Leaderboard github.com

Skipper551/chinese-flashcards

Vibe-coded iPad handwriting flashcards for Chinese: write characters from memory with Apple Pencil, checked automatically, FSRS spaced repetition.

View repository ↗
TypeScript
★ 0
commit 2eb0028081e0
scored 2026-11-14
scoring prov-5+qual-2+sec-2

AI provenance

100%

explicit

Confidence: 73%
Coverage: 100%

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

Code quality

74/100

adequate

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.

Dispute or request a re-score Full report JSON

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 files5
Work sessions at AI pace1
Releases at AI pacenot measured
Coding-style index (1.0+ means possible)0.00

Attributed AI tools

Tool	Commits	Lines added	First seen	Last seen
Claude Code	12	3,895	2026-10-23	2026-10-25

Lines added per month all AI-attributed share

2026-103,895 · 100% AI

Findings in AI-attributed lines vs the rest

From git blame: 3,320 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 lines	AI-attributed	Other	Ratio
Code quality	2.71	—	—
Security	0.30	—	—

Evidence by analyzer

Explicit AI attributionok13 items

attributed_commit_share: 100.0%
attributed_commits: 12
attributed_loc: 3,895
attributed_loc_share: 100.0%
commits: 12
effective_loc: 3,895
tools_detected: 1

AI tool configurationok5 items

artifacts: 5
earliest_adoption: 2026-10-23
tools_configured: 1
workflow_agents: 0

Commit velocityok1 item

3,381 lines of first-party code in ~4.5h (755 lines/hour, 3 commit session)

excluded_import_loc: 0
flagged_loc: 3,381
flagged_loc_share: 86.8%
flagged_units: 1
max_loc_per_hour: 755.44
measured_loc: 3,895
median_loc_per_hour: 98.50
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: 3,320
per_kloc:assistant_voice: 0
per_kloc:emoji_in_code: 0
per_kloc:narrated_steps: 0
per_kloc:placeholder: 0

Findings in AI-written linesok

ai_lines: 3,320
blame_failures: 0
files_blamed: 24
other_lines: 0
quality:ai_findings: 9
quality:ai_per_kloc: 2.71
quality:other_findings: 0
security:ai_findings: 1
security:ai_per_kloc: 0.30
security:other_findings: 0

Code quality

74 adequate

Code quality is adequate: test-to-source ratio 0.16, CI runs tests; 11% of function code in complex or long functions; 0% duplicated lines. Weakest area: lint.

How the score is built

Complexity72
Duplication100
Lint and smells57
Tests and CI72
Documentation65
Type safety93
Review processnot measured

Evidence by analyzer

Complexity (lizard)ok5 items

complex_functions: 5
function_nloc: 2,450
functions: 348
long_functions: 1
many_param_functions: 0
mean_ccn: 2.50
p90_ccn: 5
risky_nloc_share: 10.9%

Duplication (jscpd)ok

compared_lines: 2,559
duplicated_lines: 0
duplicated_share: 0.0%
files: 24

Lintok

category:best-practice: 7
category:correctness: 2
findings: 9
scanned_lines: 3,320
weighted_findings: 7.50

Tests and CIok2 items

CI config: .github/workflows/deploy.yml .github/workflows/deploy.yml
CI runs tests (npm test)

check:ci_present: yes
check:ci_runs_lint: no
check:ci_runs_tests: yes
check:has_tests: yes
check:test_ratio: no
check:tests_cochange: no
ci_files: 1
cochange_commits: 9
cochange_share: 22.2%
source_lines: 3,320
test_lines: 527
test_ratio: 0.16

Documentationok2 items

README.md README.md
LICENSE LICENSE

check:changelog: no
check:contributing: no
check:license: yes
check:readme: yes
readme_lines: 49

Type safetyok1 item

TypeScript strict type checking: tsconfig.json tsconfig.json

check:low_escape_density: yes
check:strict_config: no
escapes: 1
escapes_per_kloc: 0.30

Security

72 adequate

Security posture is adequate: 3 known vulnerabilities in 3 dependencies; 1 high-severity SAST findings; 7 high-severity workflow issues. Weakest area: posture.

How the score is built

Secrets100
Static analysis (SAST)92
Vulnerable dependencies86
CI workflows24
Security posture0
OpenSSF Scorecardnot measured

Evidence by analyzer

OpenSSF Scorecardskipped

no published OpenSSF Scorecard result for this repo

Package registriesok

checked: 13
declared: 13
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: 1
findings_high: 1
findings_low: 0
findings_medium: 0
parse_errors: 1
scanned_lines: 3,320
weighted_findings: 0.75

Dependencies (osv-scanner)ok

penalty: 9
vulnerabilities: 3
vulnerable_packages: 3
vulns_critical: 0
vulns_high: 0
vulns_low: 0
vulns_medium: 3
vulns_unknown: 0

CI workflows (zizmor)ok

findings: 8
findings_high: 7
findings_low: 0
findings_medium: 1
penalty: 85.20
workflows: 1

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

8 high11 medium2 low

Severity	Rule	Location	Message	Tool
high	`opengrep/python.lang.security.use-defused-xml`	.claude/skills/lecture-to-deck/scripts/extract.py:19	The Python documentation recommends using `defusedxml` instead of `xml` because the native Python `xml` library is vulnerable to XML External Entity (XXE) attacks. These attacks can leak confidential data and "XML bombs" can cause...	Static analysis (opengrep)
high	`zizmor/excessive-permissions`	.github/workflows/deploy.yml:10	overly broad permissions [confidence high]	CI workflows (zizmor)
high	`zizmor/excessive-permissions`	.github/workflows/deploy.yml:11	overly broad permissions [confidence high]	CI workflows (zizmor)
high	`zizmor/unpinned-uses`	.github/workflows/deploy.yml:21	unpinned action reference [confidence high]	CI workflows (zizmor)
high	`zizmor/unpinned-uses`	.github/workflows/deploy.yml:22	unpinned action reference [confidence high]	CI workflows (zizmor)
high	`zizmor/unpinned-uses`	.github/workflows/deploy.yml:32	unpinned action reference [confidence high]	CI workflows (zizmor)
high	`zizmor/unpinned-uses`	.github/workflows/deploy.yml:33	unpinned action reference [confidence high]	CI workflows (zizmor)
high	`zizmor/unpinned-uses`	.github/workflows/deploy.yml:45	unpinned action reference [confidence high]	CI workflows (zizmor)
medium	`opengrep/javascript.lang.best-practice.assigned-undefined`	src/recognize.ts:184	`undefined` is not a reserved keyword in Javascript, so this is "valid" Javascript but highly confusing and likely to result in bugs.	Lint
medium	`opengrep/javascript.lang.best-practice.javascript-prompt`	src/screens/Decks.tsx:235	found prompt() call; should this be in production code?	Lint
medium	`opengrep/javascript.lang.best-practice.javascript-prompt`	src/screens/Decks.tsx:24	found prompt() call; should this be in production code?	Lint
medium	`opengrep/javascript.lang.best-practice.javascript-confirm`	src/screens/Decks.tsx:240	found confirm() call; should this be in production code?	Lint
medium	`opengrep/javascript.lang.best-practice.javascript-alert`	src/screens/Decks.tsx:26	found alert() call; should this be in production code?	Lint
medium	`opengrep/javascript.lang.best-practice.javascript-confirm`	src/screens/Decks.tsx:320	found confirm() call; should this be in production code?	Lint
medium	`opengrep/javascript.lang.best-practice.javascript-confirm`	src/screens/Settings.tsx:35	found confirm() call; should this be in production code?	Lint
medium	`zizmor/artipacked`	.github/workflows/deploy.yml:21	credential persistence through GitHub Actions artifacts [confidence low]	CI workflows (zizmor)
medium	`osv/GHSA-3g3m-2fjr-6pw4`	package-lock.json	[email protected] (npm) is affected by GHSA-3g3m-2fjr-6pw4	Dependencies (osv-scanner)
medium	`osv/GHSA-g3hv-75wg-m249`	package-lock.json	[email protected] (npm) is affected by GHSA-g3hv-75wg-m249	Dependencies (osv-scanner)
medium	`osv/GHSA-gcqx-w48m-w2h4`	package-lock.json	[email protected] (npm) is affected by GHSA-gcqx-w48m-w2h4	Dependencies (osv-scanner)
low	`opengrep/javascript.lang.correctness.missing-template-string-indicator`	src/components/charts.tsx:125	This looks like a JavaScript template string. Are you missing a '$' in front of '{...}'?	Lint
low	`opengrep/javascript.lang.correctness.missing-template-string-indicator`	src/components/charts.tsx:125	This looks like a JavaScript template string. Are you missing a '$' in front of '{...}'?	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.

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`	8
Dependencies (osv-scanner)	Security	ok	`osv-scanner version: 2.7.1`	3
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`	1
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	`2eb0028081e0`	`prov-5+qual-2+sec-2`	100%	74	72
2026-11-14	`2eb0028081e0`	`prov-4+qual-2+sec-2`	100%	74	72

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/Skipper551/chinese-flashcards/ai.svg)](https://repotrust.synapticcyber.com/r/github.com/Skipper551/chinese-flashcards/)

[![RepoTrust quality](https://repotrust.synapticcyber.com/badge/github.com/Skipper551/chinese-flashcards/quality.svg)](https://repotrust.synapticcyber.com/r/github.com/Skipper551/chinese-flashcards/)

[![RepoTrust security](https://repotrust.synapticcyber.com/badge/github.com/Skipper551/chinese-flashcards/security.svg)](https://repotrust.synapticcyber.com/r/github.com/Skipper551/chinese-flashcards/)

Full text report

Repository: https://github.com/Skipper551/chinese-flashcards
Commit: 2eb0028081e00dd64e3443ce4593ee56e69ddb1d
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)	100	explicit	73%	100%
Code quality	74	adequate	90%	100%
Security	72	adequate	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
Claude Code	12	3,895

AI tooling configured in repo: claude-code

Current source lines last changed by AI-attributed commits: 3,320 of 3,320.

Too few lines in one group to compare finding densities.

Month	Lines added	Attributed to AI
2026-10	3,895	100%

Evidence

Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude' (2eb0028081e0)
Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude' (778d3a94f123)
Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude' (0646eb04108a)
Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude' (386e95377ba6)
Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude' (c9daf942014c)
Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude' (438e656a41f6)
Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude' (7981880caee2)
Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude' (92f443d7cef6)
Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude' (4c1bef5f8f10)
Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude' (9bfac3fac79a)
Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude' (a83e6b093e30)
Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude' (7fa3659df60a)
.claude/launch.json (claude-code configuration) (.claude/laun)
.claude/skills/lecture-to-deck/README.md (claude-code configuration) (.claude/skil)
.claude/skills/lecture-to-deck/SKILL.md (claude-code configuration) (.claude/skil)

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 0.16, CI runs tests; 11% of function code in complex or long functions; 0% duplicated lines. Weakest area: lint.

Area	Score
Complexity (lizard)	72
Duplication	100
Code smells (Opengrep)	57
Tests and CI	72
Documentation	65
Type safety	93
Process (Scorecard review/maintenance)	n/a

Functions: 348; mean complexity 2.5, 90th percentile 5; 5 complex and 1 long functions
Duplicated lines: 0.0% of 2,559 compared
Tests: 527 test lines for 3,320 source lines (ratio 0.16); CI test commands: npm test; 22% of recent source commits also change tests
Docs missing or thin: contributing, changelog

Most complex functions:

Security

Security posture is adequate: 3 known vulnerabilities in 3 dependencies; 1 high-severity SAST findings; 7 high-severity workflow issues. Weakest area: posture.

Area	Score
Secrets (gitleaks, tree + history)	100
Static analysis (Opengrep)	92
Vulnerable dependencies (OSV)	86
CI workflows (zizmor)	24
Posture (policy, updates, signing, lockfiles)	0
OpenSSF Scorecard	n/a

Known vulnerabilities: 3 in 3 packages (critical 0, high 0, medium 3, low 0)
Posture checks passed: lockfiles; missing: security policy, dependency updates, signed commits

Top findings

Severity	Finding	Location
high	`opengrep/python.lang.security.use-defused-xml`: The Python documentation recommends using `defusedxml` instead of `xml` because the native Python `xml` library is vulnerable to XML External Entity (XXE) attacks. These attacks can leak confidential data and "XML bombs" can cause denial of service. [confidence low]	.claude/skills/lecture-to-deck/scripts/extract.py:19
high	`zizmor/excessive-permissions`: overly broad permissions [confidence high]	.github/workflows/deploy.yml:10
high	`zizmor/excessive-permissions`: overly broad permissions [confidence high]	.github/workflows/deploy.yml:11
high	`zizmor/unpinned-uses`: unpinned action reference [confidence high]	.github/workflows/deploy.yml:21
high	`zizmor/unpinned-uses`: unpinned action reference [confidence high]	.github/workflows/deploy.yml:22
high	`zizmor/unpinned-uses`: unpinned action reference [confidence high]	.github/workflows/deploy.yml:32
high	`zizmor/unpinned-uses`: unpinned action reference [confidence high]	.github/workflows/deploy.yml:33
high	`zizmor/unpinned-uses`: unpinned action reference [confidence high]	.github/workflows/deploy.yml:45
medium	`osv/GHSA-gcqx-w48m-w2h4`: [email protected] (npm) is affected by GHSA-gcqx-w48m-w2h4	package-lock.json
medium	`osv/GHSA-3g3m-2fjr-6pw4`: [email protected] (npm) is affected by GHSA-3g3m-2fjr-6pw4	package-lock.json
medium	`osv/GHSA-g3hv-75wg-m249`: [email protected] (npm) is affected by GHSA-g3hv-75wg-m249	package-lock.json
medium	`zizmor/artipacked`: credential persistence through GitHub Actions artifacts [confidence low]	.github/workflows/deploy.yml:21

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: 3,320; test lines: 527

Language	Lines
TypeScript	3,456
Python	391