Leaderboard github.com

WuSuBuDuoMing/ai-life-manager

🏠 All-in-one lifestyle management WeChat Mini Program — 17 modules, local-first, dark mode, AI assistant

View repository ↗
JavaScript
★ 3
commit 4926ef10db13
scored 2026-11-14
scoring prov-5+qual-2+sec-2

AI provenance

possible

Confidence: 43%
Coverage: 100%

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

Code quality

77/100

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

0% possible

Weak signals consistent with AI-assisted development. Comments and strings use phrasing typical of LLM-written code (see the coding style evidence).

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 pace0
Coding-style index (1.0+ means possible)17.17

Lines added per month all AI-attributed share

2026-0611,800 · 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: 12
effective_loc: 11,800
tools_detected: 0

AI tool configurationok

artifacts: 0
tools_configured: 0
workflow_agents: 0

Commit velocityok

excluded_import_loc: 9,349
flagged_loc: 0
flagged_loc_share: 0.0%
flagged_units: 0
max_loc_per_hour: 378.25
measured_loc: 2,451
median_loc_per_hour: 88
pr_timed_units: 0
pre_ai_era_burst_loc: 0
pre_ai_era_bursts: 0
pre_ai_era_measured_loc: 0
work_units: 4

Release velocityok

flagged_releases: 0
max_loc_per_day: 820.60
releases: 8

Coding styleok

count:assistant_voice: 0
count:emoji_in_code: 363
count:narrated_steps: 0
count:placeholder: 0
files:assistant_voice: 0
files:emoji_in_code: 33
files:narrated_steps: 0
files:placeholder: 0
index: 17.17
lines_scanned: 10,569
per_kloc:assistant_voice: 0
per_kloc:emoji_in_code: 34.35
per_kloc:narrated_steps: 0
per_kloc:placeholder: 0

Code quality

77 adequate

Code quality is adequate: test-to-source ratio 0.08, no CI test run detected; 4% of function code in complex or long functions; 3% duplicated lines. Weakest area: testing.

How the score is built

Complexity89
Duplication86
Lint and smells87
Tests and CI49
Documentation100
Type safetynot measured
Review processnot measured

Evidence by analyzer

Complexity (lizard)ok2 items

complex_functions: 1
function_nloc: 6,573
functions: 1,087
long_functions: 2
many_param_functions: 0
mean_ccn: 1.77
p90_ccn: 3
risky_nloc_share: 4.0%

Duplication (jscpd)ok10 items

compared_lines: 7,498
duplicated_lines: 190
duplicated_share: 2.5%
files: 61

Lintok

category:best-practice: 6
findings: 6
scanned_lines: 10,569
weighted_findings: 6

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: 5
cochange_share: 40.0%
source_lines: 10,569
test_lines: 803
test_ratio: 0.08

Documentationok4 items

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

check:changelog: yes
check:contributing: yes
check:license: yes
check:readme: yes
readme_lines: 454

Type safetyskipped

Security

82 adequate

Security posture is adequate: 2 high-severity workflow issues. Weakest area: posture.

How the score is built

Secrets100
Static analysis (SAST)99
Vulnerable dependenciesnot measured
CI workflows57
Security posture40
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: 1
findings_high: 0
findings_low: 0
findings_medium: 1
parse_errors: 0
scanned_lines: 10,569
weighted_findings: 0.25

Dependencies (osv-scanner)skipped

CI workflows (zizmor)ok

findings: 7
findings_high: 2
findings_low: 0
findings_medium: 5
penalty: 33.60
workflows: 1

Security postureok1 item

Security policy: SECURITY.md SECURITY.md

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

Release downloadsok

binary_assets: 0
signals: 0
suspicious: 0

Findings

2 high12 medium

Severity	Rule	Location	Message	Tool
high	`zizmor/unpinned-uses`	.github/workflows/ci.yml:14	unpinned action reference [confidence high]	CI workflows (zizmor)
high	`zizmor/unpinned-uses`	.github/workflows/ci.yml:87	unpinned action reference [confidence high]	CI workflows (zizmor)
medium	`opengrep/javascript.lang.best-practice.lazy-load-module`	pages/index/index.js:118	Lazy loading can complicate code bundling if care is not taken, also `require`s are run synchronously by Node.js. If they are called from within a function, it may block other requests from being handled at a more critical time. The...	Lint
medium	`opengrep/javascript.lang.best-practice.lazy-load-module`	pages/index/index.js:142	Lazy loading can complicate code bundling if care is not taken, also `require`s are run synchronously by Node.js. If they are called from within a function, it may block other requests from being handled at a more critical time. The...	Lint
medium	`opengrep/javascript.lang.best-practice.lazy-load-module`	pages/index/index.js:171	Lazy loading can complicate code bundling if care is not taken, also `require`s are run synchronously by Node.js. If they are called from within a function, it may block other requests from being handled at a more critical time. The...	Lint
medium	`opengrep/javascript.lang.best-practice.lazy-load-module`	pages/index/index.js:179	Lazy loading can complicate code bundling if care is not taken, also `require`s are run synchronously by Node.js. If they are called from within a function, it may block other requests from being handled at a more critical time. The...	Lint
medium	`opengrep/javascript.lang.best-practice.lazy-load-module`	pages/index/index.js:197	Lazy loading can complicate code bundling if care is not taken, also `require`s are run synchronously by Node.js. If they are called from within a function, it may block other requests from being handled at a more critical time. The...	Lint
medium	`opengrep/javascript.lang.best-practice.lazy-load-module`	pages/index/index.js:80	Lazy loading can complicate code bundling if care is not taken, also `require`s are run synchronously by Node.js. If they are called from within a function, it may block other requests from being handled at a more critical time. The...	Lint
medium	`zizmor/excessive-permissions`	.github/workflows/ci.yml:1	overly broad permissions [confidence medium]	CI workflows (zizmor)
medium	`zizmor/excessive-permissions`	.github/workflows/ci.yml:10	overly broad permissions [confidence medium]	CI workflows (zizmor)
medium	`zizmor/artipacked`	.github/workflows/ci.yml:14	credential persistence through GitHub Actions artifacts [confidence low]	CI workflows (zizmor)
medium	`zizmor/excessive-permissions`	.github/workflows/ci.yml:83	overly broad permissions [confidence medium]	CI workflows (zizmor)
medium	`zizmor/artipacked`	.github/workflows/ci.yml:87	credential persistence through GitHub Actions artifacts [confidence low]	CI workflows (zizmor)
medium	`opengrep/javascript.lang.security.audit.unsafe-dynamic-method`	pages/profile/profile.js:137	Using non-static data to retrieve and run functions from the object is dangerous. If the data is user-controlled, it may allow executing arbitrary code. [confidence low]	Static analysis (opengrep)

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
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	skipped	`—`	0
CI workflows (zizmor)	Security	ok	`zizmor 1.32.0`	7
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`	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	`4926ef10db13`	`prov-5+qual-2+sec-2`	0%	77	82
2026-11-14	`4926ef10db13`	`prov-4+qual-2+sec-2`	0%	77	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/WuSuBuDuoMing/ai-life-manager/ai.svg)](https://repotrust.synapticcyber.com/r/github.com/WuSuBuDuoMing/ai-life-manager/)

[![RepoTrust quality](https://repotrust.synapticcyber.com/badge/github.com/WuSuBuDuoMing/ai-life-manager/quality.svg)](https://repotrust.synapticcyber.com/r/github.com/WuSuBuDuoMing/ai-life-manager/)

[![RepoTrust security](https://repotrust.synapticcyber.com/badge/github.com/WuSuBuDuoMing/ai-life-manager/security.svg)](https://repotrust.synapticcyber.com/r/github.com/WuSuBuDuoMing/ai-life-manager/)

Full text report

Repository: https://github.com/WuSuBuDuoMing/ai-life-manager
Commit: 4926ef10db1314824692efee1137303cbc7ca752
Generated: 2026-11-14T14:52:02+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	possible	43%	100%
Code quality	77	adequate	90%	100%
Security	82	adequate	85%	100%

AI provenance

Weak signals consistent with AI-assisted development. Comments and strings use phrasing typical of LLM-written code (see the coding style evidence).

Explicitly attributed share (lower bound): 0.0%
Unattributed share in AI-consistent velocity bursts: 0.0%
Estimated AI-generated share: 0.0%
Stylometry index: 17.17 per 1,000 lines (narrated steps 0, placeholders 0, assistant phrasing 0, emoji 363). Reported as a signal, not scored.

Month	Lines added	Attributed to AI
2026-06	11,800	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 adequate: test-to-source ratio 0.08, no CI test run detected; 4% of function code in complex or long functions; 3% duplicated lines. Weakest area: testing.

Area	Score
Complexity (lizard)	89
Duplication	86
Code smells (Opengrep)	87
Tests and CI	49
Documentation	100
Type safety	n/a
Process (Scorecard review/maintenance)	n/a

Functions: 1,087; mean complexity 1.8, 90th percentile 3; 1 complex and 2 long functions
Duplicated lines: 2.5% of 7,498 compared
Tests: 803 test lines for 10,569 source lines (ratio 0.08); CI test commands: none detected; 40% of recent source commits also change tests
Docs missing or thin: none

Most complex functions:

Security

Security posture is adequate: 2 high-severity workflow issues. Weakest area: posture.

Area	Score
Secrets (gitleaks, tree + history)	100
Static analysis (Opengrep)	99
Vulnerable dependencies (OSV)	n/a
CI workflows (zizmor)	57
Posture (policy, updates, signing, lockfiles)	40
OpenSSF Scorecard	n/a

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

Top findings

Severity	Finding	Location
high	`zizmor/unpinned-uses`: unpinned action reference [confidence high]	.github/workflows/ci.yml:14
high	`zizmor/unpinned-uses`: unpinned action reference [confidence high]	.github/workflows/ci.yml:87
medium	`opengrep/javascript.lang.security.audit.unsafe-dynamic-method`: Using non-static data to retrieve and run functions from the object is dangerous. If the data is user-controlled, it may allow executing arbitrary code. [confidence low]	pages/profile/profile.js:137
medium	`zizmor/artipacked`: credential persistence through GitHub Actions artifacts [confidence low]	.github/workflows/ci.yml:14
medium	`zizmor/artipacked`: credential persistence through GitHub Actions artifacts [confidence low]	.github/workflows/ci.yml:87
medium	`zizmor/excessive-permissions`: overly broad permissions [confidence medium]	.github/workflows/ci.yml:1
medium	`zizmor/excessive-permissions`: overly broad permissions [confidence medium]	.github/workflows/ci.yml:10
medium	`zizmor/excessive-permissions`: overly broad permissions [confidence medium]	.github/workflows/ci.yml:83

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: 10,569; test lines: 803

Language	Lines
JavaScript	11,372