Leaderboard github.com

linguine2552/manajeure

View repository ↗
Python
★ 0
commit ba7fb8157fa4
scored 2026-11-14
scoring prov-5+qual-2+sec-2

unreviewed-ai-risk

AI provenance

100%

explicit

Confidence: 71%
Coverage: 100%

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

Code quality

38/100

poor

Confidence: 90%
Coverage: 100%

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

Security

79/100

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

100% explicit

Explicit AI attribution on 100% of first-party code added; an estimated 100% including velocity signals.

How the score is built

Explicitly attributed share100%
Unattributed share in AI-pace bursts0%
Estimated AI-generated share100%
AI tool configuration files0
Work sessions at AI pace0
Releases at AI pacenot measured
Coding-style index (1.0+ means possible)0.00

Attributed AI tools

Tool	Commits	Lines added	First seen	Last seen
Claude Code	6	790	2026-02-21	2026-03-01

Lines added per month all AI-attributed share

2026-02769 · 100% AI
2026-0321 · 100% AI

Findings in AI-attributed lines vs the rest

From git blame: 738 lines trace to AI-attributed commits, 0 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	4.07	—	—
Security	1.35	—	—

Evidence by analyzer

Explicit AI attributionok7 items

Claude Code: 6 attributed commits, 790 lines added
Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude'
Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude'
Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude'
Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude'
Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude'
Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude'

attributed_commit_share: 100.0%
attributed_commits: 6
attributed_loc: 790
attributed_loc_share: 100.0%
commits: 6
effective_loc: 790
tools_detected: 1

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: 154.43
measured_loc: 790
median_loc_per_hour: 154.43
pr_timed_units: 0
pre_ai_era_burst_loc: 0
pre_ai_era_bursts: 0
pre_ai_era_measured_loc: 0
work_units: 3

Release velocityskipped

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: 738
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: 738
blame_failures: 0
files_blamed: 4
other_lines: 0
quality:ai_findings: 3
quality:ai_per_kloc: 4.07
quality:other_findings: 0
security:ai_findings: 1
security:ai_per_kloc: 1.35
security:other_findings: 0

Code quality

38 poor

Code quality is poor: test-to-source ratio 0.00, no CI test run detected; 29% of function code in complex or long functions; 0% duplicated lines. Weakest area: testing.

How the score is built

Complexity42
Duplication100
Lint and smells17
Tests and CI0
Documentation65
Type safety40
Review processnot measured

Evidence by analyzer

Complexity (lizard)ok2 items

complex_functions: 2
function_nloc: 427
functions: 34
long_functions: 0
many_param_functions: 0
mean_ccn: 3.71
p90_ccn: 6
risky_nloc_share: 28.8%

Duplication (jscpd)ok

compared_lines: 582
duplicated_lines: 0
duplicated_share: 0.0%
files: 4

Lintok

category:best-practice: 3
findings: 3
scanned_lines: 738
weighted_findings: 7

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: 5
cochange_share: 0.0%
source_lines: 738
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: 60

Type safetyok

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

Security

79 adequate

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

How the score is built

Secrets100
Static analysis (SAST)92
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 registriesok

checked: 5
declared: 5
lookup_errors: 0
missing: 0
recent: 0

Secrets (gitleaks)ok

secrets_current: 0
secrets_history: 0
secrets_low_confidence: 0
secrets_nonprod: 0

Static analysis (opengrep)ok

findings: 1
findings_high: 0
findings_low: 0
findings_medium: 1
parse_errors: 0
scanned_lines: 738
weighted_findings: 0.25

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

2 high2 medium

Severity	Rule	Location	Message	Tool
high	`opengrep/python.lang.best-practice.arbitrary-sleep`	src/manajeure/daemon.py:76	time.sleep() call; did you mean to leave this in?	Lint
high	`opengrep/python.lang.best-practice.arbitrary-sleep`	src/manajeure/daemon.py:99	time.sleep() call; did you mean to leave this in?	Lint
medium	`opengrep/python.lang.best-practice.unspecified-open-encoding`	src/manajeure/daemon.py:209	Missing 'encoding' parameter. 'open()' uses device locale encodings by default, corrupting files with special characters. Specify the encoding to ensure cross-platform support when opening files in text mode (e.g. encoding="utf-8").	Lint
medium	`opengrep/python.lang.security.deserialization.avoid-pickle`	src/manajeure/daemon.py:134	Avoid using `pickle`, which is known to lead to code execution vulnerabilities. When unpickling, the serialized data could be manipulated to run arbitrary code. Instead, consider serializing the relevant data as JSON or a similar...	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`	3
Tests and CI	Code quality	ok	`—`	0
Type safety	Code quality	ok	`—`	0
CI workflows (zizmor)	Security	skipped	`—`	0
Dependencies (osv-scanner)	Security	skipped	`—`	0
Release downloads	Security	ok	`—`	0
Security posture	Security	ok	`—`	0
Package registries	Security	ok	`—`	0
Static analysis (opengrep)	Security	ok	`opengrep 1.33.1; rules f1d2b562b414`	1
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	`ba7fb8157fa4`	`prov-5+qual-2+sec-2`	100%	38	79
2026-11-14	`ba7fb8157fa4`	`prov-4+qual-2+sec-2`	100%	38	79

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/linguine2552/manajeure/ai.svg)](https://repotrust.synapticcyber.com/r/github.com/linguine2552/manajeure/)

[![RepoTrust quality](https://repotrust.synapticcyber.com/badge/github.com/linguine2552/manajeure/quality.svg)](https://repotrust.synapticcyber.com/r/github.com/linguine2552/manajeure/)

[![RepoTrust security](https://repotrust.synapticcyber.com/badge/github.com/linguine2552/manajeure/security.svg)](https://repotrust.synapticcyber.com/r/github.com/linguine2552/manajeure/)

Full text report

Repository: https://github.com/linguine2552/manajeure
Commit: ba7fb8157fa4953bee42927791bd5138da75a68f
Generated: 2026-11-14T14:52:06+00:00
Scorer 0.1.0, scoring prov-5+qual-2+sec-2, report schema v2

Scores

Unreviewed AI code risk: a large share of this code is explicitly AI-attributed, and its tests or review process are weak while quality or security scores are low.

Pillar	Score	Signal	Confidence	Coverage
AI provenance (estimated AI-generated share)	100	explicit	71%	100%
Code quality	38	poor	90%	100%
Security	79	adequate	85%	100%

AI provenance

Explicit AI attribution on 100% of first-party code added; an estimated 100% including velocity signals.

Explicitly attributed share (lower bound): 100.0%
Unattributed share in AI-consistent velocity bursts: 0.0%
Estimated AI-generated share: 100.0%

AI tool	Attributed commits	Lines added
Claude Code	6	790

Current source lines last changed by AI-attributed commits: 738 of 738.

Too few lines in one group to compare finding densities.

Month	Lines added	Attributed to AI
2026-02	769	100%
2026-03	21	100%

Evidence

Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude' (ba7fb8157fa4)
Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude' (35770962182a)
Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude' (20f096c8b7a2)
Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude' (573d77d1f5b8)
Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude' (6f12c6fed460)
Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude' (6707453e893f)

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; 29% of function code in complex or long functions; 0% duplicated lines. Weakest area: testing.

Area	Score
Complexity (lizard)	42
Duplication	100
Code smells (Opengrep)	17
Tests and CI	0
Documentation	65
Type safety	40
Process (Scorecard review/maintenance)	n/a

Functions: 34; mean complexity 3.7, 90th percentile 6; 2 complex and 0 long functions
Duplicated lines: 0.0% of 582 compared
Tests: 0 test lines for 738 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)	92
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

Top findings

Severity	Finding	Location
medium	`opengrep/python.lang.security.deserialization.avoid-pickle`: Avoid using `pickle`, which is known to lead to code execution vulnerabilities. When unpickling, the serialized data could be manipulated to run arbitrary code. Instead, consider serializing the relevant data as JSON or a similar text-based serialization format. [confidence low]	src/manajeure/daemon.py:134

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: 738; test lines: 0

Language	Lines
Python	573
Shell	165