Leaderboard github.com

driwand/super-codex

VIBING ✨🪩😎

View repository ↗
Python
★ 0
commit 35a37d655c09
scored 2026-11-14
scoring prov-5+qual-2+sec-2

AI provenance

49%

explicit

Confidence: 80%
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

78/100

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

49% explicit

Explicit AI attribution on 49% of first-party code added; an estimated 49% including velocity signals.

How the score is built

Explicitly attributed share49%
Unattributed share in AI-pace bursts10%
Estimated AI-generated share49%
AI tool configuration files2
Work sessions at AI pace1
Releases at AI pace0
Coding-style index (1.0+ means possible)0.00

Attributed AI tools

Tool	Commits	Lines added	First seen	Last seen
Claude Code	14	3,641	2026-08-20	2026-09-19
Devin	3	1,966	2026-08-20	2026-09-07

Lines added per month all AI-attributed share

2026-087,706 · 31% AI
2026-093,736 · 87% AI

Findings in AI-attributed lines vs the rest

From git blame: 2,939 lines trace to AI-attributed commits, 3,450 to others. Reported, not scored.

Findings per 1,000 lines	AI-attributed	Other	Ratio
Code quality	0.34	0.87	0.39×
Security	1.02	4.64	0.22×

Evidence by analyzer

Explicit AI attributionok19 items

attributed_commit_share: 42.5%
attributed_commits: 17
attributed_loc: 5,607
attributed_loc_share: 49.0%
commits: 40
effective_loc: 11,442
tools_detected: 2

AI tool configurationok2 items

artifacts: 2
earliest_adoption: 2026-08-19
tools_configured: 2
workflow_agents: 0

Commit velocityok1 item

3,279 lines of first-party code in ~5.6h (584 lines/hour, 15 commit session)

excluded_import_loc: 0
flagged_loc: 3,279
flagged_loc_share: 28.7%
flagged_units: 1
max_loc_per_hour: 583.54
measured_loc: 11,442
median_loc_per_hour: 199.19
pr_timed_units: 2
pre_ai_era_burst_loc: 0
pre_ai_era_bursts: 0
pre_ai_era_measured_loc: 0
work_units: 16

Release velocityok

flagged_releases: 0
max_loc_per_day: 5,664
releases: 12

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: 6,389
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: 2,939
blame_failures: 0
files_blamed: 14
other_lines: 3,450
quality:ai_findings: 1
quality:ai_per_kloc: 0.34
quality:other_findings: 3
quality:other_per_kloc: 0.87
quality:ratio: 0.39
security:ai_findings: 3
security:ai_per_kloc: 1.02
security:other_findings: 16
security:other_per_kloc: 4.64
security:ratio: 0.22

Code quality

72 adequate

Code quality is adequate: test-to-source ratio 0.68, CI runs tests; 40% of function code in complex or long functions; 3% duplicated lines. Weakest area: complexity.

How the score is built

Complexity30
Duplication86
Lint and smells79
Tests and CI90
Documentation100
Type safety40
Review processnot measured

Evidence by analyzer

Complexity (lizard)ok10 items

complex_functions: 23
function_nloc: 5,262
functions: 247
long_functions: 6
many_param_functions: 4
mean_ccn: 6.81
p90_ccn: 14
risky_nloc_share: 40.4%

Duplication (jscpd)ok5 items

compared_lines: 5,307
duplicated_lines: 138
duplicated_share: 2.6%
files: 14

Lintok

category:best-practice: 1
category:correctness: 3
findings: 4
scanned_lines: 6,389
weighted_findings: 6

Tests and CIok3 items

CI config: .github/workflows/ci.yml .github/workflows/ci.yml
CI config: .github/workflows/release.yml .github/workflows/release.yml
CI runs tests (unittest)

check:ci_present: yes
check:ci_runs_lint: no
check:ci_runs_tests: yes
check:has_tests: yes
check:test_ratio: yes
check:tests_cochange: yes
ci_files: 2
cochange_commits: 34
cochange_share: 88.2%
source_lines: 6,389
test_lines: 4,359
test_ratio: 0.68

Documentationok4 items

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

check:changelog: yes
check:contributing: yes
check:license: yes
check:readme: yes
readme_lines: 73

Type safetyok

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

Security

78 adequate

Security posture is adequate: 9 high-severity SAST findings. Weakest area: posture.

How the score is built

Secrets100
Static analysis (SAST)55
Vulnerable dependenciesnot measured
CI workflows100
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: 19
findings_high: 9
findings_low: 0
findings_medium: 10
parse_errors: 0
scanned_lines: 6,389
weighted_findings: 11

Dependencies (osv-scanner)skipped

CI workflows (zizmor)ok

findings: 0
findings_high: 0
findings_low: 0
findings_medium: 0
penalty: 0
workflows: 2

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: 7.5%
unpinned_manifests: 0

Release downloadsok

binary_assets: 0
signals: 0
suspicious: 0

Findings

10 high13 medium

Severity	Rule	Location	Message	Tool
high	`opengrep/python.lang.best-practice.arbitrary-sleep`	src/super_agent/mcp_server.py:391	time.sleep() call; did you mean to leave this in?	Lint
high	`opengrep/python.lang.security.audit.dangerous-subprocess-use-audit`	scripts/check_sensitive_data.py:43	Detected subprocess function 'run' without a static string. If this data can be controlled by a malicious actor, it may be an instance of command injection. Audit the use of this call to ensure it is not controllable by an external...	Static analysis (opengrep)
high	`opengrep/python.lang.security.audit.dangerous-subprocess-use-audit`	scripts/run_gitleaks.py:100	Detected subprocess function 'run' without a static string. If this data can be controlled by a malicious actor, it may be an instance of command injection. Audit the use of this call to ensure it is not controllable by an external...	Static analysis (opengrep)
high	`opengrep/python.lang.security.audit.dangerous-subprocess-use-audit`	scripts/run_gitleaks.py:51	Detected subprocess function 'run' without a static string. If this data can be controlled by a malicious actor, it may be an instance of command injection. Audit the use of this call to ensure it is not controllable by an external...	Static analysis (opengrep)
high	`opengrep/python.lang.security.audit.dangerous-subprocess-use-audit`	src/super_agent/adapters.py:107	Detected subprocess function 'run' without a static string. If this data can be controlled by a malicious actor, it may be an instance of command injection. Audit the use of this call to ensure it is not controllable by an external...	Static analysis (opengrep)
high	`opengrep/python.lang.security.audit.dangerous-os-exec-audit`	src/super_agent/adapters.py:597	Found dynamic content when spawning a process. This is dangerous if external data can reach this function call because it allows a malicious actor to execute commands. Ensure no external data reaches here. [confidence low]	Static analysis (opengrep)
high	`opengrep/python.lang.security.audit.dangerous-subprocess-use-audit`	src/super_agent/adapters.py:608	Detected subprocess function 'run' without a static string. If this data can be controlled by a malicious actor, it may be an instance of command injection. Audit the use of this call to ensure it is not controllable by an external...	Static analysis (opengrep)
high	`opengrep/python.lang.security.audit.dangerous-subprocess-use-audit`	src/super_agent/adapters.py:93	Detected subprocess function 'run' without a static string. If this data can be controlled by a malicious actor, it may be an instance of command injection. Audit the use of this call to ensure it is not controllable by an external...	Static analysis (opengrep)
high	`opengrep/python.lang.security.audit.dangerous-subprocess-use-audit`	src/super_agent/mcp_server.py:288	Detected subprocess function 'run' without a static string. If this data can be controlled by a malicious actor, it may be an instance of command injection. Audit the use of this call to ensure it is not controllable by an external...	Static analysis (opengrep)
high	`opengrep/python.lang.security.audit.dangerous-subprocess-use-audit`	src/super_agent/mcp_server.py:579	Detected subprocess function 'Popen' without a static string. If this data can be controlled by a malicious actor, it may be an instance of command injection. Audit the use of this call to ensure it is not controllable by an external...	Static analysis (opengrep)
medium	`opengrep/python.lang.correctness.common-mistakes.string-concat-in-list`	src/super_agent/adapters.py:375	Detected strings that are implicitly concatenated inside a list. Python will implicitly concatenate strings when not explicitly delimited. Was this supposed to be individual elements of the list?	Lint
medium	`opengrep/python.lang.correctness.common-mistakes.string-concat-in-list`	src/super_agent/adapters.py:384	Detected strings that are implicitly concatenated inside a list. Python will implicitly concatenate strings when not explicitly delimited. Was this supposed to be individual elements of the list?	Lint
medium	`opengrep/python.lang.correctness.common-mistakes.string-concat-in-list`	src/super_agent/adapters.py:389	Detected strings that are implicitly concatenated inside a list. Python will implicitly concatenate strings when not explicitly delimited. Was this supposed to be individual elements of the list?	Lint
medium	`opengrep/python.lang.security.audit.dynamic-urllib-use-detected`	install.py:119	Detected a dynamic value being used with urllib. urllib supports 'file://' schemes, so a dynamic value controlled by a malicious actor may allow them to read arbitrary files. Audit uses of urllib calls to ensure user data cannot control...	Static analysis (opengrep)
medium	`opengrep/python.lang.security.audit.insecure-file-permissions`	install.py:143	These permissions `0o755` are widely permissive and grant access to more people than may be necessary. A good default is `0o644` which gives read and write access to yourself and read access to everyone else. [confidence medium]	Static analysis (opengrep)
medium	`opengrep/python.lang.security.audit.dynamic-urllib-use-detected`	install.py:44	Detected a dynamic value being used with urllib. urllib supports 'file://' schemes, so a dynamic value controlled by a malicious actor may allow them to read arbitrary files. Audit uses of urllib calls to ensure user data cannot control...	Static analysis (opengrep)
medium	`opengrep/python.lang.security.audit.insecure-file-permissions`	scripts/install_gitleaks.py:100	These permissions `0o700` are widely permissive and grant access to more people than may be necessary. A good default is `0o644` which gives read and write access to yourself and read access to everyone else. [confidence medium]	Static analysis (opengrep)
medium	`opengrep/python.lang.security.audit.insecure-file-permissions`	scripts/install_gitleaks.py:111	These permissions `0o700` are widely permissive and grant access to more people than may be necessary. A good default is `0o644` which gives read and write access to yourself and read access to everyone else. [confidence medium]	Static analysis (opengrep)
medium	`opengrep/python.lang.security.audit.dynamic-urllib-use-detected`	scripts/install_gitleaks.py:60	Detected a dynamic value being used with urllib. urllib supports 'file://' schemes, so a dynamic value controlled by a malicious actor may allow them to read arbitrary files. Audit uses of urllib calls to ensure user data cannot control...	Static analysis (opengrep)
medium	`opengrep/python.lang.security.audit.insecure-file-permissions`	src/super_agent/config.py:80	These permissions `0o700` are widely permissive and grant access to more people than may be necessary. A good default is `0o644` which gives read and write access to yourself and read access to everyone else. [confidence medium]	Static analysis (opengrep)
medium	`opengrep/python.lang.security.audit.dynamic-urllib-use-detected`	src/super_agent/release.py:149	Detected a dynamic value being used with urllib. urllib supports 'file://' schemes, so a dynamic value controlled by a malicious actor may allow them to read arbitrary files. Audit uses of urllib calls to ensure user data cannot control...	Static analysis (opengrep)
medium	`opengrep/python.lang.security.audit.insecure-file-permissions`	src/super_agent/release.py:173	These permissions `0o755` are widely permissive and grant access to more people than may be necessary. A good default is `0o644` which gives read and write access to yourself and read access to everyone else. [confidence medium]	Static analysis (opengrep)
medium	`opengrep/python.lang.security.audit.dynamic-urllib-use-detected`	src/super_agent/release.py:66	Detected a dynamic value being used with urllib. urllib supports 'file://' schemes, so a dynamic value controlled by a malicious actor may allow them to read arbitrary files. Audit uses of urllib calls to ensure user data cannot control...	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	ok	`prov-4`	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	ok	`zizmor 1.32.0`	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`	19
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	`35a37d655c09`	`prov-5+qual-2+sec-2`	49%	72	78
2026-11-14	`35a37d655c09`	`prov-4+qual-2+sec-2`	49%	72	78

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/driwand/super-codex/ai.svg)](https://repotrust.synapticcyber.com/r/github.com/driwand/super-codex/)

[![RepoTrust quality](https://repotrust.synapticcyber.com/badge/github.com/driwand/super-codex/quality.svg)](https://repotrust.synapticcyber.com/r/github.com/driwand/super-codex/)

[![RepoTrust security](https://repotrust.synapticcyber.com/badge/github.com/driwand/super-codex/security.svg)](https://repotrust.synapticcyber.com/r/github.com/driwand/super-codex/)

Full text report

Repository: https://github.com/driwand/super-codex
Commit: 35a37d655c09ef53e1db6353178ecd80993a1573
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)	49	explicit	80%	100%
Code quality	72	adequate	90%	100%
Security	78	adequate	85%	100%

AI provenance

Explicit AI attribution on 49% of first-party code added; an estimated 49% including velocity signals.

Explicitly attributed share (lower bound): 49.0%
Unattributed share in AI-consistent velocity bursts: 9.6%
Estimated AI-generated share: 49.0%

AI tool	Attributed commits	Lines added
Claude Code	14	3,641
Devin	3	1,966

AI tooling configured in repo: claude-code, generic-agent

Current source lines last changed by AI-attributed commits: 2,939 of 6,389.

Findings per 1,000 lines	AI-attributed	Other	Ratio
Quality	0.34	0.87	0.39x
Security	1.021	4.638	0.22x

Month	Lines added	Attributed to AI
2026-08	7,706	31%
2026-09	3,736	87%

Evidence

Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude' (08f7c54cea11)
Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude' (8ee938fd3c96)
Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude' (800a55d98363)
Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude' (eef945b0516b)
Devin: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Devin' (bef4d3b76759)
Devin: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Devin' (655b5e41feb7)
Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude' (d7016edbde0f)
Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude' (09b1e5174d17)
Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude' (e0ed915dab50)
Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude' (e6152d0d5235)
Devin: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Devin' (089488cbe427)
Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude' (b327a1e3bce3)
Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude' (b31054dc21a9)
Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude' (36982697d33b)
Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude' (5b0220557a37)

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 0.68, CI runs tests; 40% of function code in complex or long functions; 3% duplicated lines. Weakest area: complexity.

Area	Score
Complexity (lizard)	30
Duplication	86
Code smells (Opengrep)	79
Tests and CI	90
Documentation	100
Type safety	40
Process (Scorecard review/maintenance)	n/a

Functions: 247; mean complexity 6.8, 90th percentile 14; 23 complex and 6 long functions
Duplicated lines: 2.6% of 5,307 compared
Tests: 4,359 test lines for 6,389 source lines (ratio 0.68); CI test commands: unittest; 88% of recent source commits also change tests
Docs missing or thin: none

Most complex functions:

Security

Security posture is adequate: 9 high-severity SAST findings. Weakest area: posture.

Area	Score
Secrets (gitleaks, tree + history)	100
Static analysis (Opengrep)	55
Vulnerable dependencies (OSV)	n/a
CI workflows (zizmor)	100
Posture (policy, updates, signing, lockfiles)	40
OpenSSF Scorecard	n/a

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

Top findings

Severity	Finding	Location
high	`opengrep/python.lang.security.audit.dangerous-subprocess-use-audit`: Detected subprocess function 'run' without a static string. If this data can be controlled by a malicious actor, it may be an instance of command injection. Audit the use of this call to ensure it is not controllable by an external resource. You may consider using 'shlex.escape()'. [confidence low]	scripts/check_sensitive_data.py:43
high	`opengrep/python.lang.security.audit.dangerous-subprocess-use-audit`: Detected subprocess function 'run' without a static string. If this data can be controlled by a malicious actor, it may be an instance of command injection. Audit the use of this call to ensure it is not controllable by an external resource. You may consider using 'shlex.escape()'. [confidence low]	scripts/run_gitleaks.py:51
high	`opengrep/python.lang.security.audit.dangerous-subprocess-use-audit`: Detected subprocess function 'run' without a static string. If this data can be controlled by a malicious actor, it may be an instance of command injection. Audit the use of this call to ensure it is not controllable by an external resource. You may consider using 'shlex.escape()'. [confidence low]	scripts/run_gitleaks.py:100
high	`opengrep/python.lang.security.audit.dangerous-subprocess-use-audit`: Detected subprocess function 'run' without a static string. If this data can be controlled by a malicious actor, it may be an instance of command injection. Audit the use of this call to ensure it is not controllable by an external resource. You may consider using 'shlex.escape()'. [confidence low]	src/super_agent/adapters.py:93
high	`opengrep/python.lang.security.audit.dangerous-subprocess-use-audit`: Detected subprocess function 'run' without a static string. If this data can be controlled by a malicious actor, it may be an instance of command injection. Audit the use of this call to ensure it is not controllable by an external resource. You may consider using 'shlex.escape()'. [confidence low]	src/super_agent/adapters.py:107
high	`opengrep/python.lang.security.audit.dangerous-os-exec-audit`: Found dynamic content when spawning a process. This is dangerous if external data can reach this function call because it allows a malicious actor to execute commands. Ensure no external data reaches here. [confidence low]	src/super_agent/adapters.py:597
high	`opengrep/python.lang.security.audit.dangerous-subprocess-use-audit`: Detected subprocess function 'run' without a static string. If this data can be controlled by a malicious actor, it may be an instance of command injection. Audit the use of this call to ensure it is not controllable by an external resource. You may consider using 'shlex.escape()'. [confidence low]	src/super_agent/adapters.py:608
high	`opengrep/python.lang.security.audit.dangerous-subprocess-use-audit`: Detected subprocess function 'run' without a static string. If this data can be controlled by a malicious actor, it may be an instance of command injection. Audit the use of this call to ensure it is not controllable by an external resource. You may consider using 'shlex.escape()'. [confidence low]	src/super_agent/mcp_server.py:288
high	`opengrep/python.lang.security.audit.dangerous-subprocess-use-audit`: Detected subprocess function 'Popen' without a static string. If this data can be controlled by a malicious actor, it may be an instance of command injection. Audit the use of this call to ensure it is not controllable by an external resource. You may consider using 'shlex.escape()'. [confidence low]	src/super_agent/mcp_server.py:579
medium	`opengrep/python.lang.security.audit.dynamic-urllib-use-detected`: Detected a dynamic value being used with urllib. urllib supports 'file://' schemes, so a dynamic value controlled by a malicious actor may allow them to read arbitrary files. Audit uses of urllib calls to ensure user data cannot control the URLs, or consider using the 'requests' library instead. [confidence low]	install.py:44
medium	`opengrep/python.lang.security.audit.dynamic-urllib-use-detected`: Detected a dynamic value being used with urllib. urllib supports 'file://' schemes, so a dynamic value controlled by a malicious actor may allow them to read arbitrary files. Audit uses of urllib calls to ensure user data cannot control the URLs, or consider using the 'requests' library instead. [confidence low]	install.py:119
medium	`opengrep/python.lang.security.audit.insecure-file-permissions`: These permissions `0o755` are widely permissive and grant access to more people than may be necessary. A good default is `0o644` which gives read and write access to yourself and read access to everyone else. [confidence medium]	install.py:143
medium	`opengrep/python.lang.security.audit.dynamic-urllib-use-detected`: Detected a dynamic value being used with urllib. urllib supports 'file://' schemes, so a dynamic value controlled by a malicious actor may allow them to read arbitrary files. Audit uses of urllib calls to ensure user data cannot control the URLs, or consider using the 'requests' library instead. [confidence low]	scripts/install_gitleaks.py:60
medium	`opengrep/python.lang.security.audit.insecure-file-permissions`: These permissions `0o700` are widely permissive and grant access to more people than may be necessary. A good default is `0o644` which gives read and write access to yourself and read access to everyone else. [confidence medium]	scripts/install_gitleaks.py:100
medium	`opengrep/python.lang.security.audit.insecure-file-permissions`: These permissions `0o700` are widely permissive and grant access to more people than may be necessary. A good default is `0o644` which gives read and write access to yourself and read access to everyone else. [confidence medium]	scripts/install_gitleaks.py:111
medium	`opengrep/python.lang.security.audit.insecure-file-permissions`: These permissions `0o700` are widely permissive and grant access to more people than may be necessary. A good default is `0o644` which gives read and write access to yourself and read access to everyone else. [confidence medium]	src/super_agent/config.py:80
medium	`opengrep/python.lang.security.audit.dynamic-urllib-use-detected`: Detected a dynamic value being used with urllib. urllib supports 'file://' schemes, so a dynamic value controlled by a malicious actor may allow them to read arbitrary files. Audit uses of urllib calls to ensure user data cannot control the URLs, or consider using the 'requests' library instead. [confidence low]	src/super_agent/release.py:66
medium	`opengrep/python.lang.security.audit.dynamic-urllib-use-detected`: Detected a dynamic value being used with urllib. urllib supports 'file://' schemes, so a dynamic value controlled by a malicious actor may allow them to read arbitrary files. Audit uses of urllib calls to ensure user data cannot control the URLs, or consider using the 'requests' library instead. [confidence low]	src/super_agent/release.py:149
medium	`opengrep/python.lang.security.audit.insecure-file-permissions`: These permissions `0o755` are widely permissive and grant access to more people than may be necessary. A good default is `0o644` which gives read and write access to yourself and read access to everyone else. [confidence medium]	src/super_agent/release.py:173

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: 6,389; test lines: 4,359

Language	Lines
Python	10,748