RepoTrust

Leaderboard github.com

johnstrand/sqlsrvaudit

CLI application for auditing SQL Server databases

  • View repository ↗
  • C#
  • ★ 0
  • commit f2f41dd60ed3
  • scored 2026-11-14
  • scoring prov-5+qual-2+sec-2

AI provenance

24%

explicit

Confidence
90%
Coverage
100%

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

Code quality

90/100

strong

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.

AI provenance

24% explicit

Explicit AI attribution on 24% of first-party code added; an estimated 24% including velocity signals.

How the score is built

  • Explicitly attributed share24%
  • Unattributed share in AI-pace bursts0%
  • Estimated AI-generated share24%
  • AI tool configuration files1
  • Work sessions at AI pace2
  • Releases at AI pacenot measured
  • Coding-style index (1.0+ means possible)0.46

Attributed AI tools

ToolCommitsLines addedFirst seenLast seen
GitHub Copilot coding agent174,5882026-04-082026-06-26

Lines added per month all AI-attributed share

  1. 2026-0414,051 · 32% AI
  2. 2026-062,112 · 2% AI
  3. 2026-112,806 · 0% AI

Findings in AI-attributed lines vs the rest

From git blame: 3,499 lines trace to AI-attributed commits, 8,382 to others. Reported, not scored.

Findings per 1,000 linesAI-attributedOtherRatio
Code quality0.000.00—
Security0.000.00—

Evidence by analyzer

Explicit AI attributionok18 items
attributed_commit_share
21.0%
attributed_commits
17
attributed_loc
4,588
attributed_loc_share
24.2%
commits
81
effective_loc
18,969
tools_detected
1
AI tool configurationok1 item
artifacts
1
earliest_adoption
2026-04-04
tools_configured
1
workflow_agents
0
Commit velocityok2 items
excluded_import_loc
5,248
flagged_loc
3,373
flagged_loc_share
24.6%
flagged_units
2
max_loc_per_hour
967.52
measured_loc
13,721
median_loc_per_hour
269.06
pr_timed_units
24
pre_ai_era_burst_loc
0
pre_ai_era_bursts
0
pre_ai_era_measured_loc
0
work_units
37
Release velocityskipped
Coding styleok3 items
count:assistant_voice
0
count:emoji_in_code
5
count:narrated_steps
3
count:placeholder
0
files:assistant_voice
0
files:emoji_in_code
2
files:narrated_steps
1
files:placeholder
0
index
0.46
lines_scanned
11,881
per_kloc:assistant_voice
0
per_kloc:emoji_in_code
0.42
per_kloc:narrated_steps
0.25
per_kloc:placeholder
0
Findings in AI-written linesok
ai_lines
3,499
blame_failures
0
files_blamed
48
other_lines
8,382
quality:ai_findings
0
quality:ai_per_kloc
0
quality:other_findings
0
quality:other_per_kloc
0
security:ai_findings
0
security:ai_per_kloc
0
security:other_findings
0
security:other_per_kloc
0

Code quality

90 strong

Code quality is strong: test-to-source ratio 0.36, CI runs tests; 2% of function code in complex or long functions; 2% duplicated lines. Weakest area: docs.

How the score is built

  • Complexity96
  • Duplication88
  • Lint and smells100
  • Tests and CI83
  • Documentation80
  • Type safetynot measured
  • Review processnot measured

Evidence by analyzer

Complexity (lizard)ok2 items
complex_functions
2
function_nloc
8,500
functions
358
long_functions
0
many_param_functions
1
mean_ccn
3.22
p90_ccn
6
risky_nloc_share
1.5%
Duplication (jscpd)ok8 items
compared_lines
7,678
duplicated_lines
164
duplicated_share
2.1%
files
48
Lintok
findings
0
scanned_lines
11,877
weighted_findings
0
Tests and CIok2 items
  • CI config: .github/workflows/ci.yml .github/workflows/ci.yml
  • CI runs tests (dotnet test)
check:ci_present
yes
check:ci_runs_lint
no
check:ci_runs_tests
yes
check:has_tests
yes
check:test_ratio
no
check:tests_cochange
yes
ci_files
1
cochange_commits
58
cochange_share
58.6%
source_lines
11,881
test_lines
4,281
test_ratio
0.36
Documentationok3 items
  • README.md README.md
  • LICENSE LICENSE
  • CONTRIBUTING.md CONTRIBUTING.md
check:changelog
no
check:contributing
yes
check:license
yes
check:readme
yes
readme_lines
159
Type safetyskipped

Security

78 adequate

Security posture is adequate: 2 high-severity workflow issues. Weakest area: posture.

How the score is built

  • Secrets100
  • Static analysis (SAST)100
  • 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
0
findings_high
0
findings_low
0
findings_medium
0
parse_errors
0
scanned_lines
11,877
weighted_findings
0
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 postureok
check:dependency_updates
no
check:lockfiles
yes
check:security_policy
no
check:signed_commits
no
signed_commit_share
30.9%
unpinned_manifests
0
Release downloadsok
binary_assets
0
signals
0
suspicious
0

Findings

2 high2 medium

SeverityRuleLocationMessageTool
high zizmor/unpinned-uses .github/workflows/ci.yml:17 unpinned action reference [confidence high] CI workflows (zizmor)
high zizmor/unpinned-uses .github/workflows/ci.yml:20 unpinned action reference [confidence high] CI workflows (zizmor)
medium zizmor/excessive-permissions .github/workflows/ci.yml:10 overly broad permissions [confidence medium] CI workflows (zizmor)
medium zizmor/artipacked .github/workflows/ci.yml:17 credential persistence through GitHub Actions artifacts [confidence low] CI workflows (zizmor)

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.

AnalyzerPillarStatusVersionFindingsNote
AI tool configurationAI provenanceoksignatures-v10
Explicit AI attributionAI provenanceoksignatures-v10
Release velocityAI provenanceskipped—0
Coding styleAI provenanceok—0
Commit velocityAI provenanceokprov-40
Findings in AI-written linesAI provenanceokgit-blame0
Complexity (lizard)Code qualityoklizard 1.25.10
DocumentationCode qualityok—0
Duplication (jscpd)Code qualityokrepotrust-dup-w60
LintCode qualityokopengrep 1.33.1; rules f1d2b562b4140
Tests and CICode qualityok—0
Type safetyCode qualityskipped—0
CI workflows (zizmor)Securityokzizmor 1.32.04
Dependencies (osv-scanner)Securityskipped—0
Release downloadsSecurityok—0
Security postureSecurityok—0
Package registriesSecurityskipped—0no registry dependencies declared
Static analysis (opengrep)Securityokopengrep 1.33.1; rules f1d2b562b4140
OpenSSF ScorecardSecurityskipped—0no published OpenSSF Scorecard result for this repo
Secrets (gitleaks)Securityokgitleaks 8.30.10

Score history

Scores from different scoring versions aren't directly comparable.

ScoredCommitScoringAI provenanceQualitySecurity
2026-11-14f2f41dd60ed3prov-5+qual-2+sec-224%9078
2026-11-14f2f41dd60ed3prov-4+qual-2+sec-224%9078

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/johnstrand/sqlsrvaudit/ai.svg)](https://repotrust.synapticcyber.com/r/github.com/johnstrand/sqlsrvaudit/)
[![RepoTrust quality](https://repotrust.synapticcyber.com/badge/github.com/johnstrand/sqlsrvaudit/quality.svg)](https://repotrust.synapticcyber.com/r/github.com/johnstrand/sqlsrvaudit/)
[![RepoTrust security](https://repotrust.synapticcyber.com/badge/github.com/johnstrand/sqlsrvaudit/security.svg)](https://repotrust.synapticcyber.com/r/github.com/johnstrand/sqlsrvaudit/)
Full text report

Scores

Pillar Score Signal Confidence Coverage
AI provenance (estimated AI-generated share) 24 explicit 90% 100%
Code quality 90 strong 90% 100%
Security 78 adequate 85% 100%

AI provenance

Explicit AI attribution on 24% of first-party code added; an estimated 24% including velocity signals.

  • Explicitly attributed share (lower bound): 24.2%
  • Unattributed share in AI-consistent velocity bursts: 0.0%
  • Estimated AI-generated share: 24.2%
AI tool Attributed commits Lines added
GitHub Copilot coding agent 17 4,588
  • AI tooling configured in repo: generic-agent

Current source lines last changed by AI-attributed commits: 3,499 of 11,881.

Findings per 1,000 lines AI-attributed Other Ratio
Quality 0.0 0.0 n/a
Security 0.0 0.0 n/a
  • Stylometry index: 0.46 per 1,000 lines (narrated steps 3, placeholders 0, assistant phrasing 0, emoji 5). Reported as a signal, not scored.
Month Lines added Attributed to AI
2026-04 14,051 32%
2026-06 2,112 2%
2026-11 2,806 0%

Evidence

  • GitHub Copilot coding agent: trailer 'Co-authored-by: copilot' (2b56855e4547)
  • GitHub Copilot coding agent: trailer 'Co-authored-by: copilot' (9912a885a864)
  • GitHub Copilot coding agent: trailer 'Co-authored-by: copilot' (053e3e6ccaf6)
  • GitHub Copilot coding agent: trailer 'Co-authored-by: Copilot' (bcbebc007012)
  • GitHub Copilot coding agent: trailer 'Co-authored-by: Copilot' (177af5cf2380)
  • GitHub Copilot coding agent: trailer 'Co-authored-by: Copilot' (ba2139aa3145)
  • GitHub Copilot coding agent: trailer 'Co-authored-by: Copilot' (7ffea40baf9e)
  • GitHub Copilot coding agent: trailer 'Co-authored-by: Copilot' (356d1837cf62)
  • GitHub Copilot coding agent: trailer 'Co-authored-by: Copilot' (dd0b339550f2)
  • GitHub Copilot coding agent: trailer 'Co-authored-by: Copilot' (c0edce8c19f6)
  • GitHub Copilot coding agent: trailer 'Co-authored-by: Copilot' (29432bf5adbb)
  • GitHub Copilot coding agent: trailer 'Co-authored-by: Copilot' (85d33ee0f7b3)
  • GitHub Copilot coding agent: trailer 'Co-authored-by: Copilot' (30d0350f57d0)
  • GitHub Copilot coding agent: trailer 'Co-authored-by: Copilot' (12aadc7f0323)
  • GitHub Copilot coding agent: trailer 'Co-authored-by: Copilot' (4736a0864be0)

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 0.36, CI runs tests; 2% of function code in complex or long functions; 2% duplicated lines. Weakest area: docs.

Area Score
Complexity (lizard) 96
Duplication 88
Code smells (Opengrep) 100
Tests and CI 83
Documentation 80
Type safety n/a
Process (Scorecard review/maintenance) n/a
  • Functions: 358; mean complexity 3.2, 90th percentile 6; 2 complex and 0 long functions
  • Duplicated lines: 2.1% of 7,678 compared
  • Tests: 4,281 test lines for 11,881 source lines (ratio 0.36); CI test commands: dotnet test; 59% of recent source commits also change tests
  • Docs missing or thin: changelog

Most complex functions:

Security

Security posture is adequate: 2 high-severity workflow issues. Weakest area: posture.

Area Score
Secrets (gitleaks, tree + history) 100
Static analysis (Opengrep) 100
Vulnerable dependencies (OSV) n/a
CI workflows (zizmor) 63
Posture (policy, updates, signing, lockfiles) 0
OpenSSF Scorecard n/a
  • Posture checks passed: lockfiles; missing: security policy, dependency updates, signed commits

Top findings

Severity Finding Location
high zizmor/unpinned-uses: unpinned action reference [confidence high] .github/workflows/ci.yml:17
high zizmor/unpinned-uses: unpinned action reference [confidence high] .github/workflows/ci.yml:20
medium zizmor/artipacked: credential persistence through GitHub Actions artifacts [confidence low] .github/workflows/ci.yml:17
medium zizmor/excessive-permissions: overly broad permissions [confidence medium] .github/workflows/ci.yml:10

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: 11,881; test lines: 4,281
Language Lines
C# 16,158
PowerShell 4