Leaderboard github.com

ThomasVanRiel/solitaire

View repository ↗
Kotlin
★ 0
commit bfadd9d50dcc
scored 2026-11-14
scoring prov-5+qual-2+sec-2

AI provenance

100%

explicit

Confidence: 84%
Coverage: 100%

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

Code quality

66/100

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 files1
Work sessions at AI pace3
Releases at AI pace0
Coding-style index (1.0+ means possible)0.12

Attributed AI tools

Tool	Commits	Lines added	First seen	Last seen
Claude Code	57	11,842	2026-10-24	2026-11-02

Lines added per month all AI-attributed share

2026-1011,640 · 100% AI
2026-11202 · 100% AI

Findings in AI-attributed lines vs the rest

From git blame: 8,622 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	1.04	—	—
Security	0.00	—	—

Evidence by analyzer

Explicit AI attributionok26 items

attributed_commit_share: 100.0%
attributed_commits: 57
attributed_loc: 11,842
attributed_loc_share: 100.0%
commits: 57
effective_loc: 11,842
tools_detected: 1

AI tool configurationok1 item

CLAUDE.md (claude-code configuration)

artifacts: 1
earliest_adoption: 2026-10-24
tools_configured: 1
workflow_agents: 0

Commit velocityok3 items

excluded_import_loc: 0
flagged_loc: 6,988
flagged_loc_share: 59.0%
flagged_units: 3
max_loc_per_hour: 1,522.93
measured_loc: 11,842
median_loc_per_hour: 222.16
pr_timed_units: 0
pre_ai_era_burst_loc: 0
pre_ai_era_bursts: 0
pre_ai_era_measured_loc: 0
work_units: 11

Release velocityok

flagged_releases: 0
max_loc_per_day: 0
releases: 1

Coding styleok

count:assistant_voice: 0
count:emoji_in_code: 2
count:narrated_steps: 0
count:placeholder: 0
files:assistant_voice: 0
files:emoji_in_code: 2
files:narrated_steps: 0
files:placeholder: 0
index: 0.12
lines_scanned: 8,622
per_kloc:assistant_voice: 0
per_kloc:emoji_in_code: 0.23
per_kloc:narrated_steps: 0
per_kloc:placeholder: 0

Findings in AI-written linesok

ai_lines: 8,622
blame_failures: 0
files_blamed: 58
other_lines: 0
quality:ai_findings: 9
quality:ai_per_kloc: 1.04
quality:other_findings: 0
security:ai_findings: 0
security:ai_per_kloc: 0
security:other_findings: 0

Code quality

66 adequate

Code quality is adequate: test-to-source ratio 0.24, no CI test run detected; 22% of function code in complex or long functions; 8% duplicated lines. Weakest area: complexity.

How the score is built

Complexity52
Duplication63
Lint and smells94
Tests and CI57
Documentation80
Type safetynot measured
Review processnot measured

Evidence by analyzer

Complexity (lizard)ok10 items

complex_functions: 19
function_nloc: 4,942
functions: 478
long_functions: 2
many_param_functions: 4
mean_ccn: 3.89
p90_ccn: 9
risky_nloc_share: 21.8%

Duplication (jscpd)ok8 items

compared_lines: 6,058
duplicated_lines: 472
duplicated_share: 7.8%
files: 58

Lintok

category:correctness: 9
findings: 9
scanned_lines: 8,622
weighted_findings: 2.25

Tests and CIok1 item

CI config: .github/workflows/ci.yml .github/workflows/ci.yml

check:ci_present: yes
check:ci_runs_lint: no
check:ci_runs_tests: no
check:has_tests: yes
check:test_ratio: no
check:tests_cochange: yes
ci_files: 1
cochange_commits: 42
cochange_share: 40.5%
source_lines: 8,622
test_lines: 2,057
test_ratio: 0.24

Documentationok3 items

README.md README.md
LICENSE LICENSE
CONTRIBUTING.md CONTRIBUTING.md

check:changelog: no
check:contributing: yes
check:license: yes
check:readme: yes
readme_lines: 209

Type safetyskipped

Security

72 adequate

Security posture is adequate: 5 high-severity workflow issues. Weakest area: posture.

How the score is built

Secrets100
Static analysis (SAST)100
Vulnerable dependenciesnot measured
CI workflows36
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: 1
scanned_lines: 8,622
weighted_findings: 0

Dependencies (osv-scanner)skipped

CI workflows (zizmor)ok

findings: 6
findings_high: 5
findings_low: 0
findings_medium: 1
penalty: 61.20
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 downloadsok2 items

binary_assets: 2
signals: 1
suspicious: 0

Findings

5 high1 medium9 low

Severity	Rule	Location	Message	Tool
high	`zizmor/unpinned-uses`	.github/workflows/ci.yml:16	unpinned action reference [confidence high]	CI workflows (zizmor)
high	`zizmor/unpinned-uses`	.github/workflows/ci.yml:17	unpinned action reference [confidence high]	CI workflows (zizmor)
high	`zizmor/unpinned-uses`	.github/workflows/ci.yml:21	unpinned action reference [confidence high]	CI workflows (zizmor)
high	`zizmor/unpinned-uses`	.github/workflows/ci.yml:22	unpinned action reference [confidence high]	CI workflows (zizmor)
high	`zizmor/unpinned-uses`	.github/workflows/ci.yml:32	unpinned action reference [confidence high]	CI workflows (zizmor)
medium	`zizmor/artipacked`	.github/workflows/ci.yml:16	credential persistence through GitHub Actions artifacts [confidence low]	CI workflows (zizmor)
low	`opengrep/bash.lang.correctness.unquoted-variable-expansion-in-command`	tools/screenshot.sh:17	Variable expansions must be double-quoted so as to prevent being split into multiple pieces according to whitespace or whichever separator is specified by the IFS variable. If you really wish to split the variable's contents, you may...	Lint
low	`opengrep/bash.lang.correctness.unquoted-variable-expansion-in-command`	tools/screenshot.sh:18	Variable expansions must be double-quoted so as to prevent being split into multiple pieces according to whitespace or whichever separator is specified by the IFS variable. If you really wish to split the variable's contents, you may...	Lint
low	`opengrep/bash.lang.correctness.unquoted-command-substitution-in-command`	tools/screenshot.sh:20	The result of command substitution $(...) or `...`, if unquoted, is split on whitespace or other separators specified by the IFS variable. You should surround it with double quotes to avoid splitting the result.	Lint
low	`opengrep/bash.lang.correctness.unquoted-command-substitution-in-command`	tools/screenshot.sh:22	The result of command substitution $(...) or `...`, if unquoted, is split on whitespace or other separators specified by the IFS variable. You should surround it with double quotes to avoid splitting the result.	Lint
low	`opengrep/bash.lang.correctness.unquoted-command-substitution-in-command`	tools/screenshot.sh:24	The result of command substitution $(...) or `...`, if unquoted, is split on whitespace or other separators specified by the IFS variable. You should surround it with double quotes to avoid splitting the result.	Lint
low	`opengrep/bash.lang.correctness.unquoted-command-substitution-in-command`	tools/screenshot.sh:24	The result of command substitution $(...) or `...`, if unquoted, is split on whitespace or other separators specified by the IFS variable. You should surround it with double quotes to avoid splitting the result.	Lint
low	`opengrep/bash.lang.correctness.unquoted-variable-expansion-in-command`	tools/screenshot.sh:30	Variable expansions must be double-quoted so as to prevent being split into multiple pieces according to whitespace or whichever separator is specified by the IFS variable. If you really wish to split the variable's contents, you may...	Lint
low	`opengrep/bash.lang.correctness.unquoted-variable-expansion-in-command`	tools/screenshot.sh:32	Variable expansions must be double-quoted so as to prevent being split into multiple pieces according to whitespace or whichever separator is specified by the IFS variable. If you really wish to split the variable's contents, you may...	Lint
low	`opengrep/bash.lang.correctness.unquoted-variable-expansion-in-command`	tools/screenshot.sh:36	Variable expansions must be double-quoted so as to prevent being split into multiple pieces according to whitespace or whichever separator is specified by the IFS variable. If you really wish to split the variable's contents, you may...	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	ok	`prov-4`	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	skipped	`—`	0
CI workflows (zizmor)	Security	ok	`zizmor 1.32.0`	6
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`	0
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	`bfadd9d50dcc`	`prov-5+qual-2+sec-2`	100%	66	72
2026-11-14	`bfadd9d50dcc`	`prov-4+qual-2+sec-2`	100%	66	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/ThomasVanRiel/solitaire/ai.svg)](https://repotrust.synapticcyber.com/r/github.com/ThomasVanRiel/solitaire/)

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

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

Full text report

Repository: https://github.com/ThomasVanRiel/solitaire
Commit: bfadd9d50dcce08fff6e3ef19e4eb1cafa7d6f7e
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	84%	100%
Code quality	66	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	57	11,842

AI tooling configured in repo: claude-code

Current source lines last changed by AI-attributed commits: 8,622 of 8,622.

Too few lines in one group to compare finding densities.

Stylometry index: 0.12 per 1,000 lines (narrated steps 0, placeholders 0, assistant phrasing 0, emoji 2). Reported as a signal, not scored.

Month	Lines added	Attributed to AI
2026-10	11,640	100%
2026-11	202	100%

Evidence

Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude' (bfadd9d50dcc)
Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude' (6800ae6e8062)
Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude' (64d19758f9be)
Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude' (1ee7dd3bbe32)
Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude' (24b15399a33b)
Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude' (d9362c422eae)
Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude' (7f1b52b68fca)
Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude' (ac49fdae96cc)
Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude' (152004594e95)
Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude' (ee9da44187ac)
Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude' (b8ce25d514ee)
Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude' (55b3e285225b)
Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude' (4881309829c1)
Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude' (f9a8efb1b540)
Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude' (cbac73e16e51)

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 0.24, no CI test run detected; 22% of function code in complex or long functions; 8% duplicated lines. Weakest area: complexity.

Area	Score
Complexity (lizard)	52
Duplication	63
Code smells (Opengrep)	94
Tests and CI	57
Documentation	80
Type safety	n/a
Process (Scorecard review/maintenance)	n/a

Functions: 478; mean complexity 3.9, 90th percentile 9; 19 complex and 2 long functions
Duplicated lines: 7.8% of 6,058 compared
Tests: 2,057 test lines for 8,622 source lines (ratio 0.24); CI test commands: none detected; 40% of recent source commits also change tests
Docs missing or thin: changelog

Most complex functions:

Security

Security posture is adequate: 5 high-severity workflow issues. Weakest area: posture.

Area	Score
Secrets (gitleaks, tree + history)	100
Static analysis (Opengrep)	100
Vulnerable dependencies (OSV)	n/a
CI workflows (zizmor)	36
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	`zizmor/unpinned-uses`: unpinned action reference [confidence high]	.github/workflows/ci.yml:16
high	`zizmor/unpinned-uses`: unpinned action reference [confidence high]	.github/workflows/ci.yml:17
high	`zizmor/unpinned-uses`: unpinned action reference [confidence high]	.github/workflows/ci.yml:21
high	`zizmor/unpinned-uses`: unpinned action reference [confidence high]	.github/workflows/ci.yml:22
high	`zizmor/unpinned-uses`: unpinned action reference [confidence high]	.github/workflows/ci.yml:32
medium	`zizmor/artipacked`: credential persistence through GitHub Actions artifacts [confidence low]	.github/workflows/ci.yml:16

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

binary-release-asset: release v1.1.0 ships solitaire-1.1.0.apk (3 downloads)
binary-release-asset: release v1.0.0 ships solitaire-1.0.0.apk (5 downloads)

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: 8,622; test lines: 2,057

Language	Lines
Kotlin	10,603
Shell	76