RepoTrust

Leaderboard github.com

naoty/Timepiece

Intuitive date handling in Swift

  • View repository ↗
  • Swift
  • ★ 2,602
  • commit 459f96a0e41d
  • scored 2026-11-14
  • scoring prov-5+qual-2+sec-2

AI provenance

0%

none-detected

Confidence
65%
Coverage
100%

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

Code quality

73/100

adequate

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 RepoTrust ai badgeRepoTrust quality badgeRepoTrust security badge

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

  1. 2014-08575 · 0% AI
  2. 2014-1120 · 0% AI
  3. 2014-1219 · 0% AI
  4. 2015-010 · 0% AI
  5. 2015-020 · 0% AI
  6. 2015-0357 · 0% AI
  7. 2015-04107 · 0% AI
  8. 2015-05324 · 0% AI
  9. 2015-0671 · 0% AI
  10. 2015-07123 · 0% AI
  11. 2015-0998 · 0% AI
  12. 2015-100 · 0% AI
  13. 2015-110 · 0% AI
  14. 2016-041 · 0% AI
  15. 2016-060 · 0% AI
  16. 2016-09294 · 0% AI
  17. 2016-101,539 · 0% AI
  18. 2016-119 · 0% AI
  19. 2016-12118 · 0% AI
  20. 2017-0180 · 0% AI
  21. 2017-025 · 0% AI
  22. 2017-0411 · 0% AI
  23. 2017-092 · 0% AI
  24. 2017-100 · 0% AI
  25. 2019-030 · 0% AI
  26. 2019-0422 · 0% AI
  27. 2019-050 · 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
162
effective_loc
3,475
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
193.75
measured_loc
3,475
median_loc_per_hour
46.40
pr_timed_units
0
pre_ai_era_burst_loc
0
pre_ai_era_bursts
0
pre_ai_era_measured_loc
3,475
work_units
55
Release velocityok
flagged_releases
0
max_loc_per_day
63.20
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
1,011
per_kloc:assistant_voice
0
per_kloc:emoji_in_code
0
per_kloc:narrated_steps
0
per_kloc:placeholder
0

Code quality

73 adequate

Code quality is adequate: test-to-source ratio 0.00, no CI test run detected; 0% of function code in complex or long functions; 2% duplicated lines. Weakest area: testing.

How the score is built

  • Complexity100
  • Duplication89
  • Lint and smells100
  • Tests and CI15
  • Documentation100
  • Type safetynot measured
  • Review processnot measured

Evidence by analyzer

Complexity (lizard)ok
complex_functions
0
function_nloc
534
functions
97
long_functions
0
many_param_functions
1
mean_ccn
1.28
p90_ccn
1
risky_nloc_share
0.0%
Duplication (jscpd)ok1 item
compared_lines
637
duplicated_lines
12
duplicated_share
1.9%
files
11
Lintok
findings
0
scanned_lines
1,011
weighted_findings
0
Tests and CIok1 item
  • CI config: .travis.yml .travis.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
1
cochange_commits
81
cochange_share
0.0%
source_lines
1,011
test_lines
0
test_ratio
0
Documentationok4 items
  • README.md README.md
  • LICENSE LICENSE
  • .github/CONTRIBUTING.md .github/CONTRIBUTING.md
  • CHANGELOG.md CHANGELOG.md
check:changelog
yes
check:contributing
yes
check:license
yes
check:readme
yes
readme_lines
68
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
0
scanned_lines
1,011
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.

AnalyzerPillarStatusVersionFindingsNote
AI tool configurationAI provenanceoksignatures-v10
Explicit AI attributionAI provenanceoksignatures-v10
Release velocityAI provenanceokprov-40
Coding styleAI provenanceok—0
Commit velocityAI provenanceokprov-40
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)Securityskipped—0
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
2026-11-14459f96a0e41dprov-5+qual-2+sec-20%7382
2026-11-14459f96a0e41dprov-4+qual-2+sec-20%7382

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/naoty/Timepiece/ai.svg)](https://repotrust.synapticcyber.com/r/github.com/naoty/Timepiece/)
[![RepoTrust quality](https://repotrust.synapticcyber.com/badge/github.com/naoty/Timepiece/quality.svg)](https://repotrust.synapticcyber.com/r/github.com/naoty/Timepiece/)
[![RepoTrust security](https://repotrust.synapticcyber.com/badge/github.com/naoty/Timepiece/security.svg)](https://repotrust.synapticcyber.com/r/github.com/naoty/Timepiece/)
Full text report
  • Repository: https://github.com/naoty/Timepiece
  • Commit: 459f96a0e41db762c96497e5c03bbc67673c07f4
  • Generated: 2026-11-14T14:52:06+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 65% 100%
Code quality 73 adequate 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
2015-07 123 0%
2015-09 98 0%
2016-04 1 0%
2016-09 294 0%
2016-10 1,539 0%
2016-11 9 0%
2016-12 118 0%
2017-01 80 0%
2017-02 5 0%
2017-04 11 0%
2017-09 2 0%
2019-04 22 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 adequate: test-to-source ratio 0.00, no CI test run detected; 0% of function code in complex or long functions; 2% duplicated lines. Weakest area: testing.

Area Score
Complexity (lizard) 100
Duplication 89
Code smells (Opengrep) 100
Tests and CI 15
Documentation 100
Type safety n/a
Process (Scorecard review/maintenance) n/a
  • Functions: 97; mean complexity 1.3, 90th percentile 1; 0 complex and 0 long functions
  • Duplicated lines: 1.9% of 637 compared
  • Tests: 0 test lines for 1,011 source lines (ratio 0.00); CI test commands: none detected; 0% of recent source commits also change tests
  • Docs missing or thin: none

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: 1,011; test lines: 0
Language Lines
Swift 1,011