Leaderboard github.com

dfe-analytical-services/ees-local-dashboard

A dashboard for managing a locally-run EES instance

View repository ↗
TypeScript
★ 0
commit 74bcb197a83c
scored 2026-11-14
scoring prov-5+qual-2+sec-2

AI provenance

explicit

Confidence: 76%
Coverage: 100%

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

Code quality

75/100

adequate

Confidence: 90%
Coverage: 100%

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

Security

74/100

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

6% explicit

Explicit AI attribution on 6% of first-party code added; an estimated 6% including velocity signals.

How the score is built

Explicitly attributed share6%
Unattributed share in AI-pace bursts0%
Estimated AI-generated share6%
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
Claude Code	5	544	2026-09-21	2026-10-01

Lines added per month all AI-attributed share

2026-097,731 · 7% AI
2026-10897 · 1% AI

Findings in AI-attributed lines vs the rest

From git blame: 465 lines trace to AI-attributed commits, 6,721 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	0.00	—
Security	2.15	1.64	—

Evidence by analyzer

Explicit AI attributionok6 items

Claude Code: 5 attributed commits, 544 lines added
Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude'
Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude'
Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude'
Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude'
Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude'

attributed_commit_share: 20.0%
attributed_commits: 5
attributed_loc: 544
attributed_loc_share: 6.3%
commits: 25
effective_loc: 8,628
tools_detected: 1

AI tool configurationok

artifacts: 0
tools_configured: 0
workflow_agents: 0

Commit velocityok

excluded_import_loc: 7,156
flagged_loc: 0
flagged_loc_share: 0.0%
flagged_units: 0
max_loc_per_hour: 329.52
measured_loc: 1,472
median_loc_per_hour: 314.33
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 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: 7,186
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: 465
blame_failures: 0
files_blamed: 26
other_lines: 6,721
quality:ai_findings: 0
quality:ai_per_kloc: 0
quality:other_findings: 0
quality:other_per_kloc: 0
security:ai_findings: 1
security:ai_per_kloc: 2.15
security:other_findings: 11
security:other_per_kloc: 1.64

Code quality

75 adequate

Code quality is adequate: test-to-source ratio 0.19, no CI test run detected; 3% of function code in complex or long functions; 0% duplicated lines. Weakest area: testing.

How the score is built

Complexity90
Duplication98
Lint and smells100
Tests and CI40
Documentation45
Type safety100
Review processnot measured

Evidence by analyzer

Complexity (lizard)ok1 item

startProcess in processManager.ts: complexity 20, 128 lines

complex_functions: 1
function_nloc: 3,846
functions: 450
long_functions: 1
many_param_functions: 0
mean_ccn: 2.08
p90_ccn: 4
risky_nloc_share: 3.3%

Duplication (jscpd)ok1 item

6+ duplicated lines: server.ts:442 and server.ts:542

compared_lines: 4,818
duplicated_lines: 14
duplicated_share: 0.3%
files: 26

Lintok

findings: 0
scanned_lines: 7,186
weighted_findings: 0

Tests and CIok

check:ci_present: no
check:ci_runs_lint: no
check:ci_runs_tests: no
check:has_tests: yes
check:test_ratio: no
check:tests_cochange: yes
ci_files: 0
cochange_commits: 20
cochange_share: 35.0%
source_lines: 7,186
test_lines: 1,380
test_ratio: 0.19

Documentationok2 items

README.md README.md
LICENSE LICENSE

check:changelog: no
check:contributing: no
check:license: yes
check:readme: no
readme_lines: 14

Type safetyok1 item

TypeScript strict type checking: tsconfig.json tsconfig.json

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

Security

74 adequate

Security posture is adequate: 8 known vulnerabilities in 5 dependencies; 4 high-severity SAST findings. Weakest area: posture.

How the score is built

Secrets100
Static analysis (SAST)79
Vulnerable dependencies54
CI workflowsnot measured
Security posture40
OpenSSF Scorecardnot measured

Evidence by analyzer

OpenSSF Scorecardskipped

no published OpenSSF Scorecard result for this repo

Package registriesok

checked: 16
declared: 16
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: 12
findings_high: 4
findings_low: 1
findings_medium: 7
parse_errors: 0
scanned_lines: 7,186
weighted_findings: 4.81

Dependencies (osv-scanner)ok

penalty: 37
vulnerabilities: 8
vulnerable_packages: 5
vulns_critical: 1
vulns_high: 2
vulns_low: 0
vulns_medium: 5
vulns_unknown: 0

CI workflows (zizmor)skipped

Security postureok1 item

Security policy: https://github.com/dfe-analytical-services/ees-local-dashboard/security/policy https://github.com/dfe-analytical-services/ees-local-dashboard/security/policy

check:dependency_updates: no
check:lockfiles: yes
check:security_policy: yes
check:signed_commits: no
signed_commit_share: 4.0%
unpinned_manifests: 0

Release downloadsok

binary_assets: 0
signals: 0
suspicious: 0

Findings

1 critical6 high12 medium1 low

Severity	Rule	Location	Message	Tool
critical	`osv/GHSA-jqcg-44mw-7w3h`	pnpm-lock.yaml	[email protected] (npm) is affected by GHSA-jqcg-44mw-7w3h	Dependencies (osv-scanner)
high	`osv/GHSA-27r3-jxmh-p828`	pnpm-lock.yaml	[email protected] (npm) is affected by GHSA-27r3-jxmh-p828	Dependencies (osv-scanner)
high	`osv/GHSA-q7qp-rjg7-q26m`	pnpm-lock.yaml	[email protected] (npm) is affected by GHSA-q7qp-rjg7-q26m	Dependencies (osv-scanner)
high	`opengrep/javascript.browser.security.insecure-document-method`	public/app.js:294	User controlled data in methods like `innerHTML`, `outerHTML` or `document.write` is an anti-pattern that can lead to XSS vulnerabilities [confidence low]	Static analysis (opengrep)
high	`opengrep/javascript.browser.security.insecure-innerhtml`	public/app.js:294	User controlled data in a `status.innerHTML` is an anti-pattern that can lead to XSS vulnerabilities [confidence low]	Static analysis (opengrep)
high	`opengrep/javascript.browser.security.insecure-document-method`	public/app.js:444	User controlled data in methods like `innerHTML`, `outerHTML` or `document.write` is an anti-pattern that can lead to XSS vulnerabilities [confidence low]	Static analysis (opengrep)
high	`opengrep/javascript.browser.security.insecure-innerhtml`	public/app.js:444	User controlled data in a `status.innerHTML` is an anti-pattern that can lead to XSS vulnerabilities [confidence low]	Static analysis (opengrep)
medium	`opengrep/javascript.jquery.security.audit.jquery-insecure-selector`	dockerManager.ts:393	User controlled data in a `$(...)` is an anti-pattern that can lead to XSS vulnerabilities [confidence low]	Static analysis (opengrep)
medium	`osv/GHSA-3pph-fpjx-jg34`	pnpm-lock.yaml	[email protected] (npm) is affected by GHSA-3pph-fpjx-jg34	Dependencies (osv-scanner)
medium	`osv/GHSA-4mjr-xmp4-gh2g`	pnpm-lock.yaml	[email protected] (npm) is affected by GHSA-4mjr-xmp4-gh2g	Dependencies (osv-scanner)
medium	`osv/GHSA-6pq8-jhm2-2vcw`	pnpm-lock.yaml	[email protected] (npm) is affected by GHSA-6pq8-jhm2-2vcw	Dependencies (osv-scanner)
medium	`osv/GHSA-6pq8-jhm2-2vcw`	pnpm-lock.yaml	[email protected] (npm) is affected by GHSA-6pq8-jhm2-2vcw	Dependencies (osv-scanner)
medium	`osv/GHSA-x5fp-wj9c-mxmx`	pnpm-lock.yaml	[email protected] (npm) is affected by GHSA-x5fp-wj9c-mxmx	Dependencies (osv-scanner)
medium	`opengrep/javascript.jquery.security.audit.jquery-insecure-selector`	processManager.ts:509	User controlled data in a `$(...)` is an anti-pattern that can lead to XSS vulnerabilities [confidence low]	Static analysis (opengrep)
medium	`opengrep/javascript.jquery.security.audit.jquery-insecure-selector`	processManager.ts:510	User controlled data in a `$(...)` is an anti-pattern that can lead to XSS vulnerabilities [confidence low]	Static analysis (opengrep)
medium	`opengrep/javascript.lang.security.html-in-template-string`	public/app.js:294	This template literal looks like HTML and has interpolated variables. These variables are not HTML-encoded by default. If the variables contain HTML tags, these may be interpreted by the browser, resulting in cross-site scripting (XSS)....	Static analysis (opengrep)
medium	`opengrep/javascript.lang.security.html-in-template-string`	public/app.js:444	This template literal looks like HTML and has interpolated variables. These variables are not HTML-encoded by default. If the variables contain HTML tags, these may be interpreted by the browser, resulting in cross-site scripting (XSS)....	Static analysis (opengrep)
medium	`opengrep/javascript.jquery.security.audit.jquery-insecure-selector`	start.ts:287	User controlled data in a `$(...)` is an anti-pattern that can lead to XSS vulnerabilities [confidence low]	Static analysis (opengrep)
medium	`opengrep/javascript.jquery.security.audit.jquery-insecure-selector`	start.ts:287	User controlled data in a `$(...)` is an anti-pattern that can lead to XSS vulnerabilities [confidence low]	Static analysis (opengrep)
low	`opengrep/javascript.lang.security.audit.unsafe-formatstring`	server.ts:471	Detected string concatenation with a non-literal variable in a util.format / console.log function. If an attacker injects a format specifier in the string, it will forge the log message. Try to use constant values for the format string....	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	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`	8
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`	12
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	`74bcb197a83c`	`prov-5+qual-2+sec-2`	6%	75	74
2026-11-14	`74bcb197a83c`	`prov-4+qual-2+sec-2`	6%	75	74

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/dfe-analytical-services/ees-local-dashboard/ai.svg)](https://repotrust.synapticcyber.com/r/github.com/dfe-analytical-services/ees-local-dashboard/)

[![RepoTrust quality](https://repotrust.synapticcyber.com/badge/github.com/dfe-analytical-services/ees-local-dashboard/quality.svg)](https://repotrust.synapticcyber.com/r/github.com/dfe-analytical-services/ees-local-dashboard/)

[![RepoTrust security](https://repotrust.synapticcyber.com/badge/github.com/dfe-analytical-services/ees-local-dashboard/security.svg)](https://repotrust.synapticcyber.com/r/github.com/dfe-analytical-services/ees-local-dashboard/)

Full text report

Repository: https://github.com/dfe-analytical-services/ees-local-dashboard
Commit: 74bcb197a83ce7d1ee7420861b538cd75f1c2cb4
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)	6	explicit	76%	100%
Code quality	75	adequate	90%	100%
Security	74	adequate	85%	100%

AI provenance

Explicit AI attribution on 6% of first-party code added; an estimated 6% including velocity signals.

Explicitly attributed share (lower bound): 6.3%
Unattributed share in AI-consistent velocity bursts: 0.0%
Estimated AI-generated share: 6.3%

AI tool	Attributed commits	Lines added
Claude Code	5	544

Current source lines last changed by AI-attributed commits: 465 of 7,186.

Too few lines in one group to compare finding densities.

Month	Lines added	Attributed to AI
2026-09	7,731	7%
2026-10	897	1%

Evidence

Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude' (581d8a577695)
Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude' (f65da87b693d)
Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude' (d4a69f43a7a0)
Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude' (7488f5d098ce)
Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude' (893e47336238)

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 0.19, no CI test run detected; 3% of function code in complex or long functions; 0% duplicated lines. Weakest area: testing.

Area	Score
Complexity (lizard)	90
Duplication	98
Code smells (Opengrep)	100
Tests and CI	40
Documentation	45
Type safety	100
Process (Scorecard review/maintenance)	n/a

Functions: 450; mean complexity 2.1, 90th percentile 4; 1 complex and 1 long functions
Duplicated lines: 0.3% of 4,818 compared
Tests: 1,380 test lines for 7,186 source lines (ratio 0.19); CI test commands: none detected; 35% of recent source commits also change tests
Docs missing or thin: readme, contributing, changelog

Most complex functions:

startProcess in processManager.ts: complexity 20, 128 lines

Security

Security posture is adequate: 8 known vulnerabilities in 5 dependencies; 4 high-severity SAST findings. Weakest area: posture.

Area	Score
Secrets (gitleaks, tree + history)	100
Static analysis (Opengrep)	79
Vulnerable dependencies (OSV)	54
CI workflows (zizmor)	n/a
Posture (policy, updates, signing, lockfiles)	40
OpenSSF Scorecard	n/a

Known vulnerabilities: 8 in 5 packages (critical 1, high 2, medium 5, low 0)
Posture checks passed: security policy, lockfiles; missing: dependency updates, signed commits

Top findings

Severity	Finding	Location
critical	`osv/GHSA-jqcg-44mw-7w3h`: [email protected] (npm) is affected by GHSA-jqcg-44mw-7w3h	pnpm-lock.yaml
high	`opengrep/javascript.browser.security.insecure-document-method`: User controlled data in methods like `innerHTML`, `outerHTML` or `document.write` is an anti-pattern that can lead to XSS vulnerabilities [confidence low]	public/app.js:294
high	`opengrep/javascript.browser.security.insecure-innerhtml`: User controlled data in a `status.innerHTML` is an anti-pattern that can lead to XSS vulnerabilities [confidence low]	public/app.js:294
high	`opengrep/javascript.browser.security.insecure-document-method`: User controlled data in methods like `innerHTML`, `outerHTML` or `document.write` is an anti-pattern that can lead to XSS vulnerabilities [confidence low]	public/app.js:444
high	`opengrep/javascript.browser.security.insecure-innerhtml`: User controlled data in a `status.innerHTML` is an anti-pattern that can lead to XSS vulnerabilities [confidence low]	public/app.js:444
high	`osv/GHSA-27r3-jxmh-p828`: [email protected] (npm) is affected by GHSA-27r3-jxmh-p828	pnpm-lock.yaml
high	`osv/GHSA-q7qp-rjg7-q26m`: [email protected] (npm) is affected by GHSA-q7qp-rjg7-q26m	pnpm-lock.yaml
medium	`opengrep/javascript.jquery.security.audit.jquery-insecure-selector`: User controlled data in a `$(...)` is an anti-pattern that can lead to XSS vulnerabilities [confidence low]	dockerManager.ts:393
medium	`opengrep/javascript.jquery.security.audit.jquery-insecure-selector`: User controlled data in a `$(...)` is an anti-pattern that can lead to XSS vulnerabilities [confidence low]	processManager.ts:509
medium	`opengrep/javascript.jquery.security.audit.jquery-insecure-selector`: User controlled data in a `$(...)` is an anti-pattern that can lead to XSS vulnerabilities [confidence low]	processManager.ts:510
medium	`opengrep/javascript.lang.security.html-in-template-string`: This template literal looks like HTML and has interpolated variables. These variables are not HTML-encoded by default. If the variables contain HTML tags, these may be interpreted by the browser, resulting in cross-site scripting (XSS). [confidence low]	public/app.js:294
medium	`opengrep/javascript.lang.security.html-in-template-string`: This template literal looks like HTML and has interpolated variables. These variables are not HTML-encoded by default. If the variables contain HTML tags, these may be interpreted by the browser, resulting in cross-site scripting (XSS). [confidence low]	public/app.js:444
medium	`opengrep/javascript.jquery.security.audit.jquery-insecure-selector`: User controlled data in a `$(...)` is an anti-pattern that can lead to XSS vulnerabilities [confidence low]	start.ts:287
medium	`opengrep/javascript.jquery.security.audit.jquery-insecure-selector`: User controlled data in a `$(...)` is an anti-pattern that can lead to XSS vulnerabilities [confidence low]	start.ts:287
medium	`osv/GHSA-3pph-fpjx-jg34`: [email protected] (npm) is affected by GHSA-3pph-fpjx-jg34	pnpm-lock.yaml
medium	`osv/GHSA-4mjr-xmp4-gh2g`: [email protected] (npm) is affected by GHSA-4mjr-xmp4-gh2g	pnpm-lock.yaml
medium	`osv/GHSA-6pq8-jhm2-2vcw`: [email protected] (npm) is affected by GHSA-6pq8-jhm2-2vcw	pnpm-lock.yaml
medium	`osv/GHSA-x5fp-wj9c-mxmx`: [email protected] (npm) is affected by GHSA-x5fp-wj9c-mxmx	pnpm-lock.yaml
medium	`osv/GHSA-6pq8-jhm2-2vcw`: [email protected] (npm) is affected by GHSA-6pq8-jhm2-2vcw	pnpm-lock.yaml
low	`opengrep/javascript.lang.security.audit.unsafe-formatstring`: Detected string concatenation with a non-literal variable in a util.format / console.log function. If an attacker injects a format specifier in the string, it will forge the log message. Try to use constant values for the format string. [confidence low]	server.ts:471

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: 7,186; test lines: 1,380

Language	Lines
TypeScript	7,665
JavaScript	901