RepoTrust

Leaderboard github.com

Nightdawg/ResForge

A standalone tool to decompile, edit, and recompile Haven & Hearth .res files for modding.

  • View repository ↗
  • Java
  • ★ 1
  • commit 9668a1dc941e
  • scored 2026-11-14
  • scoring prov-5+qual-2+sec-2

unreviewed-ai-risk

AI provenance

100%

explicit

Confidence
95%
Coverage
100%

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

Code quality

64/100

weak

Confidence
90%
Coverage
100%

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

Security

87/100

strong

Confidence
85%
Coverage
100%

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

AI provenance

100% explicit

Explicit AI attribution on 100% of first-party code added; an estimated 100% including velocity signals.

How the score is built

  • Explicitly attributed share100%
  • Unattributed share in AI-pace bursts0%
  • Estimated AI-generated share100%
  • AI tool configuration files1
  • Work sessions at AI pace4
  • Releases at AI pace0
  • Coding-style index (1.0+ means possible)0.04

Attributed AI tools

ToolCommitsLines addedFirst seenLast seen
GitHub Copilot coding agent18444,8922026-06-192026-08-03

Lines added per month all AI-attributed share

  1. 2026-0631,144 · 100% AI
  2. 2026-0713,200 · 100% AI
  3. 2026-08548 · 100% AI

Findings in AI-attributed lines vs the rest

From git blame: 28,828 lines trace to AI-attributed commits, 0 to others. Too few lines in one group for a fair comparison. Reported, not scored.

Findings per 1,000 linesAI-attributedOtherRatio
Code quality0.21——
Security0.00——

Evidence by analyzer

Explicit AI attributionok26 items
attributed_commit_share
100.0%
attributed_commits
184
attributed_loc
44,892
attributed_loc_share
100.0%
commits
184
effective_loc
44,892
tools_detected
1
AI tool configurationok1 item
artifacts
1
earliest_adoption
2026-07-10
tools_configured
1
workflow_agents
0
Commit velocityok4 items
excluded_import_loc
3,999
flagged_loc
16,187
flagged_loc_share
39.6%
flagged_units
4
max_loc_per_hour
1,153.99
measured_loc
40,893
median_loc_per_hour
174.39
pr_timed_units
0
pre_ai_era_burst_loc
0
pre_ai_era_bursts
0
pre_ai_era_measured_loc
0
work_units
45
Release velocityok
flagged_releases
0
max_loc_per_day
617.30
releases
6
Coding styleok1 item
count:assistant_voice
0
count:emoji_in_code
0
count:narrated_steps
1
count:placeholder
0
files:assistant_voice
0
files:emoji_in_code
0
files:narrated_steps
1
files:placeholder
0
index
0.04
lines_scanned
28,828
per_kloc:assistant_voice
0
per_kloc:emoji_in_code
0
per_kloc:narrated_steps
0.04
per_kloc:placeholder
0
Findings in AI-written linesok
ai_lines
28,828
blame_failures
0
files_blamed
98
other_lines
0
quality:ai_findings
6
quality:ai_per_kloc
0.21
quality:other_findings
0
security:ai_findings
0
security:ai_per_kloc
0
security:other_findings
0

Code quality

64 weak

Code quality is weak: test-to-source ratio 0.38, no CI test run detected; 24% of function code in complex or long functions; 5% duplicated lines. Weakest area: type safety.

How the score is built

  • Complexity48
  • Duplication76
  • Lint and smells92
  • Tests and CI49
  • Documentation85
  • Type safety40
  • Review processnot measured

Evidence by analyzer

Complexity (lizard)ok10 items
complex_functions
55
function_nloc
18,258
functions
1,480
long_functions
16
many_param_functions
4
mean_ccn
3.91
p90_ccn
8
risky_nloc_share
24.2%
Duplication (jscpd)ok10 items
compared_lines
21,817
duplicated_lines
1,004
duplicated_share
4.6%
files
98
Lintok
category:correctness
6
findings
6
scanned_lines
28,814
weighted_findings
10
Tests and CIok
check:ci_present
no
check:ci_runs_lint
no
check:ci_runs_tests
no
check:has_tests
yes
check:test_ratio
no
check:tests_cochange
yes
ci_files
0
cochange_commits
153
cochange_share
75.8%
source_lines
28,828
test_lines
10,912
test_ratio
0.38
Documentationok3 items
  • README.md README.md
  • LICENSE LICENSE
  • CHANGELOG.md CHANGELOG.md
check:changelog
yes
check:contributing
no
check:license
yes
check:readme
yes
readme_lines
412
Type safetyok
check:low_escape_density
yes
check:strict_config
no
escapes
0
escapes_per_kloc
0

Security

87 strong

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

How the score is built

  • Secrets100
  • Static analysis (SAST)100
  • Vulnerable dependencies100
  • 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
28,814
weighted_findings
0
Dependencies (osv-scanner)ok
penalty
0
vulnerabilities
0
vulnerable_packages
0
vulns_critical
0
vulns_high
0
vulns_low
0
vulns_medium
0
vulns_unknown
0
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 downloadsok5 items
binary_assets
7
signals
1
suspicious
0

Findings

2 high4 medium

SeverityRuleLocationMessageTool
high opengrep/java.lang.correctness.hardcoded-conditional docs/reference/Resource.java:1170 This if statement will always have the same behavior and is therefore unnecessary. Lint
high opengrep/java.lang.correctness.hardcoded-conditional docs/reference/Resource.java:1560 This if statement will always have the same behavior and is therefore unnecessary. Lint
medium opengrep/java.lang.correctness.no-string-eqeq docs/reference/Resource.java:2350 Strings should not be compared with '=='. This is a reference comparison operator. Use '.equals()' instead. Lint
medium opengrep/java.lang.correctness.no-string-eqeq docs/reference/Resource.java:2352 Strings should not be compared with '=='. This is a reference comparison operator. Use '.equals()' instead. Lint
medium opengrep/java.lang.correctness.no-string-eqeq docs/reference/Resource.java:2354 Strings should not be compared with '=='. This is a reference comparison operator. Use '.equals()' instead. Lint
medium opengrep/java.lang.correctness.no-string-eqeq docs/reference/Skeleton.java:982 Strings should not be compared with '=='. This is a reference comparison operator. Use '.equals()' instead. Lint

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 provenanceokprov-40
Coding styleAI provenanceok—0
Commit velocityAI provenanceokprov-40
Findings in AI-written linesAI provenanceokgit-blame0
Complexity (lizard)Code qualityoklizard 1.25.10
DocumentationCode qualityok—0
Duplication (jscpd)Code qualityokrepotrust-dup-w60
LintCode qualityokopengrep 1.33.1; rules f1d2b562b4146
Tests and CICode qualityok—0
Type safetyCode qualityok—0
CI workflows (zizmor)Securityskipped—0
Dependencies (osv-scanner)Securityokosv-scanner version: 2.7.10
Release downloadsSecurityok—0
Security postureSecurityok—0
Package registriesSecurityskipped—0no registry dependencies declared
Static analysis (opengrep)Securityokopengrep 1.33.1; rules f1d2b562b4140
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
2026-11-149668a1dc941eprov-5+qual-2+sec-2100%6487
2026-11-149668a1dc941eprov-4+qual-2+sec-2100%6487

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/Nightdawg/ResForge/ai.svg)](https://repotrust.synapticcyber.com/r/github.com/Nightdawg/ResForge/)
[![RepoTrust quality](https://repotrust.synapticcyber.com/badge/github.com/Nightdawg/ResForge/quality.svg)](https://repotrust.synapticcyber.com/r/github.com/Nightdawg/ResForge/)
[![RepoTrust security](https://repotrust.synapticcyber.com/badge/github.com/Nightdawg/ResForge/security.svg)](https://repotrust.synapticcyber.com/r/github.com/Nightdawg/ResForge/)
Full text report
  • Repository: https://github.com/Nightdawg/ResForge
  • Commit: 9668a1dc941e4e77ef7737556c87667cc6b68bbf
  • Generated: 2026-11-14T14:52:01+00:00
  • Scorer 0.1.0, scoring prov-5+qual-2+sec-2, report schema v2

Scores

Unreviewed AI code risk: a large share of this code is explicitly AI-attributed, and its tests or review process are weak while quality or security scores are low.

Pillar Score Signal Confidence Coverage
AI provenance (estimated AI-generated share) 100 explicit 95% 100%
Code quality 64 weak 90% 100%
Security 87 strong 85% 100%

AI provenance

Explicit AI attribution on 100% of first-party code added; an estimated 100% including velocity signals.

  • Explicitly attributed share (lower bound): 100.0%
  • Unattributed share in AI-consistent velocity bursts: 0.0%
  • Estimated AI-generated share: 100.0%
AI tool Attributed commits Lines added
GitHub Copilot coding agent 184 44,892
  • AI tooling configured in repo: generic-agent

Current source lines last changed by AI-attributed commits: 28,828 of 28,828.

Too few lines in one group to compare finding densities.

  • Stylometry index: 0.04 per 1,000 lines (narrated steps 1, placeholders 0, assistant phrasing 0, emoji 0). Reported as a signal, not scored.
Month Lines added Attributed to AI
2026-06 31,144 100%
2026-07 13,200 100%
2026-08 548 100%

Evidence

  • GitHub Copilot coding agent: trailer 'Co-authored-by: Copilot' (9668a1dc941e)
  • GitHub Copilot coding agent: trailer 'Co-authored-by: Copilot' (e150cd19af33)
  • GitHub Copilot coding agent: trailer 'Co-authored-by: Copilot' (1ac7de515a7d)
  • GitHub Copilot coding agent: trailer 'Co-authored-by: Copilot' (fd9040d9be63)
  • GitHub Copilot coding agent: trailer 'Co-authored-by: Copilot' (b681e899b315)
  • GitHub Copilot coding agent: trailer 'Co-authored-by: Copilot' (55451abecbb1)
  • GitHub Copilot coding agent: trailer 'Co-authored-by: Copilot' (3d3d8b3b1400)
  • GitHub Copilot coding agent: trailer 'Co-authored-by: Copilot' (3ce96dea51d4)
  • GitHub Copilot coding agent: trailer 'Co-authored-by: Copilot' (ad42d835c7d1)
  • GitHub Copilot coding agent: trailer 'Co-authored-by: Copilot' (2c76bc635529)
  • GitHub Copilot coding agent: trailer 'Co-authored-by: Copilot' (016b9c08caf2)
  • GitHub Copilot coding agent: trailer 'Co-authored-by: Copilot' (d9d472435f10)
  • GitHub Copilot coding agent: trailer 'Co-authored-by: Copilot' (69b4f070c1d6)
  • GitHub Copilot coding agent: trailer 'Co-authored-by: Copilot' (f331d1ba50c4)
  • GitHub Copilot coding agent: trailer 'Co-authored-by: Copilot' (4fa790a99de0)

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 0.38, no CI test run detected; 24% of function code in complex or long functions; 5% duplicated lines. Weakest area: type safety.

Area Score
Complexity (lizard) 48
Duplication 76
Code smells (Opengrep) 92
Tests and CI 49
Documentation 85
Type safety 40
Process (Scorecard review/maintenance) n/a
  • Functions: 1,480; mean complexity 3.9, 90th percentile 8; 55 complex and 16 long functions
  • Duplicated lines: 4.6% of 21,817 compared
  • Tests: 10,912 test lines for 28,828 source lines (ratio 0.38); CI test commands: none detected; 76% of recent source commits also change tests
  • Docs missing or thin: contributing

Most complex functions:

Security

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

Area Score
Secrets (gitleaks, tree + history) 100
Static analysis (Opengrep) 100
Vulnerable dependencies (OSV) 100
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.

Distribution signals

Signals consistent with a repository that exists to distribute a download. They are heuristics, not a verdict; release files were not downloaded or inspected.

Repository profile

  • Source lines: 28,828; test lines: 10,912
Language Lines
Java 38,895
Python 831
PowerShell 14