Leaderboard github.com

Maxim-Mazurok/ai-model-compare

Compare AI LLM intelligence per dollar

View repository ↗
TypeScript
★ 0
commit 3c56345f1a7b
scored 2026-11-14
scoring prov-5+qual-2+sec-2

AI provenance

none-detected

Confidence: 48%
Coverage: 100%

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

Code quality

54/100

weak

Confidence: 90%
Coverage: 100%

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

Security

61/100

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

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

2026-065,440 · 0% AI
2026-07364 · 0% AI
2026-080 · 0% AI
2026-090 · 0% AI
2026-100 · 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: 33
effective_loc: 5,804
tools_detected: 0

AI tool configurationok

artifacts: 0
tools_configured: 0
workflow_agents: 0

Commit velocityok

excluded_import_loc: 4,983
flagged_loc: 0
flagged_loc_share: 0.0%
flagged_units: 0
max_loc_per_hour: 93.21
measured_loc: 821
median_loc_per_hour: 55.30
pr_timed_units: 0
pre_ai_era_burst_loc: 0
pre_ai_era_bursts: 0
pre_ai_era_measured_loc: 0
work_units: 5

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: 5,497
per_kloc:assistant_voice: 0
per_kloc:emoji_in_code: 0
per_kloc:narrated_steps: 0
per_kloc:placeholder: 0

Code quality

54 weak

Code quality is weak: test-to-source ratio 0.00, no CI test run detected; 15% of function code in complex or long functions; 8% duplicated lines. Weakest area: testing.

How the score is built

Complexity63
Duplication62
Lint and smells93
Tests and CI15
Documentation40
Type safety100
Review processnot measured

Evidence by analyzer

Complexity (lizard)ok7 items

complex_functions: 7
function_nloc: 4,695
functions: 550
long_functions: 1
many_param_functions: 0
mean_ccn: 3.12
p90_ccn: 7
risky_nloc_share: 15.2%

Duplication (jscpd)ok6 items

compared_lines: 4,117
duplicated_lines: 327
duplicated_share: 7.9%
files: 10

Lintok

category:correctness: 6
findings: 6
scanned_lines: 5,497
weighted_findings: 1.50

Tests and CIok2 items

CI config: .github/workflows/pages.yml .github/workflows/pages.yml
CI config: .github/workflows/update-data.yml .github/workflows/update-data.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: 2
cochange_commits: 8
cochange_share: 0.0%
source_lines: 5,497
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: 86

Type safetyok1 item

TypeScript strict type checking: tsconfig.json tsconfig.json

check:low_escape_density: yes
check:strict_config: yes
escapes: 0
escapes_per_kloc: 0

Security

61 weak

Security posture is weak: 14 known vulnerabilities in 7 dependencies; 10 high-severity workflow issues. Weakest area: posture.

How the score is built

Secrets100
Static analysis (SAST)92
Vulnerable dependencies48
CI workflows14
Security posture0
OpenSSF Scorecardnot measured

Evidence by analyzer

OpenSSF Scorecardskipped

no published OpenSSF Scorecard result for this repo

Package registriesok

checked: 11
declared: 11
lookup_errors: 0
missing: 0
recent: 0

Secrets (gitleaks)ok

secrets_current: 0
secrets_history: 0
secrets_low_confidence: 0
secrets_nonprod: 0

Static analysis (opengrep)ok

findings: 5
findings_high: 0
findings_low: 0
findings_medium: 5
parse_errors: 0
scanned_lines: 5,497
weighted_findings: 1.25

Dependencies (osv-scanner)ok

penalty: 44
vulnerabilities: 14
vulnerable_packages: 7
vulns_critical: 0
vulns_high: 7
vulns_low: 2
vulns_medium: 5
vulns_unknown: 0

CI workflows (zizmor)ok

findings: 12
findings_high: 10
findings_low: 2
findings_medium: 0
penalty: 115.80
workflows: 2

Security postureok

check:dependency_updates: no
check:lockfiles: yes
check:security_policy: no
check:signed_commits: no
signed_commit_share: 0.0%
unpinned_manifests: 0

Release downloadsok

binary_assets: 0
signals: 0
suspicious: 0

Findings

17 high10 medium10 low

Severity	Rule	Location	Message	Tool
high	`zizmor/excessive-permissions`	.github/workflows/pages.yml:20	overly broad permissions [confidence high]	CI workflows (zizmor)
high	`zizmor/excessive-permissions`	.github/workflows/pages.yml:21	overly broad permissions [confidence high]	CI workflows (zizmor)
high	`zizmor/unpinned-uses`	.github/workflows/pages.yml:35	unpinned action reference [confidence high]	CI workflows (zizmor)
high	`zizmor/unpinned-uses`	.github/workflows/pages.yml:36	unpinned action reference [confidence high]	CI workflows (zizmor)
high	`zizmor/unpinned-uses`	.github/workflows/pages.yml:42	unpinned action reference [confidence high]	CI workflows (zizmor)
high	`zizmor/unpinned-uses`	.github/workflows/pages.yml:43	unpinned action reference [confidence high]	CI workflows (zizmor)
high	`zizmor/unpinned-uses`	.github/workflows/pages.yml:55	unpinned action reference [confidence high]	CI workflows (zizmor)
high	`zizmor/dangerous-triggers`	.github/workflows/pages.yml:8	use of fundamentally insecure workflow trigger [confidence medium]	CI workflows (zizmor)
high	`zizmor/unpinned-uses`	.github/workflows/update-data.yml:18	unpinned action reference [confidence high]	CI workflows (zizmor)
high	`zizmor/unpinned-uses`	.github/workflows/update-data.yml:19	unpinned action reference [confidence high]	CI workflows (zizmor)
high	`osv/GHSA-28wg-ghj8-5hjv`	package-lock.json	[email protected] (npm) is affected by GHSA-28wg-ghj8-5hjv	Dependencies (osv-scanner)
high	`osv/GHSA-2v37-7h3g-55p8`	package-lock.json	[email protected] (npm) is affected by GHSA-2v37-7h3g-55p8	Dependencies (osv-scanner)
high	`osv/GHSA-587h-7wmj-h5pm`	package-lock.json	[email protected] (npm) is affected by GHSA-587h-7wmj-h5pm	Dependencies (osv-scanner)
high	`osv/GHSA-68fv-2mgg-jv7q`	package-lock.json	[email protected] (npm) is affected by GHSA-68fv-2mgg-jv7q	Dependencies (osv-scanner)
high	`osv/GHSA-73wf-gq98-2v4g`	package-lock.json	[email protected] (npm) is affected by GHSA-73wf-gq98-2v4g	Dependencies (osv-scanner)
high	`osv/GHSA-c83g-rgw3-j3cx`	package-lock.json	[email protected] (npm) is affected by GHSA-c83g-rgw3-j3cx	Dependencies (osv-scanner)
high	`osv/GHSA-r28c-9q8g-f849`	package-lock.json	[email protected] (npm) is affected by GHSA-r28c-9q8g-f849	Dependencies (osv-scanner)
medium	`osv/GHSA-698v-4r3x-3vcv`	package-lock.json	[email protected] (npm) is affected by GHSA-698v-4r3x-3vcv	Dependencies (osv-scanner)
medium	`osv/GHSA-fxqj-rqcc-2cmp`	package-lock.json	[email protected] (npm) is affected by GHSA-fxqj-rqcc-2cmp	Dependencies (osv-scanner)
medium	`osv/GHSA-r825-w8mm-5pxw`	package-lock.json	[email protected] (npm) is affected by GHSA-r825-w8mm-5pxw	Dependencies (osv-scanner)
medium	`osv/GHSA-rq7h-c2jc-7f22`	package-lock.json	[email protected] (npm) is affected by GHSA-rq7h-c2jc-7f22	Dependencies (osv-scanner)
medium	`osv/GHSA-w5vr-8v7q-w6rv`	package-lock.json	[email protected] (npm) is affected by GHSA-w5vr-8v7q-w6rv	Dependencies (osv-scanner)
medium	`opengrep/javascript.lang.security.audit.detect-non-literal-regexp`	scripts/export-litellm-overlay.mjs:510	RegExp() called with a `argv` function argument, this might allow an attacker to cause a Regular Expression Denial-of-Service (ReDoS) within your application as RegExP blocks the main thread. For this reason, it is recommended to use...	Static analysis (opengrep)
medium	`opengrep/javascript.lang.security.audit.detect-non-literal-regexp`	scripts/export-litellm-overlay.mjs:511	RegExp() called with a `argv` function argument, this might allow an attacker to cause a Regular Expression Denial-of-Service (ReDoS) within your application as RegExP blocks the main thread. For this reason, it is recommended to use...	Static analysis (opengrep)
medium	`opengrep/javascript.lang.security.audit.detect-non-literal-regexp`	scripts/export-litellm-overlay.mjs:512	RegExp() called with a `argv` function argument, this might allow an attacker to cause a Regular Expression Denial-of-Service (ReDoS) within your application as RegExP blocks the main thread. For this reason, it is recommended to use...	Static analysis (opengrep)
medium	`opengrep/javascript.lang.security.audit.detect-non-literal-regexp`	scripts/export-litellm-overlay.mjs:513	RegExp() called with a `argv` function argument, this might allow an attacker to cause a Regular Expression Denial-of-Service (ReDoS) within your application as RegExP blocks the main thread. For this reason, it is recommended to use...	Static analysis (opengrep)
medium	`opengrep/javascript.lang.security.audit.detect-redos`	scripts/update-model-routes.mjs:984	Detected the use of a regular expression `^\d+(?:\.\d+)*$` which appears to be vulnerable to a Regular expression Denial-of-Service (ReDoS). For this reason, it is recommended to review the regex and ensure it is not vulnerable to...	Static analysis (opengrep)
low	`opengrep/javascript.lang.correctness.missing-template-string-indicator`	scripts/build-static-data.mjs:154	This looks like a JavaScript template string. Are you missing a '$' in front of '{...}'?	Lint
low	`opengrep/javascript.lang.correctness.missing-template-string-indicator`	scripts/build-static-data.mjs:154	This looks like a JavaScript template string. Are you missing a '$' in front of '{...}'?	Lint
low	`opengrep/javascript.lang.correctness.missing-template-string-indicator`	scripts/build-static-data.mjs:228	This looks like a JavaScript template string. Are you missing a '$' in front of '{...}'?	Lint
low	`opengrep/javascript.lang.correctness.missing-template-string-indicator`	scripts/build-static-data.mjs:228	This looks like a JavaScript template string. Are you missing a '$' in front of '{...}'?	Lint
low	`opengrep/javascript.lang.correctness.missing-template-string-indicator`	scripts/export-litellm-overlay.mjs:130	This looks like a JavaScript template string. Are you missing a '$' in front of '{...}'?	Lint
low	`opengrep/javascript.lang.correctness.missing-template-string-indicator`	scripts/export-litellm-overlay.mjs:130	This looks like a JavaScript template string. Are you missing a '$' in front of '{...}'?	Lint
low	`zizmor/artipacked`	.github/workflows/pages.yml:35	credential persistence through GitHub Actions artifacts [confidence low]	CI workflows (zizmor)
low	`zizmor/artipacked`	.github/workflows/update-data.yml:18	credential persistence through GitHub Actions artifacts [confidence low]	CI workflows (zizmor)
low	`osv/GHSA-9jrq-w75r-8gcw`	package-lock.json	[email protected] (npm) is affected by GHSA-9jrq-w75r-8gcw	Dependencies (osv-scanner)
low	`osv/GHSA-g7r4-m6w7-qqqr`	package-lock.json	[email protected] (npm) is affected by GHSA-g7r4-m6w7-qqqr	Dependencies (osv-scanner)

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
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	ok	`—`	0
CI workflows (zizmor)	Security	ok	`zizmor 1.32.0`	12
Dependencies (osv-scanner)	Security	ok	`osv-scanner version: 2.7.1`	14
Release downloads	Security	ok	`—`	0
Security posture	Security	ok	`—`	0
Package registries	Security	ok	`—`	0
Static analysis (opengrep)	Security	ok	`opengrep 1.33.1; rules f1d2b562b414`	5
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	`3c56345f1a7b`	`prov-5+qual-2+sec-2`	0%	54	61
2026-11-14	`3c56345f1a7b`	`prov-4+qual-2+sec-2`	0%	54	61

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/Maxim-Mazurok/ai-model-compare/ai.svg)](https://repotrust.synapticcyber.com/r/github.com/Maxim-Mazurok/ai-model-compare/)

[![RepoTrust quality](https://repotrust.synapticcyber.com/badge/github.com/Maxim-Mazurok/ai-model-compare/quality.svg)](https://repotrust.synapticcyber.com/r/github.com/Maxim-Mazurok/ai-model-compare/)

[![RepoTrust security](https://repotrust.synapticcyber.com/badge/github.com/Maxim-Mazurok/ai-model-compare/security.svg)](https://repotrust.synapticcyber.com/r/github.com/Maxim-Mazurok/ai-model-compare/)

Full text report

Repository: https://github.com/Maxim-Mazurok/ai-model-compare
Commit: 3c56345f1a7bb4835512a66d235245ef9c9e10c6
Generated: 2026-11-14T14:52:01+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	48%	100%
Code quality	54	weak	90%	100%
Security	61	weak	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
2026-06	5,440	0%
2026-07	364	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, no CI test run detected; 15% of function code in complex or long functions; 8% duplicated lines. Weakest area: testing.

Area	Score
Complexity (lizard)	63
Duplication	62
Code smells (Opengrep)	93
Tests and CI	15
Documentation	40
Type safety	100
Process (Scorecard review/maintenance)	n/a

Functions: 550; mean complexity 3.1, 90th percentile 7; 7 complex and 1 long functions
Duplicated lines: 7.9% of 4,117 compared
Tests: 0 test lines for 5,497 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

Most complex functions:

Security

Security posture is weak: 14 known vulnerabilities in 7 dependencies; 10 high-severity workflow issues. Weakest area: posture.

Area	Score
Secrets (gitleaks, tree + history)	100
Static analysis (Opengrep)	92
Vulnerable dependencies (OSV)	48
CI workflows (zizmor)	14
Posture (policy, updates, signing, lockfiles)	0
OpenSSF Scorecard	n/a

Known vulnerabilities: 14 in 7 packages (critical 0, high 7, medium 5, low 2)
Posture checks passed: lockfiles; missing: security policy, dependency updates, signed commits

Top findings

Severity	Finding	Location
high	`osv/GHSA-73wf-gq98-2v4g`: [email protected] (npm) is affected by GHSA-73wf-gq98-2v4g	package-lock.json
high	`osv/GHSA-c83g-rgw3-j3cx`: [email protected] (npm) is affected by GHSA-c83g-rgw3-j3cx	package-lock.json
high	`osv/GHSA-28wg-ghj8-5hjv`: [email protected] (npm) is affected by GHSA-28wg-ghj8-5hjv	package-lock.json
high	`osv/GHSA-2v37-7h3g-55p8`: [email protected] (npm) is affected by GHSA-2v37-7h3g-55p8	package-lock.json
high	`osv/GHSA-r28c-9q8g-f849`: [email protected] (npm) is affected by GHSA-r28c-9q8g-f849	package-lock.json
high	`osv/GHSA-68fv-2mgg-jv7q`: [email protected] (npm) is affected by GHSA-68fv-2mgg-jv7q	package-lock.json
high	`osv/GHSA-587h-7wmj-h5pm`: [email protected] (npm) is affected by GHSA-587h-7wmj-h5pm	package-lock.json
high	`zizmor/excessive-permissions`: overly broad permissions [confidence high]	.github/workflows/pages.yml:20
high	`zizmor/excessive-permissions`: overly broad permissions [confidence high]	.github/workflows/pages.yml:21
high	`zizmor/dangerous-triggers`: use of fundamentally insecure workflow trigger [confidence medium]	.github/workflows/pages.yml:8
high	`zizmor/unpinned-uses`: unpinned action reference [confidence high]	.github/workflows/pages.yml:35
high	`zizmor/unpinned-uses`: unpinned action reference [confidence high]	.github/workflows/pages.yml:36
high	`zizmor/unpinned-uses`: unpinned action reference [confidence high]	.github/workflows/pages.yml:42
high	`zizmor/unpinned-uses`: unpinned action reference [confidence high]	.github/workflows/pages.yml:43
high	`zizmor/unpinned-uses`: unpinned action reference [confidence high]	.github/workflows/pages.yml:55
high	`zizmor/unpinned-uses`: unpinned action reference [confidence high]	.github/workflows/update-data.yml:18
high	`zizmor/unpinned-uses`: unpinned action reference [confidence high]	.github/workflows/update-data.yml:19
medium	`opengrep/javascript.lang.security.audit.detect-non-literal-regexp`: RegExp() called with a `argv` function argument, this might allow an attacker to cause a Regular Expression Denial-of-Service (ReDoS) within your application as RegExP blocks the main thread. For this reason, it is recommended to use hardcoded regexes instead. If your regex is run on user-controlled [confidence low]	scripts/export-litellm-overlay.mjs:510
medium	`opengrep/javascript.lang.security.audit.detect-non-literal-regexp`: RegExp() called with a `argv` function argument, this might allow an attacker to cause a Regular Expression Denial-of-Service (ReDoS) within your application as RegExP blocks the main thread. For this reason, it is recommended to use hardcoded regexes instead. If your regex is run on user-controlled [confidence low]	scripts/export-litellm-overlay.mjs:511
medium	`opengrep/javascript.lang.security.audit.detect-non-literal-regexp`: RegExp() called with a `argv` function argument, this might allow an attacker to cause a Regular Expression Denial-of-Service (ReDoS) within your application as RegExP blocks the main thread. For this reason, it is recommended to use hardcoded regexes instead. If your regex is run on user-controlled [confidence low]	scripts/export-litellm-overlay.mjs:512
medium	`opengrep/javascript.lang.security.audit.detect-non-literal-regexp`: RegExp() called with a `argv` function argument, this might allow an attacker to cause a Regular Expression Denial-of-Service (ReDoS) within your application as RegExP blocks the main thread. For this reason, it is recommended to use hardcoded regexes instead. If your regex is run on user-controlled [confidence low]	scripts/export-litellm-overlay.mjs:513
medium	`opengrep/javascript.lang.security.audit.detect-redos`: Detected the use of a regular expression `^\d+(?:\.\d+)*$` which appears to be vulnerable to a Regular expression Denial-of-Service (ReDoS). For this reason, it is recommended to review the regex and ensure it is not vulnerable to catastrophic backtracking, and if possible use a library which offers [confidence low]	scripts/update-model-routes.mjs:984
medium	`osv/GHSA-w5vr-8v7q-w6rv`: [email protected] (npm) is affected by GHSA-w5vr-8v7q-w6rv	package-lock.json
medium	`osv/GHSA-fxqj-rqcc-2cmp`: [email protected] (npm) is affected by GHSA-fxqj-rqcc-2cmp	package-lock.json
medium	`osv/GHSA-698v-4r3x-3vcv`: [email protected] (npm) is affected by GHSA-698v-4r3x-3vcv	package-lock.json

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: 5,497; test lines: 0

Language	Lines
TypeScript	2,945
JavaScript	2,552