Leaderboard github.com
putersdcat/PlarailMemeDemo
Plarail meme Real-2-Sim track builder & train physics (browser, MIT)
AI provenance
0%
possible
- Confidence
- 65%
- Coverage
- 100%
Estimated share of AI-generated code. Explicit attribution is a lower bound.
Code quality
60/100
weak
- Confidence
- 90%
- Coverage
- 100%
Complexity, duplication, lint density, tests, CI, docs and review process.
Security
65/100
weak
- Confidence
- 85%
- Coverage
- 100%
Secrets, static analysis, vulnerable dependencies, CI and supply-chain posture.
AI provenance
0% possible
Weak signals consistent with AI-assisted development.
How the score is built
- Explicitly attributed share0%
- Unattributed share in AI-pace bursts48%
- Estimated AI-generated share0%
- AI tool configuration files1
- Work sessions at AI pace3
- Releases at AI pacenot measured
- Coding-style index (1.0+ means possible)0.27
Lines added per month all AI-attributed share
- 2026-0831,861 · 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
- 102
- effective_loc
- 31,861
- tools_detected
- 0
AI tool configurationok1 item
- artifacts
- 1
- earliest_adoption
- 2026-08-17
- tools_configured
- 1
- workflow_agents
- 0
Commit velocityok3 items
- 6,691 lines of first-party code in ~4.0h (1,673 lines/hour, 1 commit session)
- 4,353 lines of first-party code in ~4.0h (1,088 lines/hour, 1 commit session)
- 4,212 lines of first-party code in ~6.0h (701 lines/hour, 23 commit session)
- excluded_import_loc
- 3,326
- flagged_loc
- 15,256
- flagged_loc_share
- 53.5%
- flagged_units
- 3
- max_loc_per_hour
- 1,672.75
- measured_loc
- 28,535
- median_loc_per_hour
- 423.39
- 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 velocityskipped
Coding styleok
- count:assistant_voice
- 0
- count:emoji_in_code
- 9
- count:narrated_steps
- 0
- count:placeholder
- 0
- files:assistant_voice
- 0
- files:emoji_in_code
- 5
- files:narrated_steps
- 0
- files:placeholder
- 0
- index
- 0.27
- lines_scanned
- 16,502
- per_kloc:assistant_voice
- 0
- per_kloc:emoji_in_code
- 0.55
- per_kloc:narrated_steps
- 0
- per_kloc:placeholder
- 0
Code quality
60 weak
Code quality is weak: test-to-source ratio 0.26, no CI test run detected; 42% of function code in complex or long functions; 7% duplicated lines. Weakest area: complexity.
How the score is built
- Complexity28
- Duplication65
- Lint and smells96
- Tests and CI58
- Documentation65
- Type safetynot measured
- Review processnot measured
Evidence by analyzer
Complexity (lizard)ok10 items
- onPointerUp in js/main.js: complexity 81, 290 lines
- placeLayoutCars in js/train/consist.js: complexity 80, 178 lines
- placeFollowers in js/train/consist.js: complexity 67, 205 lines
- drawScene in js/render.js: complexity 59, 214 lines
- updateTrain in js/train.js: complexity 53, 215 lines
- restoreTrainSnapshot in js/train.js: complexity 52, 149 lines
- tryRerailCar in js/train/consist.js: complexity 42, 190 lines
- end in js/train/telemetry.js: complexity 41, 137 lines
- main in scripts/record-demo.mjs: complexity 40, 300 lines
- resolveCarCollisions in js/train/consist.js: complexity 39, 86 lines
- complex_functions
- 58
- function_nloc
- 12,472
- functions
- 744
- long_functions
- 18
- many_param_functions
- 6
- mean_ccn
- 5.27
- p90_ccn
- 13
- risky_nloc_share
- 42.2%
Duplication (jscpd)ok10 items
- 6+ duplicated lines: js/app/io.js:309 and js/main.js:921
- 6+ duplicated lines: js/geometry/piece-templates.js:221 and js/geometry/piece-templates.js:721
- 6+ duplicated lines: js/geometry/piece-templates.js:942 and js/render/draw-piece.js:298
- 6+ duplicated lines: js/layouts-arntenoughrails.js:90 and js/layouts-arntenoughrails.js:123
- 6+ duplicated lines: js/main.js:1100 and js/main.js:1116
- 6+ duplicated lines: js/presets.js:34 and js/presets.js:144
- 6+ duplicated lines: js/presets.js:370 and scripts/gen-presets.mjs:53
- 6+ duplicated lines: js/render.js:282 and js/render/draw-train.js:305
- 6+ duplicated lines: js/simulation/scenario.js:25 and scripts/trace-train.mjs:45
- 6+ duplicated lines: js/train.js:30 and js/train.js:109
- compared_lines
- 12,835
- duplicated_lines
- 919
- duplicated_share
- 7.2%
- files
- 33
Lintok
- category:correctness
- 6
- findings
- 6
- scanned_lines
- 16,502
- weighted_findings
- 3
Tests and CIok1 item
- CI config: .github/workflows/pages.yml
.github/workflows/pages.yml
- check:ci_present
- yes
- check:ci_runs_lint
- no
- check:ci_runs_tests
- no
- check:has_tests
- yes
- check:test_ratio
- no
- check:tests_cochange
- yes
- ci_files
- 1
- cochange_commits
- 92
- cochange_share
- 25.0%
- source_lines
- 16,502
- test_lines
- 4,271
- test_ratio
- 0.26
Documentationok2 items
- README.md
README.md - LICENSE
LICENSE
- check:changelog
- no
- check:contributing
- no
- check:license
- yes
- check:readme
- yes
- readme_lines
- 101
Type safetyskipped
Security
65 weak
Security posture is weak: 22 high-severity SAST findings; 4 high-severity workflow issues. Weakest area: posture.
How the score is built
- Secrets100
- Static analysis (SAST)69
- Vulnerable dependenciesnot measured
- CI workflows44
- 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
- 22
- findings_low
- 0
- findings_medium
- 5
- parse_errors
- 1
- scanned_lines
- 16,502
- weighted_findings
- 17.75
Dependencies (osv-scanner)skipped
CI workflows (zizmor)ok
- findings
- 5
- findings_high
- 4
- findings_low
- 0
- findings_medium
- 1
- penalty
- 49.20
- workflows
- 1
Security postureok1 item
- package.json has no lockfile alongside it (unpinned dependencies)
package.json
- check:dependency_updates
- no
- check:lockfiles
- no
- check:security_policy
- no
- check:signed_commits
- no
- signed_commit_share
- 0.0%
- unpinned_manifests
- 1
Release downloadsok
- binary_assets
- 0
- signals
- 0
- suspicious
- 0
Findings
26 high8 medium4 low
38 findings
| Severity | Rule | Location | Message | Tool |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| high | zizmor/unpinned-uses |
.github/workflows/pages.yml:26 | unpinned action reference [confidence high] | CI workflows (zizmor) |
| high | zizmor/unpinned-uses |
.github/workflows/pages.yml:29 | unpinned action reference [confidence high] | CI workflows (zizmor) |
| high | zizmor/unpinned-uses |
.github/workflows/pages.yml:32 | unpinned action reference [confidence high] | CI workflows (zizmor) |
| high | zizmor/unpinned-uses |
.github/workflows/pages.yml:39 | unpinned action reference [confidence high] | CI workflows (zizmor) |
| high | opengrep/javascript.browser.security.insecure-document-method |
js/i18n.js:106 | 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 |
js/i18n.js:106 | User controlled data in a `el.innerHTML` is an anti-pattern that can lead to XSS vulnerabilities [confidence low] | Static analysis (opengrep) |
| high | opengrep/javascript.browser.security.insecure-document-method |
js/main.js:2006 | 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 |
js/main.js:2006 | User controlled data in a `statusEl.innerHTML` is an anti-pattern that can lead to XSS vulnerabilities [confidence low] | Static analysis (opengrep) |
| high | opengrep/javascript.browser.security.insecure-document-method |
js/main.js:2014 | 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 |
js/main.js:2014 | User controlled data in a `badgeEl.innerHTML` is an anti-pattern that can lead to XSS vulnerabilities [confidence low] | Static analysis (opengrep) |
| high | opengrep/javascript.browser.security.insecure-document-method |
js/main.js:2017 | 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 |
js/main.js:2017 | User controlled data in a `badgeEl.innerHTML` is an anti-pattern that can lead to XSS vulnerabilities [confidence low] | Static analysis (opengrep) |
| high | opengrep/javascript.browser.security.insecure-document-method |
js/main.js:2020 | 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 |
js/main.js:2020 | User controlled data in a `badgeEl.innerHTML` is an anti-pattern that can lead to XSS vulnerabilities [confidence low] | Static analysis (opengrep) |
| high | opengrep/javascript.browser.security.insecure-document-method |
js/main.js:2023 | 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 |
js/main.js:2023 | User controlled data in a `badgeEl.innerHTML` is an anti-pattern that can lead to XSS vulnerabilities [confidence low] | Static analysis (opengrep) |
| high | opengrep/javascript.browser.security.insecure-document-method |
js/main.js:2025 | 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 |
js/main.js:2025 | User controlled data in a `badgeEl.innerHTML` is an anti-pattern that can lead to XSS vulnerabilities [confidence low] | Static analysis (opengrep) |
| high | opengrep/javascript.browser.security.insecure-document-method |
js/main.js:244 | 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 |
js/main.js:244 | User controlled data in a `btn.innerHTML` is an anti-pattern that can lead to XSS vulnerabilities [confidence low] | Static analysis (opengrep) |
| high | opengrep/javascript.browser.security.insecure-document-method |
js/main.js:281 | 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 |
js/main.js:281 | User controlled data in a `btn.innerHTML` is an anti-pattern that can lead to XSS vulnerabilities [confidence low] | Static analysis (opengrep) |
| high | opengrep/javascript.browser.security.insecure-document-method |
js/main.js:319 | 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 |
js/main.js:319 | User controlled data in a `btn.innerHTML` is an anti-pattern that can lead to XSS vulnerabilities [confidence low] | Static analysis (opengrep) |
| high | opengrep/javascript.browser.security.insecure-document-method |
js/main.js:356 | 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 |
js/main.js:356 | User controlled data in a `btn.innerHTML` is an anti-pattern that can lead to XSS vulnerabilities [confidence low] | Static analysis (opengrep) |
| medium | opengrep/javascript.lang.correctness.no-replaceall |
scripts/export-portable-diff.mjs:102 | The string method replaceAll is not supported in all versions of javascript, and is not supported by older browser versions. Consider using replace() with a regex as the first argument instead like mystring.replace(/bad/g, "good")... | Lint |
| medium | opengrep/javascript.lang.correctness.no-replaceall |
scripts/export-portable-diff.mjs:79 | The string method replaceAll is not supported in all versions of javascript, and is not supported by older browser versions. Consider using replace() with a regex as the first argument instead like mystring.replace(/bad/g, "good")... | Lint |
| medium | zizmor/artipacked |
.github/workflows/pages.yml:25 | credential persistence through GitHub Actions artifacts [confidence low] | CI workflows (zizmor) |
| medium | opengrep/javascript.lang.security.audit.prototype-pollution.prototype-pollution-loop |
js/i18n.js:35 | Possibility of prototype polluting function detected. By adding or modifying attributes of an object prototype, it is possible to create attributes that exist on every object, or replace critical attributes with malicious ones. This can... | Static analysis (opengrep) |
| medium | opengrep/javascript.lang.security.html-in-template-string |
js/main.js:244 | 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 |
js/main.js:281 | 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 |
js/main.js:319 | 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 |
js/main.js:356 | 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.lang.correctness.missing-template-string-indicator |
scripts/gen-presets.mjs:39 | This looks like a JavaScript template string. Are you missing a '$' in front of '{...}'? | Lint |
| low | opengrep/javascript.lang.correctness.missing-template-string-indicator |
scripts/gen-presets.mjs:39 | This looks like a JavaScript template string. Are you missing a '$' in front of '{...}'? | Lint |
| low | opengrep/javascript.lang.correctness.missing-template-string-indicator |
scripts/gen-presets.mjs:51 | This looks like a JavaScript template string. Are you missing a '$' in front of '{...}'? | Lint |
| low | opengrep/javascript.lang.correctness.missing-template-string-indicator |
scripts/gen-presets.mjs:59 | This looks like a JavaScript template string. Are you missing a '$' in front of '{...}'? | Lint |
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 | |
| 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 | 6 | |
| Tests and CI | Code quality | ok | — | 0 | |
| Type safety | Code quality | skipped | — | 0 | |
| CI workflows (zizmor) | Security | ok | zizmor 1.32.0 | 5 | |
| 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 | 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 | 7533c7dcf787 | prov-5+qual-2+sec-2 | 0% | 60 | 65 |
| 2026-11-14 | 7533c7dcf787 | prov-4+qual-2+sec-2 | 0% | 60 | 65 |
Full text report
- Repository: https://github.com/putersdcat/PlarailMemeDemo
- Commit:
7533c7dcf787bccd0a7da618888156bf59d6435c - 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 | possible | 65% | 100% |
| Code quality | 60 | weak | 90% | 100% |
| Security | 65 | 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: 47.9%
-
Estimated AI-generated share: 0.0%
-
AI tooling configured in repo: github-copilot
-
Stylometry index: 0.27 per 1,000 lines (narrated steps 0, placeholders 0, assistant phrasing 0, emoji 9). Reported as a signal, not scored.
| Month | Lines added | Attributed to AI |
|---|---|---|
| 2026-08 | 31,861 | 0% |
Evidence
- 6,691 lines of first-party code in ~4.0h (1,673 lines/hour, 1 commit session) (7533c7dcf787)
- .github/copilot-instructions.md (github-copilot configuration) (.github/copi)
- 4,353 lines of first-party code in ~4.0h (1,088 lines/hour, 1 commit session) (77dfc6627f55)
- 4,212 lines of first-party code in ~6.0h (701 lines/hour, 23 commit session) (a1724a28f046)
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 weak: test-to-source ratio 0.26, no CI test run detected; 42% of function code in complex or long functions; 7% duplicated lines. Weakest area: complexity.
| Area | Score |
|---|---|
| Complexity (lizard) | 28 |
| Duplication | 65 |
| Code smells (Opengrep) | 96 |
| Tests and CI | 58 |
| Documentation | 65 |
| Type safety | n/a |
| Process (Scorecard review/maintenance) | n/a |
- Functions: 744; mean complexity 5.3, 90th percentile 13; 58 complex and 18 long functions
- Duplicated lines: 7.2% of 12,835 compared
- Tests: 4,271 test lines for 16,502 source lines (ratio 0.26); CI test commands: none detected; 25% of recent source commits also change tests
- Docs missing or thin: contributing, changelog
Most complex functions:
- onPointerUp in js/main.js: complexity 81, 290 lines
- placeLayoutCars in js/train/consist.js: complexity 80, 178 lines
- placeFollowers in js/train/consist.js: complexity 67, 205 lines
- drawScene in js/render.js: complexity 59, 214 lines
- updateTrain in js/train.js: complexity 53, 215 lines
Security
Security posture is weak: 22 high-severity SAST findings; 4 high-severity workflow issues. Weakest area: posture.
| Area | Score |
|---|---|
| Secrets (gitleaks, tree + history) | 100 |
| Static analysis (Opengrep) | 69 |
| Vulnerable dependencies (OSV) | n/a |
| CI workflows (zizmor) | 44 |
| 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 |
|---|---|---|
| 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] |
js/i18n.js:106 |
| high | opengrep/javascript.browser.security.insecure-innerhtml: User controlled data in a el.innerHTML is an anti-pattern that can lead to XSS vulnerabilities [confidence low] |
js/i18n.js:106 |
| 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] |
js/main.js:244 |
| high | opengrep/javascript.browser.security.insecure-innerhtml: User controlled data in a btn.innerHTML is an anti-pattern that can lead to XSS vulnerabilities [confidence low] |
js/main.js:244 |
| 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] |
js/main.js:281 |
| high | opengrep/javascript.browser.security.insecure-innerhtml: User controlled data in a btn.innerHTML is an anti-pattern that can lead to XSS vulnerabilities [confidence low] |
js/main.js:281 |
| 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] |
js/main.js:319 |
| high | opengrep/javascript.browser.security.insecure-innerhtml: User controlled data in a btn.innerHTML is an anti-pattern that can lead to XSS vulnerabilities [confidence low] |
js/main.js:319 |
| 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] |
js/main.js:356 |
| high | opengrep/javascript.browser.security.insecure-innerhtml: User controlled data in a btn.innerHTML is an anti-pattern that can lead to XSS vulnerabilities [confidence low] |
js/main.js:356 |
| 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] |
js/main.js:2006 |
| high | opengrep/javascript.browser.security.insecure-innerhtml: User controlled data in a statusEl.innerHTML is an anti-pattern that can lead to XSS vulnerabilities [confidence low] |
js/main.js:2006 |
| 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] |
js/main.js:2014 |
| high | opengrep/javascript.browser.security.insecure-innerhtml: User controlled data in a badgeEl.innerHTML is an anti-pattern that can lead to XSS vulnerabilities [confidence low] |
js/main.js:2014 |
| 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] |
js/main.js:2017 |
| high | opengrep/javascript.browser.security.insecure-innerhtml: User controlled data in a badgeEl.innerHTML is an anti-pattern that can lead to XSS vulnerabilities [confidence low] |
js/main.js:2017 |
| 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] |
js/main.js:2020 |
| high | opengrep/javascript.browser.security.insecure-innerhtml: User controlled data in a badgeEl.innerHTML is an anti-pattern that can lead to XSS vulnerabilities [confidence low] |
js/main.js:2020 |
| 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] |
js/main.js:2023 |
| high | opengrep/javascript.browser.security.insecure-innerhtml: User controlled data in a badgeEl.innerHTML is an anti-pattern that can lead to XSS vulnerabilities [confidence low] |
js/main.js:2023 |
| 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] |
js/main.js:2025 |
| high | opengrep/javascript.browser.security.insecure-innerhtml: User controlled data in a badgeEl.innerHTML is an anti-pattern that can lead to XSS vulnerabilities [confidence low] |
js/main.js:2025 |
| high | zizmor/unpinned-uses: unpinned action reference [confidence high] |
.github/workflows/pages.yml:26 |
| high | zizmor/unpinned-uses: unpinned action reference [confidence high] |
.github/workflows/pages.yml:29 |
| high | zizmor/unpinned-uses: unpinned action reference [confidence high] |
.github/workflows/pages.yml:32 |
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: 16,502; test lines: 4,271
| Language | Lines |
|---|---|
| JavaScript | 20,773 |