Leaderboard github.com

jota2rz/vdj-video-sync

Browser-based Automatic BPM-synced video mixing for VirtualDJ

View repository ↗
JavaScript
★ 1
commit fd1dd9877347
scored 2026-11-14
scoring prov-5+qual-2+sec-2

AI provenance

possible

Confidence: 54%
Coverage: 100%

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

Code quality

45/100

poor

Confidence: 90%
Coverage: 100%

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

Security

63/100

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

0% possible

Weak signals consistent with AI-assisted development.

How the score is built

Explicitly attributed share0%
Unattributed share in AI-pace bursts20%
Estimated AI-generated share0%
AI tool configuration files0
Work sessions at AI pace1
Releases at AI pace0
Coding-style index (1.0+ means possible)0.32

Lines added per month all AI-attributed share

2026-0210,757 · 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: 54
effective_loc: 10,757
tools_detected: 0

AI tool configurationok

artifacts: 0
tools_configured: 0
workflow_agents: 0

Commit velocityok1 item

2,156 lines of first-party code in ~4.0h (539 lines/hour, 1 commit session)

excluded_import_loc: 5,422
flagged_loc: 2,156
flagged_loc_share: 48.4%
flagged_units: 1
max_loc_per_hour: 539
measured_loc: 4,452
median_loc_per_hour: 146
pr_timed_units: 0
pre_ai_era_burst_loc: 0
pre_ai_era_bursts: 0
pre_ai_era_measured_loc: 0
work_units: 11

Release velocityok

flagged_releases: 0
max_loc_per_day: 11,045
releases: 5

Coding styleok3 items

count:assistant_voice: 0
count:emoji_in_code: 0
count:narrated_steps: 3
count:placeholder: 0
files:assistant_voice: 0
files:emoji_in_code: 0
files:narrated_steps: 1
files:placeholder: 0
index: 0.32
lines_scanned: 9,442
per_kloc:assistant_voice: 0
per_kloc:emoji_in_code: 0
per_kloc:narrated_steps: 0.32
per_kloc:placeholder: 0

Code quality

45 poor

Code quality is poor: test-to-source ratio 0.00, no CI test run detected; 26% of function code in complex or long functions; 11% duplicated lines. Weakest area: testing.

How the score is built

Complexity46
Duplication52
Lint and smells71
Tests and CI15
Documentation65
Type safetynot measured
Review processnot measured

Evidence by analyzer

Complexity (lizard)ok10 items

complex_functions: 14
function_nloc: 7,170
functions: 510
long_functions: 5
many_param_functions: 0
mean_ccn: 3.56
p90_ccn: 9
risky_nloc_share: 26.1%

Duplication (jscpd)ok7 items

compared_lines: 7,053
duplicated_lines: 761
duplicated_share: 10.8%
files: 21

Lintok

category:best-practice: 10
category:correctness: 3
findings: 13
scanned_lines: 9,442
weighted_findings: 13

Tests and CIok5 items

CI config: .github/workflows/build-plugin.yml .github/workflows/build-plugin.yml
CI config: .github/workflows/build-server.yml .github/workflows/build-server.yml
CI config: .github/workflows/codeql.yml .github/workflows/codeql.yml
CI config: .github/workflows/deploy-pages.yml .github/workflows/deploy-pages.yml
CI config: .github/workflows/release.yml .github/workflows/release.yml

check:ci_present: yes
check:ci_runs_lint: no
check:ci_runs_tests: no
check:has_tests: no
check:test_ratio: no
check:tests_cochange: no
ci_files: 5
cochange_commits: 14
cochange_share: 0.0%
source_lines: 9,442
test_lines: 0
test_ratio: 0

Documentationok2 items

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

check:changelog: no
check:contributing: no
check:license: yes
check:readme: yes
readme_lines: 281

Type safetyskipped

Security

63 weak

Security posture is weak: 1 known vulnerabilities in 1 dependencies; 12 high-severity SAST findings; 19 high-severity workflow issues. Weakest area: posture.

How the score is built

Secrets100
Static analysis (SAST)62
Vulnerable dependencies95
CI workflows2
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: 27
findings_high: 12
findings_low: 2
findings_medium: 13
parse_errors: 1
scanned_lines: 9,442
weighted_findings: 13.07

Dependencies (osv-scanner)ok

penalty: 3
vulnerabilities: 1
vulnerable_packages: 1
vulns_critical: 0
vulns_high: 0
vulns_low: 0
vulns_medium: 0
vulns_unknown: 1

CI workflows (zizmor)ok

findings: 27
findings_high: 19
findings_low: 3
findings_medium: 5
penalty: 225.60
workflows: 5

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 downloadsok6 items

binary_assets: 24
signals: 2
suspicious: 0

Findings

31 high32 medium2 low3 info

Severity	Rule	Location	Message	Tool
high	`zizmor/unpinned-uses`	.github/workflows/build-plugin.yml:103	unpinned action reference [confidence high]	CI workflows (zizmor)
high	`zizmor/unpinned-uses`	.github/workflows/build-plugin.yml:122	unpinned action reference [confidence high]	CI workflows (zizmor)
high	`zizmor/unpinned-uses`	.github/workflows/build-plugin.yml:136	unpinned action reference [confidence high]	CI workflows (zizmor)
high	`zizmor/unpinned-uses`	.github/workflows/build-plugin.yml:46	unpinned action reference [confidence high]	CI workflows (zizmor)
high	`zizmor/unpinned-uses`	.github/workflows/build-plugin.yml:90	unpinned action reference [confidence high]	CI workflows (zizmor)
high	`zizmor/unpinned-uses`	.github/workflows/build-server.yml:125	unpinned action reference [confidence high]	CI workflows (zizmor)
high	`zizmor/unpinned-uses`	.github/workflows/build-server.yml:139	unpinned action reference [confidence high]	CI workflows (zizmor)
high	`zizmor/unpinned-uses`	.github/workflows/build-server.yml:51	unpinned action reference [confidence high]	CI workflows (zizmor)
high	`zizmor/cache-poisoning`	.github/workflows/build-server.yml:54	runtime artifacts potentially vulnerable to a cache poisoning attack [confidence low]	CI workflows (zizmor)
high	`zizmor/unpinned-uses`	.github/workflows/build-server.yml:54	unpinned action reference [confidence high]	CI workflows (zizmor)
high	`zizmor/unpinned-uses`	.github/workflows/codeql.yml:100	unpinned action reference [confidence high]	CI workflows (zizmor)
high	`zizmor/unpinned-uses`	.github/workflows/codeql.yml:51	unpinned action reference [confidence high]	CI workflows (zizmor)
high	`zizmor/unpinned-uses`	.github/workflows/codeql.yml:56	unpinned action reference [confidence high]	CI workflows (zizmor)
high	`zizmor/unpinned-uses`	.github/workflows/codeql.yml:61	unpinned action reference [confidence high]	CI workflows (zizmor)
high	`zizmor/unpinned-uses`	.github/workflows/deploy-pages.yml:25	unpinned action reference [confidence high]	CI workflows (zizmor)
high	`zizmor/unpinned-uses`	.github/workflows/deploy-pages.yml:28	unpinned action reference [confidence high]	CI workflows (zizmor)
high	`zizmor/unpinned-uses`	.github/workflows/deploy-pages.yml:31	unpinned action reference [confidence high]	CI workflows (zizmor)
high	`zizmor/unpinned-uses`	.github/workflows/deploy-pages.yml:37	unpinned action reference [confidence high]	CI workflows (zizmor)
high	`zizmor/unpinned-uses`	.github/workflows/release.yml:16	unpinned action reference [confidence high]	CI workflows (zizmor)
high	`opengrep/javascript.browser.security.insecure-document-method`	server/static/js/app.js:1741	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`	server/static/js/app.js:1741	User controlled data in a `container.innerHTML` is an anti-pattern that can lead to XSS vulnerabilities [confidence low]	Static analysis (opengrep)
high	`opengrep/javascript.browser.security.insecure-document-method`	server/static/js/app.js:1969	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`	server/static/js/app.js:1969	User controlled data in a `wrapper.innerHTML` is an anti-pattern that can lead to XSS vulnerabilities [confidence low]	Static analysis (opengrep)
high	`opengrep/javascript.browser.security.insecure-document-method`	server/static/js/app.js:3225	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`	server/static/js/app.js:3225	User controlled data in a `listEl.innerHTML` is an anti-pattern that can lead to XSS vulnerabilities [confidence low]	Static analysis (opengrep)
high	`opengrep/javascript.browser.security.insecure-document-method`	server/static/js/app.js:3309	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`	server/static/js/app.js:3309	User controlled data in a `wrapper.innerHTML` is an anti-pattern that can lead to XSS vulnerabilities [confidence low]	Static analysis (opengrep)
high	`opengrep/javascript.browser.security.insecure-document-method`	server/static/js/app.js:3640	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`	server/static/js/app.js:3640	User controlled data in a `container.innerHTML` is an anti-pattern that can lead to XSS vulnerabilities [confidence low]	Static analysis (opengrep)
high	`opengrep/javascript.browser.security.insecure-document-method`	server/static/js/app.js:719	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`	server/static/js/app.js:719	User controlled data in a `col.innerHTML` is an anti-pattern that can lead to XSS vulnerabilities [confidence low]	Static analysis (opengrep)
medium	`opengrep/go.lang.correctness.permissions.incorrect-default-permission`	server/internal/handlers/handlers.go:1474	Detected file permissions that are set to more than `0600` (user/owner can read and write). Setting file permissions to higher than `0600` is most likely unnecessary and violates the principle of least privilege. Instead, set...	Lint
medium	`opengrep/javascript.lang.correctness.no-stringify-keys`	server/static/js/app.js:2586	JSON stringify does not produce a stable key ordering, and should not be relied on for producing object keys. Consider using json-stable-stringify instead.	Lint
medium	`opengrep/javascript.lang.correctness.no-stringify-keys`	server/static/js/app.js:2594	JSON stringify does not produce a stable key ordering, and should not be relied on for producing object keys. Consider using json-stable-stringify instead.	Lint
medium	`opengrep/javascript.lang.best-practice.javascript-confirm`	server/static/js/app.js:3284	found confirm() call; should this be in production code?	Lint
medium	`opengrep/javascript.lang.best-practice.javascript-alert`	server/static/js/app.js:3288	found alert() call; should this be in production code?	Lint
medium	`opengrep/javascript.lang.best-practice.javascript-alert`	server/static/js/app.js:3413	found alert() call; should this be in production code?	Lint
medium	`opengrep/javascript.lang.best-practice.javascript-alert`	server/static/js/app.js:3426	found alert() call; should this be in production code?	Lint
medium	`opengrep/javascript.lang.best-practice.javascript-confirm`	server/static/js/app.js:3432	found confirm() call; should this be in production code?	Lint
medium	`opengrep/javascript.lang.best-practice.javascript-alert`	server/static/js/app.js:3465	found alert() call; should this be in production code?	Lint
medium	`opengrep/javascript.lang.best-practice.javascript-confirm`	server/static/js/app.js:3715	found confirm() call; should this be in production code?	Lint
medium	`opengrep/javascript.lang.best-practice.javascript-alert`	server/static/js/app.js:3719	found alert() call; should this be in production code?	Lint
medium	`opengrep/javascript.lang.best-practice.javascript-alert`	server/static/js/app.js:3934	found alert() call; should this be in production code?	Lint
medium	`opengrep/javascript.lang.best-practice.javascript-alert`	server/static/js/app.js:3957	found alert() call; should this be in production code?	Lint
medium	`zizmor/artipacked`	.github/workflows/build-plugin.yml:45	credential persistence through GitHub Actions artifacts [confidence low]	CI workflows (zizmor)
medium	`zizmor/artipacked`	.github/workflows/build-server.yml:50	credential persistence through GitHub Actions artifacts [confidence low]	CI workflows (zizmor)
medium	`zizmor/artipacked`	.github/workflows/codeql.yml:50	credential persistence through GitHub Actions artifacts [confidence low]	CI workflows (zizmor)
medium	`zizmor/artipacked`	.github/workflows/deploy-pages.yml:24	credential persistence through GitHub Actions artifacts [confidence low]	CI workflows (zizmor)
medium	`zizmor/artipacked`	.github/workflows/release.yml:15	credential persistence through GitHub Actions artifacts [confidence low]	CI workflows (zizmor)
medium	`osv/GO-2026-5024`	server/go.mod	golang.org/x/[email protected] (Go) is affected by GO-2026-5024	Dependencies (osv-scanner)
medium	`opengrep/go.lang.security.audit.xss.no-direct-write-to-responsewriter`	server/internal/handlers/handlers.go:1007	Detected directly writing or similar in 'http.ResponseWriter.write()'. This bypasses HTML escaping that prevents cross-site scripting vulnerabilities. Instead, use the 'html/template' package and render data using 'template.Execute()'....	Static analysis (opengrep)
medium	`opengrep/go.lang.security.audit.xss.no-direct-write-to-responsewriter`	server/internal/handlers/handlers.go:1018	Detected directly writing or similar in 'http.ResponseWriter.write()'. This bypasses HTML escaping that prevents cross-site scripting vulnerabilities. Instead, use the 'html/template' package and render data using 'template.Execute()'....	Static analysis (opengrep)
medium	`opengrep/go.lang.security.audit.crypto.math-random-used`	server/internal/handlers/handlers.go:9	Do not use `math/rand`. Use `crypto/rand` instead. [confidence medium]	Static analysis (opengrep)
medium	`opengrep/go.lang.security.audit.xss.no-direct-write-to-responsewriter`	server/internal/handlers/handlers.go:976	Detected directly writing or similar in 'http.ResponseWriter.write()'. This bypasses HTML escaping that prevents cross-site scripting vulnerabilities. Instead, use the 'html/template' package and render data using 'template.Execute()'....	Static analysis (opengrep)
medium	`opengrep/go.lang.security.audit.xss.no-direct-write-to-responsewriter`	server/internal/handlers/handlers.go:979	Detected directly writing or similar in 'http.ResponseWriter.write()'. This bypasses HTML escaping that prevents cross-site scripting vulnerabilities. Instead, use the 'html/template' package and render data using 'template.Execute()'....	Static analysis (opengrep)
medium	`opengrep/go.lang.security.audit.xss.no-direct-write-to-responsewriter`	server/internal/handlers/handlers.go:982	Detected directly writing or similar in 'http.ResponseWriter.write()'. This bypasses HTML escaping that prevents cross-site scripting vulnerabilities. Instead, use the 'html/template' package and render data using 'template.Execute()'....	Static analysis (opengrep)
medium	`opengrep/go.lang.security.audit.xss.no-direct-write-to-responsewriter`	server/internal/handlers/handlers.go:985	Detected directly writing or similar in 'http.ResponseWriter.write()'. This bypasses HTML escaping that prevents cross-site scripting vulnerabilities. Instead, use the 'html/template' package and render data using 'template.Execute()'....	Static analysis (opengrep)
medium	`opengrep/go.lang.security.audit.xss.no-direct-write-to-responsewriter`	server/internal/handlers/handlers.go:988	Detected directly writing or similar in 'http.ResponseWriter.write()'. This bypasses HTML escaping that prevents cross-site scripting vulnerabilities. Instead, use the 'html/template' package and render data using 'template.Execute()'....	Static analysis (opengrep)
medium	`opengrep/go.lang.security.audit.xss.no-direct-write-to-responsewriter`	server/internal/handlers/handlers.go:995	Detected directly writing or similar in 'http.ResponseWriter.write()'. This bypasses HTML escaping that prevents cross-site scripting vulnerabilities. Instead, use the 'html/template' package and render data using 'template.Execute()'....	Static analysis (opengrep)
medium	`opengrep/go.lang.security.audit.crypto.math-random-used`	server/internal/video/matcher.go:8	Do not use `math/rand`. Use `crypto/rand` instead. [confidence medium]	Static analysis (opengrep)
medium	`opengrep/javascript.lang.security.html-in-template-string`	server/static/js/app.js:1749	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`	server/static/js/app.js:3244	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`	server/static/js/app.js:3663	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.browser.security.js-open-redirect-from-function`	server/static/js/app.js:522	The application accepts potentially user-controlled input `url` which can control the location of the current window context. This can lead two types of vulnerabilities open-redirection and Cross-Site-Scripting (XSS) with JavaScript...	Static analysis (opengrep)
low	`opengrep/javascript.browser.security.js-open-redirect-from-function`	server/static/js/app.js:548	The application accepts potentially user-controlled input `url` which can control the location of the current window context. This can lead two types of vulnerabilities open-redirection and Cross-Site-Scripting (XSS) with JavaScript...	Static analysis (opengrep)
info	`zizmor/superfluous-actions`	.github/workflows/build-plugin.yml:103	action functionality is already included by the runner [confidence high]	CI workflows (zizmor)
info	`zizmor/superfluous-actions`	.github/workflows/build-plugin.yml:136	action functionality is already included by the runner [confidence high]	CI workflows (zizmor)
info	`zizmor/superfluous-actions`	.github/workflows/build-server.yml:139	action functionality is already included by the runner [confidence high]	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.

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
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`	13
Tests and CI	Code quality	ok	`—`	0
Type safety	Code quality	skipped	`—`	0
CI workflows (zizmor)	Security	ok	`zizmor 1.32.0`	27
Dependencies (osv-scanner)	Security	ok	`osv-scanner version: 2.7.1`	1
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`	27
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	`fd1dd9877347`	`prov-5+qual-2+sec-2`	0%	45	63
2026-11-14	`fd1dd9877347`	`prov-4+qual-2+sec-2`	0%	45	63

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/jota2rz/vdj-video-sync/ai.svg)](https://repotrust.synapticcyber.com/r/github.com/jota2rz/vdj-video-sync/)

[![RepoTrust quality](https://repotrust.synapticcyber.com/badge/github.com/jota2rz/vdj-video-sync/quality.svg)](https://repotrust.synapticcyber.com/r/github.com/jota2rz/vdj-video-sync/)

[![RepoTrust security](https://repotrust.synapticcyber.com/badge/github.com/jota2rz/vdj-video-sync/security.svg)](https://repotrust.synapticcyber.com/r/github.com/jota2rz/vdj-video-sync/)

Full text report

Repository: https://github.com/jota2rz/vdj-video-sync
Commit: fd1dd9877347a4bf9508d3fd9f026765e334106f
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	possible	54%	100%
Code quality	45	poor	90%	100%
Security	63	weak	85%	100%

AI provenance

Weak signals consistent with AI-assisted development.

Explicitly attributed share (lower bound): 0.0%
Unattributed share in AI-consistent velocity bursts: 20.0%
Estimated AI-generated share: 0.0%
Stylometry index: 0.32 per 1,000 lines (narrated steps 3, placeholders 0, assistant phrasing 0, emoji 0). Reported as a signal, not scored.

Month	Lines added	Attributed to AI
2026-02	10,757	0%

Evidence

2,156 lines of first-party code in ~4.0h (539 lines/hour, 1 commit session) (cb43646c9afe)
step-by-step narration comment: // Step 1: Compute RMS energy per window (server/inter)
step-by-step narration comment: // Step 2: Spectral flux (half-wave rectified difference) (server/inter)
step-by-step narration comment: // Step 3: Autocorrelation of the onset signal (server/inter)

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; 26% of function code in complex or long functions; 11% duplicated lines. Weakest area: testing.

Area	Score
Complexity (lizard)	46
Duplication	52
Code smells (Opengrep)	71
Tests and CI	15
Documentation	65
Type safety	n/a
Process (Scorecard review/maintenance)	n/a

Functions: 510; mean complexity 3.6, 90th percentile 9; 14 complex and 5 long functions
Duplicated lines: 10.8% of 7,053 compared
Tests: 0 test lines for 9,442 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 weak: 1 known vulnerabilities in 1 dependencies; 12 high-severity SAST findings; 19 high-severity workflow issues. Weakest area: posture.

Area	Score
Secrets (gitleaks, tree + history)	100
Static analysis (Opengrep)	62
Vulnerable dependencies (OSV)	95
CI workflows (zizmor)	2
Posture (policy, updates, signing, lockfiles)	0
OpenSSF Scorecard	n/a

Known vulnerabilities: 1 in 1 packages (critical 0, high 0, medium 0, low 0)
Posture checks passed: lockfiles; missing: security policy, dependency updates, signed commits

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]	server/static/js/app.js:719
high	`opengrep/javascript.browser.security.insecure-innerhtml`: User controlled data in a `col.innerHTML` is an anti-pattern that can lead to XSS vulnerabilities [confidence low]	server/static/js/app.js:719
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]	server/static/js/app.js:1741
high	`opengrep/javascript.browser.security.insecure-innerhtml`: User controlled data in a `container.innerHTML` is an anti-pattern that can lead to XSS vulnerabilities [confidence low]	server/static/js/app.js:1741
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]	server/static/js/app.js:1969
high	`opengrep/javascript.browser.security.insecure-innerhtml`: User controlled data in a `wrapper.innerHTML` is an anti-pattern that can lead to XSS vulnerabilities [confidence low]	server/static/js/app.js:1969
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]	server/static/js/app.js:3225
high	`opengrep/javascript.browser.security.insecure-innerhtml`: User controlled data in a `listEl.innerHTML` is an anti-pattern that can lead to XSS vulnerabilities [confidence low]	server/static/js/app.js:3225
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]	server/static/js/app.js:3309
high	`opengrep/javascript.browser.security.insecure-innerhtml`: User controlled data in a `wrapper.innerHTML` is an anti-pattern that can lead to XSS vulnerabilities [confidence low]	server/static/js/app.js:3309
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]	server/static/js/app.js:3640
high	`opengrep/javascript.browser.security.insecure-innerhtml`: User controlled data in a `container.innerHTML` is an anti-pattern that can lead to XSS vulnerabilities [confidence low]	server/static/js/app.js:3640
high	`zizmor/unpinned-uses`: unpinned action reference [confidence high]	.github/workflows/build-plugin.yml:46
high	`zizmor/unpinned-uses`: unpinned action reference [confidence high]	.github/workflows/build-plugin.yml:90
high	`zizmor/unpinned-uses`: unpinned action reference [confidence high]	.github/workflows/build-plugin.yml:103
high	`zizmor/unpinned-uses`: unpinned action reference [confidence high]	.github/workflows/build-plugin.yml:122
high	`zizmor/unpinned-uses`: unpinned action reference [confidence high]	.github/workflows/build-plugin.yml:136
high	`zizmor/unpinned-uses`: unpinned action reference [confidence high]	.github/workflows/build-server.yml:51
high	`zizmor/unpinned-uses`: unpinned action reference [confidence high]	.github/workflows/build-server.yml:54
high	`zizmor/unpinned-uses`: unpinned action reference [confidence high]	.github/workflows/build-server.yml:125
high	`zizmor/unpinned-uses`: unpinned action reference [confidence high]	.github/workflows/build-server.yml:139
high	`zizmor/cache-poisoning`: runtime artifacts potentially vulnerable to a cache poisoning attack [confidence low]	.github/workflows/build-server.yml:54
high	`zizmor/unpinned-uses`: unpinned action reference [confidence high]	.github/workflows/codeql.yml:51
high	`zizmor/unpinned-uses`: unpinned action reference [confidence high]	.github/workflows/codeql.yml:56
high	`zizmor/unpinned-uses`: unpinned action reference [confidence high]	.github/workflows/codeql.yml:61

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 v0.2.0 ships vdj-video-sync-server-windows-x64.exe (31 downloads)
binary-release-asset: release v0.2.0 ships VdjVideoSync-macos-amd64.bundle.zip (8 downloads)
binary-release-asset: release v0.2.0 ships VdjVideoSync-macos-arm64.bundle.zip (6 downloads)
binary-release-asset: release v0.2.0 ships VdjVideoSync-windows-x64.dll (35 downloads)
binary-release-asset: release v0.1.4 ships vdj-video-sync-server-windows-x64.exe (1 downloads)
readme-download-lure: gives an archive password

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: 9,442; test lines: 0

Language	Lines
Go	4,641
JavaScript	4,246
C++	450
C	105