unpinned action reference [confidence high]	.github/workflows/codex-skills.yml:16
high	`zizmor/unpinned-uses`: unpinned action reference [confidence high]	.github/workflows/codex-skills.yml:23
high	`zizmor/unpinned-uses`: unpinned action reference [confidence high]	.github/workflows/codex-skills.yml:30
high	`zizmor/dangerous-triggers`: use of fundamentally insecure workflow trigger [confidence medium]	.github/workflows/pr-body-check.yml:6
high	`zizmor/unpinned-uses`: unpinned action reference [confidence high]	.github/workflows/pr-body-check.yml:13
high	`zizmor/unpinned-uses`: unpinned action reference [confidence high]	.github/workflows/workflow-gen-check.yml:11
high	`zizmor/unpinned-uses`: unpinned action reference [confidence high]	.github/workflows/workflow-gen-check.yml:12
medium	`zizmor/artipacked`: credential persistence through GitHub Actions artifacts [confidence low]	.github/workflows/codex-skills.yml:16
medium	`zizmor/artipacked`: credential persistence through GitHub Actions artifacts [confidence low]	.github/workflows/pr-body-check.yml:13
medium	`zizmor/excessive-permissions`: overly broad permissions [confidence medium]	.github/workflows/pr-body-check.yml:10
medium	`zizmor/artipacked`: credential persistence through GitHub Actions artifacts [confidence low]	.github/workflows/workflow-gen-check.yml:11
medium	`zizmor/excessive-permissions`: overly broad permissions [confidence medium]	.github/workflows/workflow-gen-check.yml:8
info	`zizmor/superfluous-actions`: action functionality is already included by the runner [confidence high]	.github/workflows/codex-skills.yml:30

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: 2,720; test lines: 0

Language	Lines
Python	1,636
PowerShell	625
Shell	459