Leaderboard github.com

icanzilb/EasyAnimation

A Swift library to take the power of UIView.animateWithDuration(_:, animations:...) to a whole new level - layers, springs, chain-able animations and mixing view and layer animations together!

View repository ↗
Swift
★ 2,926
commit 4ed72aebe9dc
scored 2026-11-14
scoring prov-5+qual-2+sec-2

AI provenance

none-detected

Confidence: 62%
Coverage: 100%

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

Code quality

41/100

poor

Confidence: 90%
Coverage: 100%

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

Security

82/100

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

0% none-detected

No AI attribution or AI-consistent velocity signals detected.

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 pace0
Coding-style index (1.0+ means possible)0.00

Lines added per month all AI-attributed share

2015-051,320 · 0% AI
2015-06306 · 0% AI
2015-0722 · 0% AI
2015-0817 · 0% AI
2015-0991 · 0% AI
2015-102,939 · 0% AI
2015-1212 · 0% AI
2016-0211 · 0% AI
2016-0315 · 0% AI
2016-040 · 0% AI
2016-07228 · 0% AI
2016-0980 · 0% AI
2016-100 · 0% AI
2016-110 · 0% AI
2017-0211 · 0% AI
2017-031 · 0% AI
2017-04338 · 0% AI
2017-051 · 0% AI
2017-0613 · 0% AI
2017-1040 · 0% AI
2018-0835 · 0% AI
2018-095 · 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: 87
effective_loc: 5,485
tools_detected: 0

AI tool configurationok

artifacts: 0
tools_configured: 0
workflow_agents: 0

Commit velocityok

excluded_import_loc: 0
flagged_loc: 0
flagged_loc_share: 0.0%
flagged_units: 0
max_loc_per_hour: 734.50
measured_loc: 5,485
median_loc_per_hour: 84.50
pr_timed_units: 0
pre_ai_era_burst_loc: 2,938
pre_ai_era_bursts: 1
pre_ai_era_measured_loc: 5,485
work_units: 34

Release velocityok

flagged_releases: 0
max_loc_per_day: 689.10
releases: 21

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: 2,957
per_kloc:assistant_voice: 0
per_kloc:emoji_in_code: 0
per_kloc:narrated_steps: 0
per_kloc:placeholder: 0

Code quality

41 poor

Code quality is poor: test-to-source ratio 0.00, no CI test run detected; 14% of function code in complex or long functions; 70% duplicated lines. Weakest area: testing.

How the score is built

Complexity65
Duplication2
Lint and smells100
Tests and CI0
Documentation65
Type safetynot measured
Review processnot measured

Evidence by analyzer

Complexity (lizard)ok4 items

complex_functions: 4
function_nloc: 1,484
functions: 120
long_functions: 0
many_param_functions: 0
mean_ccn: 2.62
p90_ccn: 8
risky_nloc_share: 14.3%

Duplication (jscpd)ok7 items

compared_lines: 1,849
duplicated_lines: 1,292
duplicated_share: 69.9%
files: 20

Lintok

findings: 0
scanned_lines: 2,957
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: 43
cochange_share: 0.0%
source_lines: 2,957
test_lines: 0
test_ratio: 0

Documentationok2 items

README.md README.md
LICENSE LICENSE

check:changelog: no
check:contributing: no
check:license: yes
check:readme: yes
readme_lines: 233

Type safetyskipped

Security

82 adequate

Security posture is adequate: no high-impact findings. Weakest area: posture.

How the score is built

Secrets100
Static analysis (SAST)100
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 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: 1
scanned_lines: 2,957
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: no
signed_commit_share: 0.0%
unpinned_manifests: 0

Release downloadsok

binary_assets: 0
signals: 0
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`
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	skipped	`—`
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	`4ed72aebe9dc`	`prov-5+qual-2+sec-2`	0%	41	82
2026-11-14	`4ed72aebe9dc`	`prov-4+qual-2+sec-2`	0%	41	82

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/icanzilb/EasyAnimation/ai.svg)](https://repotrust.synapticcyber.com/r/github.com/icanzilb/EasyAnimation/)

[![RepoTrust quality](https://repotrust.synapticcyber.com/badge/github.com/icanzilb/EasyAnimation/quality.svg)](https://repotrust.synapticcyber.com/r/github.com/icanzilb/EasyAnimation/)

[![RepoTrust security](https://repotrust.synapticcyber.com/badge/github.com/icanzilb/EasyAnimation/security.svg)](https://repotrust.synapticcyber.com/r/github.com/icanzilb/EasyAnimation/)

Full text report

Repository: https://github.com/icanzilb/EasyAnimation
Commit: 4ed72aebe9dc610b92d4d607d398f381b7451a1e
Generated: 2026-11-14T14:52:05+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	none-detected	62%	100%
Code quality	41	poor	90%	100%
Security	82	adequate	85%	100%

AI provenance

No AI attribution or AI-consistent velocity signals detected.

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

Month	Lines added	Attributed to AI
2016-02	11	0%
2016-03	15	0%
2016-07	228	0%
2016-09	80	0%
2017-02	11	0%
2017-03	1	0%
2017-04	338	0%
2017-05	1	0%
2017-06	13	0%
2017-10	40	0%
2018-08	35	0%
2018-09	5	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; 14% of function code in complex or long functions; 70% duplicated lines. Weakest area: testing.

Area	Score
Complexity (lizard)	65
Duplication	2
Code smells (Opengrep)	100
Tests and CI	0
Documentation	65
Type safety	n/a
Process (Scorecard review/maintenance)	n/a

Functions: 120; mean complexity 2.6, 90th percentile 8; 4 complex and 0 long functions
Duplicated lines: 69.9% of 1,849 compared
Tests: 0 test lines for 2,957 source lines (ratio 0.00); CI test commands: none detected; 0% of recent source commits also change tests
Docs missing or thin: contributing, changelog

Most complex functions:

Security

Security posture is adequate: 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)	0
OpenSSF Scorecard	n/a

Posture checks passed: lockfiles; missing: security policy, 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.

Repository profile

Source lines: 2,957; test lines: 0

Language	Lines
Swift	2,940
C	17