Leaderboard github.com
petems/tugboat
A command line tool for interacting with your DigitalOcean droplets.
AI provenance
0%
none-detected
- Confidence
- 65%
- Coverage
- 100%
Estimated share of AI-generated code. Explicit attribution is a lower bound.
Code quality
78/100
adequate
- 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
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)0.76
Lines added per month all AI-attributed share
- 2013-042,471 · 0% AI
- 2013-05400 · 0% AI
- 2013-06457 · 0% AI
- 2013-0778 · 0% AI
- 2013-08303 · 0% AI
- 2013-09547 · 0% AI
- 2013-11119 · 0% AI
- 2013-122 · 0% AI
- 2014-01117 · 0% AI
- 2014-02684 · 0% AI
- 2014-0319 · 0% AI
- 2014-046 · 0% AI
- 2014-070 · 0% AI
- 2014-09238 · 0% AI
- 2014-1010 · 0% AI
- 2014-12323 · 0% AI
- 2015-01125 · 0% AI
- 2015-026 · 0% AI
- 2015-059 · 0% AI
- 2015-07257 · 0% AI
- 2015-084 · 0% AI
- 2015-101,642 · 0% AI
- 2015-11729 · 0% AI
- 2015-1280 · 0% AI
- 2016-0139 · 0% AI
- 2016-0286 · 0% AI
- 2016-030 · 0% AI
- 2016-050 · 0% AI
- 2016-10260 · 0% AI
- 2017-032,650 · 0% AI
- 2017-06482 · 0% AI
- 2017-072 · 0% AI
- 2017-11357 · 0% AI
- 2017-12465 · 0% AI
- 2018-031 · 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
- 453
- effective_loc
- 12,968
- 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
- 552.68
- measured_loc
- 12,968
- median_loc_per_hour
- 46.25
- pr_timed_units
- 0
- pre_ai_era_burst_loc
- 2,443
- pre_ai_era_bursts
- 1
- pre_ai_era_measured_loc
- 12,968
- work_units
- 190
Release velocityok
- flagged_releases
- 0
- max_loc_per_day
- 211.20
- releases
- 26
Coding styleok2 items
- step-by-step narration comment: # First, if nothing is provided to us, we should quit and
- step-by-step narration comment: # First, if nothing is provided to us, we should quit and
- count:assistant_voice
- 0
- count:emoji_in_code
- 0
- count:narrated_steps
- 2
- count:placeholder
- 0
- files:assistant_voice
- 0
- files:emoji_in_code
- 0
- files:narrated_steps
- 2
- files:placeholder
- 0
- index
- 0.76
- lines_scanned
- 2,647
- per_kloc:assistant_voice
- 0
- per_kloc:emoji_in_code
- 0
- per_kloc:narrated_steps
- 0.76
- per_kloc:placeholder
- 0
Code quality
78 adequate
Code quality is adequate: test-to-source ratio 1.39, no CI test run detected; 7% of function code in complex or long functions; 12% duplicated lines. Weakest area: duplication.
How the score is built
- Complexity82
- Duplication49
- Lint and smells100
- Tests and CI70
- Documentation100
- Type safetynot measured
- Review processnot measured
Evidence by analyzer
Complexity (lizard)ok1 item
- complex_functions
- 1
- function_nloc
- 1,392
- functions
- 135
- long_functions
- 0
- many_param_functions
- 1
- mean_ccn
- 1.97
- p90_ccn
- 3
- risky_nloc_share
- 6.8%
Duplication (jscpd)ok3 items
- 6+ duplicated lines: lib/tugboat/cli.rb:41 and lib/tugboat/cli.rb:136
- 6+ duplicated lines: lib/tugboat/middleware/base.rb:98 and lib/tugboat/middleware/info_droplet.rb:26
- 6+ duplicated lines: lib/tugboat/middleware/list_images.rb:11 and lib/tugboat/middleware/list_images.rb:22
- compared_lines
- 1,738
- duplicated_lines
- 204
- duplicated_share
- 11.7%
- files
- 44
Lintok
- findings
- 0
- scanned_lines
- 2,647
- 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
- yes
- check:test_ratio
- yes
- check:tests_cochange
- yes
- ci_files
- 1
- cochange_commits
- 160
- cochange_share
- 40.6%
- source_lines
- 2,647
- test_lines
- 3,678
- test_ratio
- 1.39
Documentationok4 items
- README.md
README.md - LICENSE.md
LICENSE.md - CONTRIBUTING.md
CONTRIBUTING.md - CHANGELOG.md
CHANGELOG.md
- check:changelog
- yes
- check:contributing
- yes
- check:license
- yes
- check:readme
- yes
- readme_lines
- 529
Type safetyskipped
Security
78 adequate
Security posture is adequate: no high-impact findings. Weakest area: posture.
How the score is built
- Secrets94
- Static analysis (SAST)97
- 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
- 1
- secrets_nonprod
- 1
Static analysis (opengrep)ok
- findings
- 1
- findings_high
- 0
- findings_low
- 0
- findings_medium
- 1
- parse_errors
- 0
- scanned_lines
- 2,647
- weighted_findings
- 0.25
Dependencies (osv-scanner)skipped
CI workflows (zizmor)skipped
Security postureok1 item
- Gemfile has no lockfile alongside it (unpinned dependencies)
Gemfile
- check:dependency_updates
- no
- check:lockfiles
- no
- check:security_policy
- no
- check:signed_commits
- no
- signed_commit_share
- 6.0%
- unpinned_manifests
- 1
Release downloadsok
- binary_assets
- 0
- signals
- 0
- suspicious
- 0
Findings
1 medium2 low
3 findings
| Severity | Rule | Location | Message | Tool |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| medium | opengrep/ruby.rails.security.audit.xss.manual-template-creation |
features/step_definitions/steps.rb:4 | Detected manual creation of an ERB template. Manual creation of templates may expose your application to server-side template injection (SSTI) or cross-site scripting (XSS) attacks if user input is used to create the template. Instead,... | Static analysis (opengrep) |
| low | gitleaks/generic-api-key |
README.md:58 | Possible generic-api-key secret in the current tree (test/docs/example file) | Secrets (gitleaks) |
| low | gitleaks/generic-api-key |
features/tugboat/config_array_of_ssh_keys.feature:12 | Possible generic-api-key secret in the current tree | Secrets (gitleaks) |
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 | 0 | |
| Tests and CI | Code quality | ok | — | 0 | |
| Type safety | Code quality | skipped | — | 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 | skipped | — | 0 | no registry dependencies declared |
| 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 | 2 |
Score history
Scores from different scoring versions aren't directly comparable.
| Scored | Commit | Scoring | AI provenance | Quality | Security |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-11-14 | db1785c75f89 | prov-5+qual-2+sec-2 | 0% | 78 | 78 |
| 2026-11-14 | db1785c75f89 | prov-4+qual-2+sec-2 | 0% | 78 | 78 |
Full text report
- Repository: https://github.com/petems/tugboat
- Commit:
db1785c75f894022eb2ca3a7381f1d19cba4612f - 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 | 78 | adequate | 90% | 100% |
| Security | 78 | 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%
-
Stylometry index: 0.76 per 1,000 lines (narrated steps 2, placeholders 0, assistant phrasing 0, emoji 0). Reported as a signal, not scored.
| Month | Lines added | Attributed to AI |
|---|---|---|
| 2015-10 | 1,642 | 0% |
| 2015-11 | 729 | 0% |
| 2015-12 | 80 | 0% |
| 2016-01 | 39 | 0% |
| 2016-02 | 86 | 0% |
| 2016-10 | 260 | 0% |
| 2017-03 | 2,650 | 0% |
| 2017-06 | 482 | 0% |
| 2017-07 | 2 | 0% |
| 2017-11 | 357 | 0% |
| 2017-12 | 465 | 0% |
| 2018-03 | 1 | 0% |
Evidence
- step-by-step narration comment: # First, if nothing is provided to us, we should quit and (lib/tugboat/)
- step-by-step narration comment: # First, if nothing is provided to us, we should quit and (lib/tugboat/)
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 1.39, no CI test run detected; 7% of function code in complex or long functions; 12% duplicated lines. Weakest area: duplication.
| Area | Score |
|---|---|
| Complexity (lizard) | 82 |
| Duplication | 49 |
| Code smells (Opengrep) | 100 |
| Tests and CI | 70 |
| Documentation | 100 |
| Type safety | n/a |
| Process (Scorecard review/maintenance) | n/a |
- Functions: 135; mean complexity 2.0, 90th percentile 3; 1 complex and 0 long functions
- Duplicated lines: 11.7% of 1,738 compared
- Tests: 3,678 test lines for 2,647 source lines (ratio 1.39); CI test commands: none detected; 41% of recent source commits also change tests
- Docs missing or thin: none
Most complex functions:
Security
Security posture is adequate: no high-impact findings. Weakest area: posture.
| Area | Score |
|---|---|
| Secrets (gitleaks, tree + history) | 94 |
| Static analysis (Opengrep) | 97 |
| Vulnerable dependencies (OSV) | n/a |
| CI workflows (zizmor) | n/a |
| 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 |
|---|---|---|
| medium | opengrep/ruby.rails.security.audit.xss.manual-template-creation: Detected manual creation of an ERB template. Manual creation of templates may expose your application to server-side template injection (SSTI) or cross-site scripting (XSS) attacks if user input is used to create the template. Instead, create a '.erb' template file and use 'render'. [confidence low] |
features/step_definitions/steps.rb:4 |
| low | gitleaks/generic-api-key: Possible generic-api-key secret in the current tree |
features/tugboat/config_array_of_ssh_keys.feature:12 |
| low | gitleaks/generic-api-key: Possible generic-api-key secret in the current tree (test/docs/example file) |
README.md:58 |
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: 2,647; test lines: 3,678
| Language | Lines |
|---|---|
| Ruby | 6,322 |
| Shell | 3 |