Leaderboard github.com

joeyprijs/gravity

View repository ↗
JavaScript
★ 1
commit e99aa2ea58af
scored 2026-11-14
scoring prov-5+qual-2+sec-2

AI provenance

93%

explicit

Confidence: 95%
Coverage: 100%

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

Code quality

83/100

strong

Confidence: 90%
Coverage: 100%

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

Security

64/100

weak

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

93% explicit

Explicit AI attribution on 93% of first-party code added; an estimated 93% including velocity signals.

How the score is built

Explicitly attributed share93%
Unattributed share in AI-pace bursts0%
Estimated AI-generated share93%
AI tool configuration files0
Work sessions at AI pace4
Releases at AI pacenot measured
Coding-style index (1.0+ means possible)0.13

Attributed AI tools

Tool	Commits	Lines added	First seen	Last seen
Claude Code	329	36,145	2026-04-09	2026-09-11

Lines added per month all AI-attributed share

2026-049,921 · 100% AI
2026-051,990 · 0% AI
2026-064,605 · 87% AI
2026-0714,763 · 100% AI
2026-084,059 · 100% AI
2026-093,445 · 100% AI

Findings in AI-attributed lines vs the rest

From git blame: 7,581 lines trace to AI-attributed commits, 179 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	2.51	0.00	—
Security	4.88	16.76	—

Evidence by analyzer

Explicit AI attributionok26 items

attributed_commit_share: 93.7%
attributed_commits: 329
attributed_loc: 36,145
attributed_loc_share: 93.2%
commits: 351
effective_loc: 38,783
tools_detected: 1

AI tool configurationok

artifacts: 0
tools_configured: 0
workflow_agents: 0

Commit velocityok4 items

excluded_import_loc: 0
flagged_loc: 8,934
flagged_loc_share: 23.0%
flagged_units: 4
max_loc_per_hour: 963.00
measured_loc: 38,783
median_loc_per_hour: 119.81
pr_timed_units: 3
pre_ai_era_burst_loc: 0
pre_ai_era_bursts: 0
pre_ai_era_measured_loc: 0
work_units: 96

Release velocityskipped

Coding styleok1 item

step-by-step narration comment: // First, so the most-reached-for control never moves.

count:assistant_voice: 0
count:emoji_in_code: 0
count:narrated_steps: 1
count:placeholder: 0
files:assistant_voice: 0
files:emoji_in_code: 0
files:narrated_steps: 1
files:placeholder: 0
index: 0.13
lines_scanned: 7,760
per_kloc:assistant_voice: 0
per_kloc:emoji_in_code: 0
per_kloc:narrated_steps: 0.13
per_kloc:placeholder: 0

Findings in AI-written linesok

ai_lines: 7,581
blame_failures: 0
files_blamed: 33
other_lines: 179
quality:ai_findings: 19
quality:ai_per_kloc: 2.51
quality:other_findings: 0
quality:other_per_kloc: 0
security:ai_findings: 37
security:ai_per_kloc: 4.88
security:other_findings: 3
security:other_per_kloc: 16.76

Code quality

83 strong

Code quality is strong: test-to-source ratio 0.69, CI runs tests; 8% of function code in complex or long functions; 0% duplicated lines. Weakest area: docs.

How the score is built

Complexity78
Duplication98
Lint and smells72
Tests and CI90
Documentation65
Type safetynot measured
Review processnot measured

Evidence by analyzer

Complexity (lizard)ok10 items

complex_functions: 10
function_nloc: 5,597
functions: 822
long_functions: 1
many_param_functions: 0
mean_ccn: 3.05
p90_ccn: 6
risky_nloc_share: 8.2%

Duplication (jscpd)ok1 item

6+ duplicated lines: src/systems/scene.js:384 and src/systems/scene.js:527

compared_lines: 5,728
duplicated_lines: 16
duplicated_share: 0.3%
files: 33

Lintok

category:best-practice: 2
category:correctness: 17
findings: 19
scanned_lines: 7,760
weighted_findings: 10

Tests and CIok2 items

CI config: .github/workflows/test.yml .github/workflows/test.yml
CI runs tests (npm test)

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: 1
cochange_commits: 201
cochange_share: 39.3%
source_lines: 7,760
test_lines: 5,358
test_ratio: 0.69

Documentationok2 items

README.md README.md
LICENSE LICENSE

check:changelog: no
check:contributing: no
check:license: yes
check:readme: yes
readme_lines: 771

Type safetyskipped

Security

64 weak

Security posture is weak: 14 high-severity SAST findings; 2 high-severity workflow issues. Weakest area: posture.

How the score is built

Secrets100
Static analysis (SAST)50
Vulnerable dependenciesnot measured
CI workflows63
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: 40
findings_high: 14
findings_low: 9
findings_medium: 17
parse_errors: 0
scanned_lines: 7,760
weighted_findings: 15.31

Dependencies (osv-scanner)skipped

CI workflows (zizmor)ok

findings: 4
findings_high: 2
findings_low: 0
findings_medium: 2
penalty: 27.60
workflows: 1

Security postureok1 item

package.json has no lockfile alongside it (unpinned dependencies) package.json

check:dependency_updates: no
check:lockfiles: no
check:security_policy: no
check:signed_commits: no
signed_commit_share: 0.0%
unpinned_manifests: 1

Release downloadsok

binary_assets: 0
signals: 0
suspicious: 0

Findings

16 high26 medium21 low

Severity	Rule	Location	Message	Tool
high	`zizmor/unpinned-uses`	.github/workflows/test.yml:11	unpinned action reference [confidence high]	CI workflows (zizmor)
high	`zizmor/unpinned-uses`	.github/workflows/test.yml:12	unpinned action reference [confidence high]	CI workflows (zizmor)
high	`opengrep/javascript.browser.security.insecure-document-method`	src/core/utils.js:397	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`	src/core/utils.js:397	User controlled data in a `p.innerHTML` is an anti-pattern that can lead to XSS vulnerabilities [confidence low]	Static analysis (opengrep)
high	`opengrep/javascript.browser.security.insecure-document-method`	src/core/utils.js:436	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`	src/core/utils.js:436	User controlled data in a `marker.innerHTML` is an anti-pattern that can lead to XSS vulnerabilities [confidence low]	Static analysis (opengrep)
high	`opengrep/javascript.browser.security.insecure-document-method`	src/ui/ui.js:204	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`	src/ui/ui.js:204	User controlled data in a `btn.innerHTML` is an anti-pattern that can lead to XSS vulnerabilities [confidence low]	Static analysis (opengrep)
high	`opengrep/javascript.browser.security.insecure-document-method`	src/ui/ui.js:307	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`	src/ui/ui.js:307	User controlled data in a `panel.innerHTML` is an anti-pattern that can lead to XSS vulnerabilities [confidence low]	Static analysis (opengrep)
high	`opengrep/javascript.browser.security.insecure-document-method`	src/ui/ui.js:313	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`	src/ui/ui.js:313	User controlled data in a `panel.innerHTML` is an anti-pattern that can lead to XSS vulnerabilities [confidence low]	Static analysis (opengrep)
high	`opengrep/javascript.browser.security.insecure-document-method`	src/ui/ui.js:371	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`	src/ui/ui.js:371	User controlled data in a `panel.innerHTML` is an anti-pattern that can lead to XSS vulnerabilities [confidence low]	Static analysis (opengrep)
high	`opengrep/javascript.browser.security.insecure-document-method`	src/ui/ui.js:423	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`	src/ui/ui.js:423	User controlled data in a `item.innerHTML` is an anti-pattern that can lead to XSS vulnerabilities [confidence low]	Static analysis (opengrep)
medium	`opengrep/javascript.lang.correctness.no-replaceall`	src/core/utils.js:35	The string method replaceAll is not supported in all versions of javascript, and is not supported by older browser versions. Consider using replace() with a regex as the first argument instead like mystring.replace(/bad/g, "good")...	Lint
medium	`opengrep/javascript.lang.correctness.no-replaceall`	src/core/utils.js:35	The string method replaceAll is not supported in all versions of javascript, and is not supported by older browser versions. Consider using replace() with a regex as the first argument instead like mystring.replace(/bad/g, "good")...	Lint
medium	`opengrep/javascript.lang.correctness.no-replaceall`	src/core/utils.js:35	The string method replaceAll is not supported in all versions of javascript, and is not supported by older browser versions. Consider using replace() with a regex as the first argument instead like mystring.replace(/bad/g, "good")...	Lint
medium	`opengrep/javascript.lang.correctness.no-replaceall`	src/core/utils.js:35	The string method replaceAll is not supported in all versions of javascript, and is not supported by older browser versions. Consider using replace() with a regex as the first argument instead like mystring.replace(/bad/g, "good")...	Lint
medium	`opengrep/javascript.lang.correctness.no-replaceall`	src/core/utils.js:35	The string method replaceAll is not supported in all versions of javascript, and is not supported by older browser versions. Consider using replace() with a regex as the first argument instead like mystring.replace(/bad/g, "good")...	Lint
medium	`opengrep/javascript.lang.best-practice.javascript-prompt`	src/plugins/curator/panel.js:125	found prompt() call; should this be in production code?	Lint
medium	`opengrep/javascript.lang.best-practice.javascript-prompt`	src/plugins/curator/panel.js:179	found prompt() call; should this be in production code?	Lint
medium	`zizmor/artipacked`	.github/workflows/test.yml:11	credential persistence through GitHub Actions artifacts [confidence low]	CI workflows (zizmor)
medium	`zizmor/excessive-permissions`	.github/workflows/test.yml:8	overly broad permissions [confidence medium]	CI workflows (zizmor)
medium	`opengrep/javascript.lang.security.html-in-template-string`	src/core/icons.js:114	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.audit.unsafe-dynamic-method`	src/core/state.js:264	Using non-static data to retrieve and run functions from the object is dangerous. If the data is user-controlled, it may allow executing arbitrary code. [confidence low]	Static analysis (opengrep)
medium	`opengrep/javascript.lang.security.html-in-template-string`	src/core/utils.js:374	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`	src/core/utils.js:384	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`	src/core/utils.js:407	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`	src/core/utils.js:436	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`	src/ui/ui.js:20	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`	src/ui/ui.js:205	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`	src/ui/ui.js:307	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`	src/ui/ui.js:313	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`	src/ui/ui.js:345	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`	src/ui/ui.js:347	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`	src/ui/ui.js:366	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`	src/ui/ui.js:371	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`	src/ui/ui.js:375	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`	src/ui/ui.js:423	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`	src/ui/ui.js:424	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)
low	`opengrep/javascript.lang.correctness.missing-template-string-indicator`	src/core/validate.js:336	This looks like a JavaScript template string. Are you missing a '$' in front of '{...}'?	Lint
low	`opengrep/javascript.lang.correctness.missing-template-string-indicator`	src/core/validate.js:336	This looks like a JavaScript template string. Are you missing a '$' in front of '{...}'?	Lint
low	`opengrep/javascript.lang.correctness.missing-template-string-indicator`	src/core/validate.js:496	This looks like a JavaScript template string. Are you missing a '$' in front of '{...}'?	Lint
low	`opengrep/javascript.lang.correctness.missing-template-string-indicator`	src/core/validate.js:496	This looks like a JavaScript template string. Are you missing a '$' in front of '{...}'?	Lint
low	`opengrep/javascript.lang.correctness.missing-template-string-indicator`	src/core/validate.js:523	This looks like a JavaScript template string. Are you missing a '$' in front of '{...}'?	Lint
low	`opengrep/javascript.lang.correctness.missing-template-string-indicator`	src/core/validate.js:523	This looks like a JavaScript template string. Are you missing a '$' in front of '{...}'?	Lint
low	`opengrep/javascript.lang.correctness.missing-template-string-indicator`	src/core/validate.js:597	This looks like a JavaScript template string. Are you missing a '$' in front of '{...}'?	Lint
low	`opengrep/javascript.lang.correctness.missing-template-string-indicator`	src/core/validate.js:597	This looks like a JavaScript template string. Are you missing a '$' in front of '{...}'?	Lint
low	`opengrep/javascript.lang.correctness.missing-template-string-indicator`	src/core/validate.js:612	This looks like a JavaScript template string. Are you missing a '$' in front of '{...}'?	Lint
low	`opengrep/javascript.lang.correctness.missing-template-string-indicator`	src/core/validate.js:612	This looks like a JavaScript template string. Are you missing a '$' in front of '{...}'?	Lint
low	`opengrep/javascript.lang.correctness.missing-template-string-indicator`	src/systems/actions.js:80	This looks like a JavaScript template string. Are you missing a '$' in front of '{...}'?	Lint
low	`opengrep/javascript.lang.correctness.missing-template-string-indicator`	src/systems/actions.js:80	This looks like a JavaScript template string. Are you missing a '$' in front of '{...}'?	Lint
low	`opengrep/javascript.lang.security.audit.unsafe-formatstring`	src/core/engine.js:109	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)
low	`opengrep/javascript.lang.security.audit.unsafe-formatstring`	src/core/engine.js:119	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)
low	`opengrep/javascript.lang.security.audit.unsafe-formatstring`	src/core/engine.js:170	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)
low	`opengrep/javascript.lang.security.audit.unsafe-formatstring`	src/core/engine.js:98	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)
low	`opengrep/javascript.audit.detect-replaceall-sanitization`	src/core/utils.js:35	Detected a call to `replaceAll()` in an attempt to HTML escape the string `String(str)`. Manually sanitizing input through a manually built list can be circumvented in many situations, and it's better to use a well known sanitization...	Static analysis (opengrep)
low	`opengrep/javascript.audit.detect-replaceall-sanitization`	src/core/utils.js:35	Detected a call to `replaceAll()` in an attempt to HTML escape the string `String(str) .replaceAll('&', '&')`. Manually sanitizing input through a manually built list can be circumvented in many situations, and it's better to...	Static analysis (opengrep)
low	`opengrep/javascript.audit.detect-replaceall-sanitization`	src/core/utils.js:35	Detected a call to `replaceAll()` in an attempt to HTML escape the string `String(str) .replaceAll('&', '&') .replaceAll('<', '<')`. Manually sanitizing input through a manually built list can be circumvented in many...	Static analysis (opengrep)
low	`opengrep/javascript.audit.detect-replaceall-sanitization`	src/core/utils.js:35	Detected a call to `replaceAll()` in an attempt to HTML escape the string `String(str) .replaceAll('&', '&') .replaceAll('<', '<') .replaceAll('>', '>')`. Manually sanitizing input through a manually built list can...	Static analysis (opengrep)
low	`opengrep/javascript.lang.security.audit.unsafe-formatstring`	src/systems/audio.js:151	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`	19
Tests and CI	Code quality	ok	`—`	0
Type safety	Code quality	skipped	`—`	0
CI workflows (zizmor)	Security	ok	`zizmor 1.32.0`	4
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`	40
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	`e99aa2ea58af`	`prov-5+qual-2+sec-2`	93%	83	64
2026-11-14	`e99aa2ea58af`	`prov-4+qual-2+sec-2`	93%	83	64

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/joeyprijs/gravity/ai.svg)](https://repotrust.synapticcyber.com/r/github.com/joeyprijs/gravity/)

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

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

Full text report

Repository: https://github.com/joeyprijs/gravity
Commit: e99aa2ea58af23f30944684f6279e298c1559c65
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)	93	explicit	95%	100%
Code quality	83	strong	90%	100%
Security	64	weak	85%	100%

AI provenance

Explicit AI attribution on 93% of first-party code added; an estimated 93% including velocity signals.

Explicitly attributed share (lower bound): 93.2%
Unattributed share in AI-consistent velocity bursts: 0.1%
Estimated AI-generated share: 93.2%

AI tool	Attributed commits	Lines added
Claude Code	329	36,145

Current source lines last changed by AI-attributed commits: 7,581 of 7,760.

Too few lines in one group to compare finding densities.

Stylometry index: 0.13 per 1,000 lines (narrated steps 1, placeholders 0, assistant phrasing 0, emoji 0). Reported as a signal, not scored.

Month	Lines added	Attributed to AI
2026-04	9,921	100%
2026-05	1,990	0%
2026-06	4,605	87%
2026-07	14,763	100%
2026-08	4,059	100%
2026-09	3,445	100%

Evidence

Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude' (e99aa2ea58af)
Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude' (9105c3fafed4)
Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude' (946773aee692)
Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude' (590679222b07)
Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude' (e60b6bda14af)
Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude' (9ce8644e8537)
Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude' (25b0c81360b0)
Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude' (f10bb1ad1181)
Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude' (4d48535ecb5a)
Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude' (a88bffba9f83)
Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude' (cafb399d81ac)
Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude' (468c40c116e0)
Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude' (fe47d737c073)
Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude' (2cf1b3a82d80)
Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude' (4eb95542bc78)

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 strong: test-to-source ratio 0.69, CI runs tests; 8% of function code in complex or long functions; 0% duplicated lines. Weakest area: docs.

Area	Score
Complexity (lizard)	78
Duplication	98
Code smells (Opengrep)	72
Tests and CI	90
Documentation	65
Type safety	n/a
Process (Scorecard review/maintenance)	n/a

Functions: 822; mean complexity 3.0, 90th percentile 6; 10 complex and 1 long functions
Duplicated lines: 0.3% of 5,728 compared
Tests: 5,358 test lines for 7,760 source lines (ratio 0.69); CI test commands: npm test; 39% of recent source commits also change tests
Docs missing or thin: contributing, changelog

Most complex functions:

Security

Security posture is weak: 14 high-severity SAST findings; 2 high-severity workflow issues. Weakest area: posture.

Area	Score
Secrets (gitleaks, tree + history)	100
Static analysis (Opengrep)	50
Vulnerable dependencies (OSV)	n/a
CI workflows (zizmor)	63
Posture (policy, updates, signing, lockfiles)	0
OpenSSF Scorecard	n/a

Posture checks passed: none; missing: security policy, dependency updates, signed commits, lockfiles

Top findings

Severity	Finding	Location
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]	src/core/utils.js:397
high	`opengrep/javascript.browser.security.insecure-innerhtml`: User controlled data in a `p.innerHTML` is an anti-pattern that can lead to XSS vulnerabilities [confidence low]	src/core/utils.js:397
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]	src/core/utils.js:436
high	`opengrep/javascript.browser.security.insecure-innerhtml`: User controlled data in a `marker.innerHTML` is an anti-pattern that can lead to XSS vulnerabilities [confidence low]	src/core/utils.js:436
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]	src/ui/ui.js:204
high	`opengrep/javascript.browser.security.insecure-innerhtml`: User controlled data in a `btn.innerHTML` is an anti-pattern that can lead to XSS vulnerabilities [confidence low]	src/ui/ui.js:204
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]	src/ui/ui.js:307
high	`opengrep/javascript.browser.security.insecure-innerhtml`: User controlled data in a `panel.innerHTML` is an anti-pattern that can lead to XSS vulnerabilities [confidence low]	src/ui/ui.js:307
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]	src/ui/ui.js:313
high	`opengrep/javascript.browser.security.insecure-innerhtml`: User controlled data in a `panel.innerHTML` is an anti-pattern that can lead to XSS vulnerabilities [confidence low]	src/ui/ui.js:313
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]	src/ui/ui.js:371
high	`opengrep/javascript.browser.security.insecure-innerhtml`: User controlled data in a `panel.innerHTML` is an anti-pattern that can lead to XSS vulnerabilities [confidence low]	src/ui/ui.js:371
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]	src/ui/ui.js:423
high	`opengrep/javascript.browser.security.insecure-innerhtml`: User controlled data in a `item.innerHTML` is an anti-pattern that can lead to XSS vulnerabilities [confidence low]	src/ui/ui.js:423
high	`zizmor/unpinned-uses`: unpinned action reference [confidence high]	.github/workflows/test.yml:11
high	`zizmor/unpinned-uses`: unpinned action reference [confidence high]	.github/workflows/test.yml:12
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]	src/core/icons.js:114
medium	`opengrep/javascript.lang.security.audit.unsafe-dynamic-method`: Using non-static data to retrieve and run functions from the object is dangerous. If the data is user-controlled, it may allow executing arbitrary code. [confidence low]	src/core/state.js:264
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]	src/core/utils.js:374
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]	src/core/utils.js:384
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]	src/core/utils.js:407
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]	src/core/utils.js:436
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]	src/ui/ui.js:20
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]	src/ui/ui.js:205
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]	src/ui/ui.js:307

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: 7,760; test lines: 5,358

Language	Lines
JavaScript	13,020
Shell	98