Leaderboard github.com

NiallEHunt/RecipeLibrary

View repository ↗
Kotlin
★ 0
commit 0ac06776c674
scored 2026-11-14
scoring prov-5+qual-2+sec-2

AI provenance

58%

explicit

Confidence: 77%
Coverage: 100%

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

Code quality

67/100

adequate

Confidence: 90%
Coverage: 100%

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

Security

82/100

adequate

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

58% explicit

Explicit AI attribution on 58% of first-party code added; an estimated 58% including velocity signals.

How the score is built

Explicitly attributed share58%
Unattributed share in AI-pace bursts0%
Estimated AI-generated share58%
AI tool configuration files1
Work sessions at AI pace1
Releases at AI pacenot measured
Coding-style index (1.0+ means possible)0.34

Attributed AI tools

Tool	Commits	Lines added	First seen	Last seen
Claude Code	6	6,707	2025-06-10	2025-07-13

Lines added per month all AI-attributed share

2025-068,074 · 40% AI
2025-073,539 · 99% AI

Findings in AI-attributed lines vs the rest

From git blame: 3,283 lines trace to AI-attributed commits, 2,573 to others. Reported, not scored.

Findings per 1,000 lines	AI-attributed	Other	Ratio
Code quality	0.00	0.00	—
Security	0.00	0.00	—

Evidence by analyzer

Explicit AI attributionok7 items

Claude Code: 6 attributed commits, 6,707 lines added
Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude'
Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude'
Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude'
Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude'
Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude'
Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude'

attributed_commit_share: 20.0%
attributed_commits: 6
attributed_loc: 6,707
attributed_loc_share: 57.8%
commits: 30
effective_loc: 11,613
tools_detected: 1

AI tool configurationok1 item

CLAUDE.md (claude-code configuration)

artifacts: 1
earliest_adoption: 2025-06-10
tools_configured: 1
workflow_agents: 0

Commit velocityok1 item

1,360 lines of first-party code in ~1.5h (918 lines/hour, 1 commit session)

excluded_import_loc: 3,198
flagged_loc: 1,360
flagged_loc_share: 16.2%
flagged_units: 1
max_loc_per_hour: 918.40
measured_loc: 8,415
median_loc_per_hour: 456.85
pr_timed_units: 0
pre_ai_era_burst_loc: 0
pre_ai_era_bursts: 0
pre_ai_era_measured_loc: 0
work_units: 7

Release velocityskipped

Coding styleok1 item

placeholder or demo-only phrasing: // Note: This is a basic layout test - in a real scenario you might want to test

count:assistant_voice: 0
count:emoji_in_code: 0
count:narrated_steps: 0
count:placeholder: 1
files:assistant_voice: 0
files:emoji_in_code: 0
files:narrated_steps: 0
files:placeholder: 1
index: 0.34
lines_scanned: 5,856
per_kloc:assistant_voice: 0
per_kloc:emoji_in_code: 0
per_kloc:narrated_steps: 0
per_kloc:placeholder: 0.17

Findings in AI-written linesok

ai_lines: 3,283
blame_failures: 0
files_blamed: 42
other_lines: 2,573
quality:ai_findings: 0
quality:ai_per_kloc: 0
quality:other_findings: 0
quality:other_per_kloc: 0
security:ai_findings: 0
security:ai_per_kloc: 0
security:other_findings: 0
security:other_per_kloc: 0

Code quality

67 adequate

Code quality is adequate: test-to-source ratio 0.56, no CI test run detected; 4% of function code in complex or long functions; 15% duplicated lines. Weakest area: docs.

How the score is built

Complexity89
Duplication41
Lint and smells100
Tests and CI55
Documentation40
Type safetynot measured
Review processnot measured

Evidence by analyzer

Complexity (lizard)ok1 item

SelectableRecipeListItem in app/src/main/java/com/niallehunt/recipelibrary/components/SelectableRecipeListItem.kt: complexity 15, 123 lines

complex_functions: 0
function_nloc: 3,154
functions: 221
long_functions: 1
many_param_functions: 1
mean_ccn: 1.50
p90_ccn: 3
risky_nloc_share: 3.9%

Duplication (jscpd)ok10 items

compared_lines: 3,537
duplicated_lines: 531
duplicated_share: 15.0%
files: 42

Lintok

findings: 0
scanned_lines: 5,856
weighted_findings: 0

Tests and CIok

check:ci_present: no
check:ci_runs_lint: no
check:ci_runs_tests: no
check:has_tests: yes
check:test_ratio: yes
check:tests_cochange: yes
ci_files: 0
cochange_commits: 23
cochange_share: 47.8%
source_lines: 5,856
test_lines: 3,272
test_ratio: 0.56

Documentationok1 item

README.md README.md

check:changelog: no
check:contributing: no
check:license: no
check:readme: yes
readme_lines: 87

Type safetyskipped

Security

82 adequate

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

How the score is built

Secrets100
Static analysis (SAST)100
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: 0
findings_high: 0
findings_low: 0
findings_medium: 0
parse_errors: 0
scanned_lines: 5,856
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: no
signed_commit_share: 0.0%
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.

Analyzer	Pillar	Status	Version	Note
AI tool configuration	AI provenance	ok	`signatures-v1`
Explicit AI attribution	AI provenance	ok	`signatures-v1`
Release velocity	AI provenance	skipped	`—`
Coding style	AI provenance	ok	`—`
Commit velocity	AI provenance	ok	`prov-4`
Findings in AI-written lines	AI provenance	ok	`git-blame`
Complexity (lizard)	Code quality	ok	`lizard 1.25.1`
Documentation	Code quality	ok	`—`
Duplication (jscpd)	Code quality	ok	`repotrust-dup-w6`
Lint	Code quality	ok	`opengrep 1.33.1; rules f1d2b562b414`
Tests and CI	Code quality	ok	`—`
Type safety	Code quality	skipped	`—`
CI workflows (zizmor)	Security	skipped	`—`
Dependencies (osv-scanner)	Security	skipped	`—`
Release downloads	Security	ok	`—`
Security posture	Security	ok	`—`
Package registries	Security	skipped	`—`	no registry dependencies declared
Static analysis (opengrep)	Security	ok	`opengrep 1.33.1; rules f1d2b562b414`
OpenSSF Scorecard	Security	skipped	`—`	no published OpenSSF Scorecard result for this repo
Secrets (gitleaks)	Security	ok	`gitleaks 8.30.1`

Score history

Scores from different scoring versions aren't directly comparable.

Scored	Commit	Scoring	AI provenance	Quality	Security
2026-11-14	`0ac06776c674`	`prov-5+qual-2+sec-2`	58%	67	82
2026-11-14	`0ac06776c674`	`prov-4+qual-2+sec-2`	58%	67	82

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/NiallEHunt/RecipeLibrary/ai.svg)](https://repotrust.synapticcyber.com/r/github.com/NiallEHunt/RecipeLibrary/)

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

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

Full text report

Repository: https://github.com/NiallEHunt/RecipeLibrary
Commit: 0ac06776c6745a5d65862749bd8e0709aacab4d5
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)	58	explicit	77%	100%
Code quality	67	adequate	90%	100%
Security	82	adequate	85%	100%

AI provenance

Explicit AI attribution on 58% of first-party code added; an estimated 58% including velocity signals.

Explicitly attributed share (lower bound): 57.8%
Unattributed share in AI-consistent velocity bursts: 0.0%
Estimated AI-generated share: 57.8%

AI tool	Attributed commits	Lines added
Claude Code	6	6,707

AI tooling configured in repo: claude-code

Current source lines last changed by AI-attributed commits: 3,283 of 5,856.

Findings per 1,000 lines	AI-attributed	Other	Ratio
Quality	0.0	0.0	n/a
Security	0.0	0.0	n/a

Stylometry index: 0.34 per 1,000 lines (narrated steps 0, placeholders 1, assistant phrasing 0, emoji 0). Reported as a signal, not scored.

Month	Lines added	Attributed to AI
2025-06	8,074	40%
2025-07	3,539	99%

Evidence

Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude' (6fe33f2e4913)
Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude' (a8b5af61dbe8)
Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude' (ad1761f6b2dd)
Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude' (fe064ba0233d)
Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude' (1e1279d085d0)
Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude' (26fe582541e1)
CLAUDE.md (claude-code configuration) (CLAUDE.md)
1,360 lines of first-party code in ~1.5h (918 lines/hour, 1 commit session) (a8b5af61dbe8)
placeholder or demo-only phrasing: // Note: This is a basic layout test - in a real scenario you might want to test (app/src/andr)

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 adequate: test-to-source ratio 0.56, no CI test run detected; 4% of function code in complex or long functions; 15% duplicated lines. Weakest area: docs.

Area	Score
Complexity (lizard)	89
Duplication	41
Code smells (Opengrep)	100
Tests and CI	55
Documentation	40
Type safety	n/a
Process (Scorecard review/maintenance)	n/a

Functions: 221; mean complexity 1.5, 90th percentile 3; 0 complex and 1 long functions
Duplicated lines: 15.0% of 3,537 compared
Tests: 3,272 test lines for 5,856 source lines (ratio 0.56); CI test commands: none detected; 48% of recent source commits also change tests
Docs missing or thin: license, contributing, changelog

Most complex functions:

SelectableRecipeListItem in app/src/main/java/com/niallehunt/recipelibrary/components/SelectableRecipeListItem.kt: complexity 15, 123 lines

Security

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

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)	0
OpenSSF Scorecard	n/a

Posture checks passed: lockfiles; missing: security policy, dependency updates, signed commits

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: 5,856; test lines: 3,272

Language	Lines
Kotlin	9,128