Leaderboard github.com
d3zd3/Katla
custom eduVulcan client for iOS
AI provenance
0%
possible
- Confidence
- 43%
- Coverage
- 100%
Estimated share of AI-generated code. Explicit attribution is a lower bound.
Code quality
36/100
poor
- Confidence
- 90%
- Coverage
- 100%
Complexity, duplication, lint density, tests, CI, docs and review process.
Security
86/100
strong
- Confidence
- 85%
- Coverage
- 100%
Secrets, static analysis, vulnerable dependencies, CI and supply-chain posture.
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 pacenot measured
- Coding-style index (1.0+ means possible)2.13
Lines added per month all AI-attributed share
- 2026-089,140 · 0% AI
- 2026-090 · 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
- 10
- effective_loc
- 9,140
- tools_detected
- 0
AI tool configurationok
- artifacts
- 0
- tools_configured
- 0
- workflow_agents
- 0
Commit velocityok
- excluded_import_loc
- 9,127
- flagged_loc
- 0
- flagged_loc_share
- 0.0%
- flagged_units
- 0
- max_loc_per_hour
- 3.25
- measured_loc
- 13
- median_loc_per_hour
- 0
- pr_timed_units
- 0
- pre_ai_era_burst_loc
- 0
- pre_ai_era_bursts
- 0
- pre_ai_era_measured_loc
- 0
- work_units
- 1
Release velocityskipped
Coding styleok
- count:assistant_voice
- 0
- count:emoji_in_code
- 39
- count:narrated_steps
- 0
- count:placeholder
- 0
- files:assistant_voice
- 0
- files:emoji_in_code
- 8
- files:narrated_steps
- 0
- files:placeholder
- 0
- index
- 2.13
- lines_scanned
- 9,139
- per_kloc:assistant_voice
- 0
- per_kloc:emoji_in_code
- 4.27
- per_kloc:narrated_steps
- 0
- per_kloc:placeholder
- 0
Code quality
36 poor
Code quality is poor: test-to-source ratio 0.00, no CI test run detected; 48% of function code in complex or long functions; 14% duplicated lines. Weakest area: testing.
How the score is built
- Complexity24
- Duplication43
- Lint and smells100
- Tests and CI0
- Documentation40
- Type safetynot measured
- Review processnot measured
Evidence by analyzer
Complexity (lizard)ok10 items
- string in Services/Localization/LanguageManager.swift: complexity 241, 367 lines
- body in Features/Timetable/TimetableView.swift: complexity 32, 233 lines
- body in Features/Attendance/AttendanceView.swift: complexity 29, 290 lines
- body in Features/Exams/ExamsView.swift: complexity 25, 213 lines
- body in Features/Homeworks/HomeworksView.swift: complexity 23, 207 lines
- body in Features/Notes/NotesView.swift: complexity 22, 129 lines
- body in Features/Messages/MessagesView.swift: complexity 19, 195 lines
- login in Services/API/PrometheusLoginHelper.swift: complexity 19, 71 lines
- body in Features/Messages/MessagesView.swift: complexity 13, 151 lines
- body in Features/Settings/SettingsView.swift: complexity 12, 495 lines
- complex_functions
- 8
- function_nloc
- 6,688
- functions
- 252
- long_functions
- 14
- many_param_functions
- 4
- mean_ccn
- 4.26
- p90_ccn
- 6
- risky_nloc_share
- 48.0%
Duplication (jscpd)ok10 items
- 6+ duplicated lines: Features/Attendance/AttendanceView.swift:325 and Features/Duties/DutiesView.swift:33
- 6+ duplicated lines: Features/Auth/EduVulcanWebViewSheet.swift:90 and Features/Auth/LoginView.swift:363
- 6+ duplicated lines: Features/Auth/LoginView.swift:117 and Features/Messages/MessagesView.swift:336
- 6+ duplicated lines: Features/Auth/LoginView.swift:148 and Features/Auth/LoginView.swift:208
- 6+ duplicated lines: Features/Dashboard/DashboardView.swift:230 and Features/Meetings/MeetingsView.swift:66
- 6+ duplicated lines: Features/Dashboard/DashboardView.swift:272 and Features/Grades/GradesView.swift:147
- 6+ duplicated lines: Features/Duties/DutiesView.swift:9 and Features/Meetings/MeetingsView.swift:9
- 6+ duplicated lines: Features/Exams/ExamsView.swift:17 and Features/Homeworks/HomeworksView.swift:17
- 6+ duplicated lines: Features/Exams/ExamsView.swift:223 and Features/Notes/NotesView.swift:120
- 6+ duplicated lines: Features/Exams/ExamsView.swift:373 and Features/Grades/SubjectGradesDetailView.swift:131
- compared_lines
- 6,457
- duplicated_lines
- 905
- duplicated_share
- 14.0%
- files
- 42
Lintok
- findings
- 0
- scanned_lines
- 9,139
- 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
- 3
- cochange_share
- 0.0%
- source_lines
- 9,139
- 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
- 37
Type safetyskipped
Security
86 strong
Security posture is strong: no high-impact findings. Weakest area: posture.
How the score is built
- Secrets100
- Static analysis (SAST)100
- Vulnerable dependenciesnot measured
- CI workflowsnot measured
- Security posture20
- 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
- 0
- scanned_lines
- 9,139
- weighted_findings
- 0
Dependencies (osv-scanner)skipped
CI workflows (zizmor)skipped
Security postureok
- check:dependency_updates
- no
- check:lockfiles
- yes
- check:security_policy
- no
- check:signed_commits
- yes
- signed_commit_share
- 60.0%
- unpinned_manifests
- 0
Release downloadsok1 item
- binary_assets
- 1
- signals
- 1
- suspicious
- 0
Findings
No line-level findings.
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 | |
| 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 | skipped | — | 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 | 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 | 28b6b4787fd0 | prov-5+qual-2+sec-2 | 0% | 36 | 86 |
| 2026-11-14 | 28b6b4787fd0 | prov-4+qual-2+sec-2 | 0% | 36 | 86 |
Full text report
- Repository: https://github.com/d3zd3/Katla
- Commit:
28b6b4787fd0b1eba377534974e0f6f5792f75b5 - Generated: 2026-11-14T14:52:03+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 | 36 | poor | 90% | 100% |
| Security | 86 | strong | 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: 2.13 per 1,000 lines (narrated steps 0, placeholders 0, assistant phrasing 0, emoji 39). Reported as a signal, not scored.
| Month | Lines added | Attributed to AI |
|---|---|---|
| 2026-08 | 9,140 | 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 poor: test-to-source ratio 0.00, no CI test run detected; 48% of function code in complex or long functions; 14% duplicated lines. Weakest area: testing.
| Area | Score |
|---|---|
| Complexity (lizard) | 24 |
| Duplication | 43 |
| Code smells (Opengrep) | 100 |
| Tests and CI | 0 |
| Documentation | 40 |
| Type safety | n/a |
| Process (Scorecard review/maintenance) | n/a |
- Functions: 252; mean complexity 4.3, 90th percentile 6; 8 complex and 14 long functions
- Duplicated lines: 14.0% of 6,457 compared
- Tests: 0 test lines for 9,139 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:
- string in Services/Localization/LanguageManager.swift: complexity 241, 367 lines
- body in Features/Timetable/TimetableView.swift: complexity 32, 233 lines
- body in Features/Attendance/AttendanceView.swift: complexity 29, 290 lines
- body in Features/Exams/ExamsView.swift: complexity 25, 213 lines
- body in Features/Homeworks/HomeworksView.swift: complexity 23, 207 lines
Security
Security posture is strong: no high-impact findings. Weakest area: posture.
| Area | Score |
|---|---|
| Secrets (gitleaks, tree + history) | 100 |
| Static analysis (Opengrep) | 100 |
| Vulnerable dependencies (OSV) | n/a |
| CI workflows (zizmor) | n/a |
| Posture (policy, updates, signing, lockfiles) | 20 |
| OpenSSF Scorecard | n/a |
- Posture checks passed: signed commits, lockfiles; missing: security policy, dependency updates
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 pb ships Katla.ipa (1 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: 9,139; test lines: 0
| Language | Lines |
|---|---|
| Swift | 9,139 |