Leaderboard github.com

adknudson/yet-another-calorie-tracker

Just a simple calorie tracker. No feature creep.

View repository ↗
TypeScript
★ 0
commit 22c4c218a3c1
scored 2026-11-14
scoring prov-5+qual-2+sec-2

unreviewed-ai-risk

AI provenance

100%

explicit

Confidence: 72%
Coverage: 100%

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

Code quality

55/100

weak

Confidence: 90%
Coverage: 100%

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

Security

84/100

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 files0
Work sessions at AI pace0
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
GitHub Copilot coding agent	9	1,893	2026-11-06	2026-11-07

Lines added per month all AI-attributed share

2026-111,893 · 100% AI

Findings in AI-attributed lines vs the rest

From git blame: 1,856 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	0.00	—	—
Security	0.00	—	—

Evidence by analyzer

Explicit AI attributionok10 items

attributed_commit_share: 90.0%
attributed_commits: 9
attributed_loc: 1,893
attributed_loc_share: 100.0%
commits: 10
effective_loc: 1,893
tools_detected: 1

AI tool configurationok

artifacts: 0
tools_configured: 0
workflow_agents: 0

Commit velocityok

excluded_import_loc: 0
flagged_loc: 0
flagged_loc_share: 0.0%
flagged_units: 0
max_loc_per_hour: 327.55
measured_loc: 1,893
median_loc_per_hour: 254.81
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 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: 1,856
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: 1,856
blame_failures: 0
files_blamed: 14
other_lines: 0
quality:ai_findings: 0
quality:ai_per_kloc: 0
quality:other_findings: 0
security:ai_findings: 0
security:ai_per_kloc: 0
security:other_findings: 0

Code quality

55 weak

Code quality is weak: test-to-source ratio 0.00, no CI test run detected; 19% of function code in complex or long functions; 1% duplicated lines. Weakest area: testing.

How the score is built

Complexity56
Duplication95
Lint and smells100
Tests and CI0
Documentation40
Type safety100
Review processnot measured

Evidence by analyzer

Complexity (lizard)ok1 item

App in src/renderer/src/App.tsx: complexity 27, 264 lines

complex_functions: 1
function_nloc: 1,379
functions: 200
long_functions: 1
many_param_functions: 0
mean_ccn: 2.04
p90_ccn: 4
risky_nloc_share: 19.1%

Duplication (jscpd)ok1 item

6+ duplicated lines: src/renderer/src/App.tsx:273 and src/renderer/src/App.tsx:300

compared_lines: 1,345
duplicated_lines: 12
duplicated_share: 0.9%
files: 14

Lintok

findings: 0
scanned_lines: 1,856
weighted_findings: 0

Tests and CIok

check:ci_present: no
check:ci_runs_lint: no
check:ci_runs_tests: no
check:has_tests: no
check:test_ratio: no
check:tests_cochange: no
ci_files: 0
cochange_commits: 7
cochange_share: 0.0%
source_lines: 1,856
test_lines: 0
test_ratio: 0

Documentationok1 item

README.md README.md

check:changelog: no
check:contributing: no
check:license: no
check:readme: yes
readme_lines: 96

Type safetyok1 item

TypeScript strict type checking: tsconfig.node.json tsconfig.node.json

check:low_escape_density: yes
check:strict_config: yes
escapes: 0
escapes_per_kloc: 0

Security

84 adequate

Security posture is adequate: 2 known vulnerabilities in 2 dependencies. Weakest area: posture.

How the score is built

Secrets100
Static analysis (SAST)100
Vulnerable dependencies90
CI workflowsnot measured
Security posture0
OpenSSF Scorecardnot measured

Evidence by analyzer

OpenSSF Scorecardskipped

no published OpenSSF Scorecard result for this repo

Package registriesok

checked: 11
declared: 11
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: 0
findings_high: 0
findings_low: 0
findings_medium: 0
parse_errors: 0
scanned_lines: 1,856
weighted_findings: 0

Dependencies (osv-scanner)ok

penalty: 6
vulnerabilities: 2
vulnerable_packages: 2
vulns_critical: 0
vulns_high: 0
vulns_low: 0
vulns_medium: 2
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 downloadsok

binary_assets: 0
signals: 0
suspicious: 0

Findings

2 medium

Severity	Rule	Location	Message	Tool
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-g3hv-75wg-m249`	package-lock.json	[email protected] (npm) is affected by GHSA-g3hv-75wg-m249	Dependencies (osv-scanner)

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`	0
Tests and CI	Code quality	ok	`—`	0
Type safety	Code quality	ok	`—`	0
CI workflows (zizmor)	Security	skipped	`—`	0
Dependencies (osv-scanner)	Security	ok	`osv-scanner version: 2.7.1`	2
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`	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	`22c4c218a3c1`	`prov-5+qual-2+sec-2`	100%	55	84
2026-11-14	`22c4c218a3c1`	`prov-4+qual-2+sec-2`	100%	55	84

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/adknudson/yet-another-calorie-tracker/ai.svg)](https://repotrust.synapticcyber.com/r/github.com/adknudson/yet-another-calorie-tracker/)

[![RepoTrust quality](https://repotrust.synapticcyber.com/badge/github.com/adknudson/yet-another-calorie-tracker/quality.svg)](https://repotrust.synapticcyber.com/r/github.com/adknudson/yet-another-calorie-tracker/)

[![RepoTrust security](https://repotrust.synapticcyber.com/badge/github.com/adknudson/yet-another-calorie-tracker/security.svg)](https://repotrust.synapticcyber.com/r/github.com/adknudson/yet-another-calorie-tracker/)

Full text report

Repository: https://github.com/adknudson/yet-another-calorie-tracker
Commit: 22c4c218a3c1ede33f843a7fb6591741df8a51c7
Generated: 2026-11-14T14:52:02+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	72%	100%
Code quality	55	weak	90%	100%
Security	84	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
GitHub Copilot coding agent	9	1,893

Current source lines last changed by AI-attributed commits: 1,856 of 1,856.

Too few lines in one group to compare finding densities.

Month	Lines added	Attributed to AI
2026-11	1,893	100%

Evidence

GitHub Copilot coding agent: trailer 'Co-authored-by: Copilot' (22c4c218a3c1)
GitHub Copilot coding agent: trailer 'Co-authored-by: Copilot' (f25d641e81b9)
GitHub Copilot coding agent: trailer 'Co-authored-by: Copilot' (3e820576e86a)
GitHub Copilot coding agent: trailer 'Co-authored-by: Copilot' (fc3accfd8ef5)
GitHub Copilot coding agent: trailer 'Co-authored-by: Copilot' (72d6035ba236)
GitHub Copilot coding agent: trailer 'Co-authored-by: Copilot' (721c307bbf1d)
GitHub Copilot coding agent: trailer 'Co-authored-by: Copilot' (a86ea6957ca0)
GitHub Copilot coding agent: trailer 'Co-authored-by: Copilot' (37ca67dc5a7a)
GitHub Copilot coding agent: trailer 'Co-authored-by: Copilot' (de91a0796e4e)

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 0.00, no CI test run detected; 19% of function code in complex or long functions; 1% duplicated lines. Weakest area: testing.

Area	Score
Complexity (lizard)	56
Duplication	95
Code smells (Opengrep)	100
Tests and CI	0
Documentation	40
Type safety	100
Process (Scorecard review/maintenance)	n/a

Functions: 200; mean complexity 2.0, 90th percentile 4; 1 complex and 1 long functions
Duplicated lines: 0.9% of 1,345 compared
Tests: 0 test lines for 1,856 source lines (ratio 0.00); CI test commands: none detected; 0% of recent source commits also change tests
Docs missing or thin: license, contributing, changelog

Most complex functions:

App in src/renderer/src/App.tsx: complexity 27, 264 lines

Security

Security posture is adequate: 2 known vulnerabilities in 2 dependencies. Weakest area: posture.

Area	Score
Secrets (gitleaks, tree + history)	100
Static analysis (Opengrep)	100
Vulnerable dependencies (OSV)	90
CI workflows (zizmor)	n/a
Posture (policy, updates, signing, lockfiles)	0
OpenSSF Scorecard	n/a

Known vulnerabilities: 2 in 2 packages (critical 0, high 0, medium 2, low 0)
Posture checks passed: lockfiles; missing: security policy, dependency updates, signed commits

Top findings

Severity	Finding	Location
medium	`osv/GHSA-g3hv-75wg-m249`: [email protected] (npm) is affected by GHSA-g3hv-75wg-m249	package-lock.json
medium	`osv/GHSA-g3hv-75wg-m249`: [email protected] (npm) is affected by GHSA-g3hv-75wg-m249	package-lock.json

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: 1,856; test lines: 0

Language	Lines
TypeScript	1,794
JavaScript	62