Leaderboard github.com

dormail/gds-viewer-android

Read-only GDSII chip layout viewer for Android. Opens large .gds/.gds.gz files in seconds; layers, cells, ruler. Built with Claude.

View repository ↗
Kotlin
★ 0
commit 3b29d8eb8604
scored 2026-11-14
scoring prov-5+qual-2+sec-2

AI provenance

100%

explicit

Confidence: 77%
Coverage: 100%

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

Code quality

72/100

adequate

Confidence: 90%
Coverage: 100%

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

Security

89/100

strong

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 files1
Work sessions at AI pace3
Releases at AI pace1
Coding-style index (1.0+ means possible)0.00

Attributed AI tools

Tool	Commits	Lines added	First seen	Last seen
Claude Code	30	12,757	2026-10-16	2026-10-18

Lines added per month all AI-attributed share

2026-1012,757 · 100% AI

Findings in AI-attributed lines vs the rest

From git blame: 7,816 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 attributionok26 items

attributed_commit_share: 100.0%
attributed_commits: 30
attributed_loc: 12,757
attributed_loc_share: 100.0%
commits: 30
effective_loc: 12,757
tools_detected: 1

AI tool configurationok1 item

CLAUDE.md (claude-code configuration)

artifacts: 1
earliest_adoption: 2026-10-17
tools_configured: 1
workflow_agents: 0

Commit velocityok3 items

excluded_import_loc: 0
flagged_loc: 11,082
flagged_loc_share: 86.9%
flagged_units: 3
max_loc_per_hour: 1,984.63
measured_loc: 12,757
median_loc_per_hour: 950.97
pr_timed_units: 0
pre_ai_era_burst_loc: 0
pre_ai_era_bursts: 0
pre_ai_era_measured_loc: 0
work_units: 6

Release velocityok1 item

v0.6 → v0.7: 6,628 lines in 0.05 days (138,390.3 lines/day)

flagged_releases: 1
max_loc_per_day: 138,390.30
releases: 7

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: 7,816
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: 7,816
blame_failures: 0
files_blamed: 45
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

72 adequate

Code quality is adequate: test-to-source ratio 0.38, no CI test run detected; 17% of function code in complex or long functions; 0% duplicated lines. Weakest area: type safety.

How the score is built

Complexity59
Duplication98
Lint and smells100
Tests and CI49
Documentation85
Type safety40
Review processnot measured

Evidence by analyzer

Complexity (lizard)ok10 items

complex_functions: 13
function_nloc: 4,787
functions: 410
long_functions: 3
many_param_functions: 15
mean_ccn: 3.73
p90_ccn: 8
risky_nloc_share: 17.4%

Duplication (jscpd)ok1 item

6+ duplicated lines: settings.gradle.kts:2 and settings.gradle.kts:16

compared_lines: 5,690
duplicated_lines: 14
duplicated_share: 0.2%
files: 45

Lintok

findings: 0
scanned_lines: 7,816
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: 22
cochange_share: 36.4%
source_lines: 7,816
test_lines: 2,948
test_ratio: 0.38

Documentationok3 items

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

check:changelog: yes
check:contributing: no
check:license: yes
check:readme: yes
readme_lines: 60

Type safetyok

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

Security

89 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 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: 0
findings_high: 0
findings_low: 0
findings_medium: 0
parse_errors: 0
scanned_lines: 7,816
weighted_findings: 0

Dependencies (osv-scanner)skipped

CI workflows (zizmor)skipped

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 downloadsok5 items

binary_assets: 8
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	Note
AI tool configuration	AI provenance	ok	`signatures-v1`
Explicit AI attribution	AI provenance	ok	`signatures-v1`
Release velocity	AI provenance	ok	`prov-4`
Coding style	AI provenance	ok	`—`
Commit velocity	AI provenance	ok	`prov-4`
Findings in AI-written lines	AI provenance	ok	`git-blame`
Complexity (lizard)	Code quality	ok	`lizard 1.25.1`
Documentation	Code quality	ok	`—`
Duplication (jscpd)	Code quality	ok	`repotrust-dup-w6`
Lint	Code quality	ok	`opengrep 1.33.1; rules f1d2b562b414`
Tests and CI	Code quality	ok	`—`
Type safety	Code quality	ok	`—`
CI workflows (zizmor)	Security	skipped	`—`
Dependencies (osv-scanner)	Security	skipped	`—`
Release downloads	Security	ok	`—`
Security posture	Security	ok	`—`
Package registries	Security	skipped	`—`	no registry dependencies declared
Static analysis (opengrep)	Security	ok	`opengrep 1.33.1; rules f1d2b562b414`
OpenSSF Scorecard	Security	skipped	`—`	no published OpenSSF Scorecard result for this repo
Secrets (gitleaks)	Security	ok	`gitleaks 8.30.1`

Score history

Scores from different scoring versions aren't directly comparable.

Scored	Commit	Scoring	AI provenance	Quality	Security
2026-11-14	`3b29d8eb8604`	`prov-5+qual-2+sec-2`	100%	72	89
2026-11-14	`3b29d8eb8604`	`prov-4+qual-2+sec-2`	100%	72	89

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/dormail/gds-viewer-android/ai.svg)](https://repotrust.synapticcyber.com/r/github.com/dormail/gds-viewer-android/)

[![RepoTrust quality](https://repotrust.synapticcyber.com/badge/github.com/dormail/gds-viewer-android/quality.svg)](https://repotrust.synapticcyber.com/r/github.com/dormail/gds-viewer-android/)

[![RepoTrust security](https://repotrust.synapticcyber.com/badge/github.com/dormail/gds-viewer-android/security.svg)](https://repotrust.synapticcyber.com/r/github.com/dormail/gds-viewer-android/)

Full text report

Repository: https://github.com/dormail/gds-viewer-android
Commit: 3b29d8eb860499758bf219e05b9844724b49581a
Generated: 2026-11-14T14:52:04+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)	100	explicit	77%	100%
Code quality	72	adequate	90%	100%
Security	89	strong	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
Claude Code	30	12,757

AI tooling configured in repo: claude-code

Current source lines last changed by AI-attributed commits: 7,816 of 7,816.

Too few lines in one group to compare finding densities.

Month	Lines added	Attributed to AI
2026-10	12,757	100%

Evidence

Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude' (3b29d8eb8604)
Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude' (bfad836d9a7f)
Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude' (e40a3455be19)
Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude' (1c0b6a9d08fe)
Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude' (736b333380ce)
Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude' (d80ba0c4ff4c)
Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude' (7182eefa0be0)
Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude' (326a1928c9f6)
Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude' (f58dbab20fc5)
Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude' (5b7070ea1a43)
Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude' (7eed5e9ab86a)
Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude' (1861c37818bd)
Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude' (927cda200356)
Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude' (82860a992497)
Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude' (d570ca5b2b42)

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 0.38, no CI test run detected; 17% of function code in complex or long functions; 0% duplicated lines. Weakest area: type safety.

Area	Score
Complexity (lizard)	59
Duplication	98
Code smells (Opengrep)	100
Tests and CI	49
Documentation	85
Type safety	40
Process (Scorecard review/maintenance)	n/a

Functions: 410; mean complexity 3.7, 90th percentile 8; 13 complex and 3 long functions
Duplicated lines: 0.2% of 5,690 compared
Tests: 2,948 test lines for 7,816 source lines (ratio 0.38); CI test commands: none detected; 36% of recent source commits also change tests
Docs missing or thin: contributing

Most complex functions:

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)	40
OpenSSF Scorecard	n/a

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

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 v0.8 ships gds-viewer-0.8.apk (2 downloads)
binary-release-asset: release v0.7 ships gds-viewer-0.7.apk (0 downloads)
binary-release-asset: release v0.6 ships gds-viewer-0.6-debug.apk (0 downloads)
binary-release-asset: release v0.5 ships gds-viewer-0.5-debug.apk (0 downloads)
binary-release-asset: release v0.4 ships gds-viewer-0.4-debug.apk (0 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: 7,816; test lines: 2,948

Language	Lines
Kotlin	9,200
Python	1,564