Leaderboard github.com

alecjacobson/tdsb-map

View repository ↗
Python
★ 0
commit ed8e36910a0f
scored 2026-11-14
scoring prov-5+qual-2+sec-2

AI provenance

22%

explicit

Confidence: 71%
Coverage: 100%

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

Code quality

46/100

poor

Confidence: 90%
Coverage: 100%

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

Security

73/100

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

22% explicit

Explicit AI attribution on 22% of first-party code added; an estimated 22% including velocity signals.

How the score is built

Explicitly attributed share22%
Unattributed share in AI-pace bursts0%
Estimated AI-generated share22%
AI tool configuration files1
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
Claude Code	2	95	2026-03-10	2026-03-10

Lines added per month all AI-attributed share

2026-03425 · 22% AI

Findings in AI-attributed lines vs the rest

From git blame: 95 lines trace to AI-attributed commits, 314 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	31.58	3.19	—
Security	0.00	3.19	—

Evidence by analyzer

Explicit AI attributionok3 items

Claude Code: 2 attributed commits, 95 lines added
Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude'
Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude'

attributed_commit_share: 40.0%
attributed_commits: 2
attributed_loc: 95
attributed_loc_share: 22.4%
commits: 5
effective_loc: 425
tools_detected: 1

AI tool configurationok1 item

CLAUDE.md (claude-code configuration)

artifacts: 1
earliest_adoption: 2026-03-09
tools_configured: 1
workflow_agents: 0

Commit velocityok

excluded_import_loc: 0
flagged_loc: 0
flagged_loc_share: 0.0%
flagged_units: 0
max_loc_per_hour: 82.50
measured_loc: 425
median_loc_per_hour: 82.50
pr_timed_units: 0
pre_ai_era_burst_loc: 0
pre_ai_era_bursts: 0
pre_ai_era_measured_loc: 0
work_units: 2

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: 409
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: 95
blame_failures: 0
files_blamed: 1
other_lines: 314
quality:ai_findings: 3
quality:ai_per_kloc: 31.58
quality:other_findings: 1
quality:other_per_kloc: 3.19
security:ai_findings: 0
security:ai_per_kloc: 0
security:other_findings: 1
security:other_per_kloc: 3.19

Code quality

46 poor

Code quality is poor: test-to-source ratio 0.00, no CI test run detected; 11% of function code in complex or long functions; 0% duplicated lines. Weakest area: testing.

How the score is built

Complexity72
Duplication100
Lint and smells37
Tests and CI0
Documentation40
Type safety40
Review processnot measured

Evidence by analyzer

Complexity (lizard)ok1 item

classify_rings in scrape.py: complexity 17, 32 lines

complex_functions: 1
function_nloc: 295
functions: 13
long_functions: 0
many_param_functions: 0
mean_ccn: 6.69
p90_ccn: 12
risky_nloc_share: 10.8%

Duplication (jscpd)ok

compared_lines: 316
duplicated_lines: 0
duplicated_share: 0.0%
files: 1

Lintok

category:maintainability: 4
findings: 4
scanned_lines: 409
weighted_findings: 4

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: 2
cochange_share: 0.0%
source_lines: 409
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: 30

Type safetyok

check:low_escape_density: yes
check:strict_config: no
escapes: 0
escapes_per_kloc: 0

Security

73 adequate

Security posture is adequate: 1 high-severity SAST findings. Weakest area: posture.

How the score is built

Secrets100
Static analysis (SAST)77
Vulnerable dependenciesnot measured
CI workflowsnot measured
Security posture0
OpenSSF Scorecardnot measured

Evidence by analyzer

OpenSSF Scorecardskipped

no published OpenSSF Scorecard result for this repo

Package registriesok

checked: 2
declared: 2
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: 0
scanned_lines: 409
weighted_findings: 0.75

Dependencies (osv-scanner)skipped

CI workflows (zizmor)skipped

Security postureok

check:dependency_updates: no
check:lockfiles: yes
check:security_policy: no
check:signed_commits: no
signed_commit_share: 20.0%
unpinned_manifests: 0

Release downloadsok

binary_assets: 0
signals: 0
suspicious: 0

Findings

1 high4 medium

Severity	Rule	Location	Message	Tool
high	`opengrep/python.lang.security.use-defused-xml`	scrape.py:12	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)
medium	`opengrep/python.lang.maintainability.is-function-without-parentheses`	scrape.py:132	Is "is_valid" a function or an attribute? If it is a function, you may have meant sp.is_valid() because sp.is_valid is always true.	Lint
medium	`opengrep/python.lang.maintainability.is-function-without-parentheses`	scrape.py:132	Is "is_empty" a function or an attribute? If it is a function, you may have meant sp.is_empty() because sp.is_empty is always true.	Lint
medium	`opengrep/python.lang.maintainability.is-function-without-parentheses`	scrape.py:177	Is "is_valid" a function or an attribute? If it is a function, you may have meant result.is_valid() because result.is_valid is always true.	Lint
medium	`opengrep/python.lang.maintainability.is-function-without-parentheses`	scrape.py:208	Is "is_empty" a function or an attribute? If it is a function, you may have meant shared.is_empty() because shared.is_empty is always true.	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`	4
Tests and CI	Code quality	ok	`—`	0
Type safety	Code quality	ok	`—`	0
CI workflows (zizmor)	Security	skipped	`—`	0
Dependencies (osv-scanner)	Security	skipped	`—`	0
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	`ed8e36910a0f`	`prov-5+qual-2+sec-2`	22%	46	73
2026-11-14	`ed8e36910a0f`	`prov-4+qual-2+sec-2`	22%	46	73

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/alecjacobson/tdsb-map/ai.svg)](https://repotrust.synapticcyber.com/r/github.com/alecjacobson/tdsb-map/)

[![RepoTrust quality](https://repotrust.synapticcyber.com/badge/github.com/alecjacobson/tdsb-map/quality.svg)](https://repotrust.synapticcyber.com/r/github.com/alecjacobson/tdsb-map/)

[![RepoTrust security](https://repotrust.synapticcyber.com/badge/github.com/alecjacobson/tdsb-map/security.svg)](https://repotrust.synapticcyber.com/r/github.com/alecjacobson/tdsb-map/)

Full text report

Repository: https://github.com/alecjacobson/tdsb-map
Commit: ed8e36910a0f9a8385404a00484b306a07f442f6
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)	22	explicit	71%	100%
Code quality	46	poor	90%	100%
Security	73	adequate	85%	100%

AI provenance

Explicit AI attribution on 22% of first-party code added; an estimated 22% including velocity signals.

Explicitly attributed share (lower bound): 22.4%
Unattributed share in AI-consistent velocity bursts: 0.0%
Estimated AI-generated share: 22.4%

AI tool	Attributed commits	Lines added
Claude Code	2	95

AI tooling configured in repo: claude-code

Current source lines last changed by AI-attributed commits: 95 of 409.

Too few lines in one group to compare finding densities.

Month	Lines added	Attributed to AI
2026-03	425	22%

Evidence

Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude' (ed8e36910a0f)
Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude' (d555a3ef6d49)
CLAUDE.md (claude-code configuration) (CLAUDE.md)

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 poor: test-to-source ratio 0.00, no CI test run detected; 11% of function code in complex or long functions; 0% duplicated lines. Weakest area: testing.

Area	Score
Complexity (lizard)	72
Duplication	100
Code smells (Opengrep)	37
Tests and CI	0
Documentation	40
Type safety	40
Process (Scorecard review/maintenance)	n/a

Functions: 13; mean complexity 6.7, 90th percentile 12; 1 complex and 0 long functions
Duplicated lines: 0.0% of 316 compared
Tests: 0 test lines for 409 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:

classify_rings in scrape.py: complexity 17, 32 lines

Security

Security posture is adequate: 1 high-severity SAST findings. Weakest area: posture.

Area	Score
Secrets (gitleaks, tree + history)	100
Static analysis (Opengrep)	77
Vulnerable dependencies (OSV)	n/a
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

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]	scrape.py:12

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: 409; test lines: 0

Language	Lines
Python	409