Leaderboard github.com

selwin/diff-viewer

View repository ↗
Swift
★ 0
commit eaa47cef4315
scored 2026-11-14
scoring prov-5+qual-2+sec-2

AI provenance

10%

explicit

Confidence: 95%
Coverage: 100%

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

Code quality

67/100

adequate

Confidence: 90%
Coverage: 100%

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

Security

87/100

strong

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

10% explicit

Explicit AI attribution on 10% of first-party code added; an estimated 10% including velocity signals.

How the score is built

Explicitly attributed share10%
Unattributed share in AI-pace bursts29%
Estimated AI-generated share10%
AI tool configuration files0
Work sessions at AI pace17
Releases at AI pacenot measured
Coding-style index (1.0+ means possible)0.09

Attributed AI tools

Tool	Commits	Lines added	First seen	Last seen
Claude Code	25	9,654	2026-09-12	2026-09-30
GitHub Copilot coding agent	1	773	2026-09-24	2026-09-24

Lines added per month all AI-attributed share

2026-0968,183 · 15% AI
2026-1026,562 · 0% AI
2026-119,168 · 0% AI

Findings in AI-attributed lines vs the rest

From git blame: 7,034 lines trace to AI-attributed commits, 68,508 to others. Reported, not scored.

Findings per 1,000 lines	AI-attributed	Other	Ratio
Code quality	0.57	0.06	9.81×
Security	0.99	0.00	—

Evidence by analyzer

Explicit AI attributionok27 items

attributed_commit_share: 14.9%
attributed_commits: 26
attributed_loc: 10,427
attributed_loc_share: 10.0%
commits: 175
effective_loc: 103,913
tools_detected: 2

AI tool configurationok

artifacts: 0
tools_configured: 0
workflow_agents: 0

Commit velocityok15 items

excluded_import_loc: 4,424
flagged_loc: 35,715
flagged_loc_share: 35.9%
flagged_units: 17
max_loc_per_hour: 6,420
measured_loc: 99,489
median_loc_per_hour: 248.40
pr_timed_units: 89
pre_ai_era_burst_loc: 0
pre_ai_era_bursts: 0
pre_ai_era_measured_loc: 0
work_units: 136

Release velocityskipped

Coding styleok

count:assistant_voice: 0
count:emoji_in_code: 14
count:narrated_steps: 0
count:placeholder: 0
files:assistant_voice: 0
files:emoji_in_code: 6
files:narrated_steps: 0
files:placeholder: 0
index: 0.09
lines_scanned: 75,542
per_kloc:assistant_voice: 0
per_kloc:emoji_in_code: 0.18
per_kloc:narrated_steps: 0
per_kloc:placeholder: 0

Findings in AI-written linesok

ai_lines: 7,034
blame_failures: 0
files_blamed: 447
other_lines: 68,508
quality:ai_findings: 4
quality:ai_per_kloc: 0.57
quality:other_findings: 4
quality:other_per_kloc: 0.06
quality:ratio: 9.81
security:ai_findings: 7
security:ai_per_kloc: 0.99
security:other_findings: 0
security:other_per_kloc: 0

Code quality

67 adequate

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

How the score is built

Complexity94
Duplication88
Lint and smells99
Tests and CI25
Documentation40
Type safetynot measured
Review processnot measured

Evidence by analyzer

Complexity (lizard)ok10 items

complex_functions: 22
function_nloc: 48,549
functions: 5,392
long_functions: 0
many_param_functions: 14
mean_ccn: 2.18
p90_ccn: 5
risky_nloc_share: 2.2%

Duplication (jscpd)ok10 items

compared_lines: 57,236
duplicated_lines: 1,257
duplicated_share: 2.2%
files: 447

Lintok

category:correctness: 8
findings: 8
scanned_lines: 75,542
weighted_findings: 2

Tests and CIok4 items

CI config: .github/workflows/format.yml .github/workflows/format.yml
CI config: .github/workflows/lint.yml .github/workflows/lint.yml
CI config: .github/workflows/test.yml .github/workflows/test.yml
CI runs linters (swiftlint)

check:ci_present: yes
check:ci_runs_lint: yes
check:ci_runs_tests: no
check:has_tests: no
check:test_ratio: no
check:tests_cochange: no
ci_files: 3
cochange_commits: 160
cochange_share: 0.0%
source_lines: 75,542
test_lines: 0
test_ratio: 0

Documentationok1 item

README.md README.md

check:changelog: no
check:contributing: no
check:license: no
check:readme: yes
readme_lines: 188

Type safetyskipped

Security

87 strong

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

How the score is built

Secrets100
Static analysis (SAST)99
Vulnerable dependenciesnot measured
CI workflows94
Security posture20
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: 7
findings_high: 0
findings_low: 0
findings_medium: 7
parse_errors: 6
scanned_lines: 75,542
weighted_findings: 1.75

Dependencies (osv-scanner)skipped

CI workflows (zizmor)ok

findings: 3
findings_high: 0
findings_low: 0
findings_medium: 3
penalty: 3.60
workflows: 3

Security postureok

check:dependency_updates: no
check:lockfiles: yes
check:security_policy: no
check:signed_commits: yes
signed_commit_share: 52.0%
unpinned_manifests: 0

Release downloadsok

binary_assets: 0
signals: 0
suspicious: 0

Findings

10 medium8 low

Severity	Rule	Location	Message	Tool
medium	`zizmor/artipacked`	.github/workflows/format.yml:38	credential persistence through GitHub Actions artifacts [confidence low]	CI workflows (zizmor)
medium	`zizmor/artipacked`	.github/workflows/lint.yml:35	credential persistence through GitHub Actions artifacts [confidence low]	CI workflows (zizmor)
medium	`zizmor/artipacked`	.github/workflows/test.yml:26	credential persistence through GitHub Actions artifacts [confidence low]	CI workflows (zizmor)
medium	`opengrep/swift.lang.crypto.insecure-random`	DiffViewerTests/LineDiffTests.swift:66	A random number generator was detected which is not guaranteed to be Cryptographically secure. If the source of entropy is used for security purposes (e.g. with other Cryptographic operations), make sure to use the...	Static analysis (opengrep)
medium	`opengrep/swift.lang.crypto.insecure-random`	DiffViewerTests/LineDiffTests.swift:69	A random number generator was detected which is not guaranteed to be Cryptographically secure. If the source of entropy is used for security purposes (e.g. with other Cryptographic operations), make sure to use the...	Static analysis (opengrep)
medium	`opengrep/swift.lang.crypto.insecure-random`	DiffViewerTests/RowFoldingTests.swift:161	A random number generator was detected which is not guaranteed to be Cryptographically secure. If the source of entropy is used for security purposes (e.g. with other Cryptographic operations), make sure to use the...	Static analysis (opengrep)
medium	`opengrep/swift.lang.crypto.insecure-random`	DiffViewerTests/RowFoldingTests.swift:163	A random number generator was detected which is not guaranteed to be Cryptographically secure. If the source of entropy is used for security purposes (e.g. with other Cryptographic operations), make sure to use the...	Static analysis (opengrep)
medium	`opengrep/swift.lang.crypto.insecure-random`	DiffViewerTests/RowFoldingTests.swift:165	A random number generator was detected which is not guaranteed to be Cryptographically secure. If the source of entropy is used for security purposes (e.g. with other Cryptographic operations), make sure to use the...	Static analysis (opengrep)
medium	`opengrep/swift.lang.crypto.insecure-random`	DiffViewerTests/RowFoldingTests.swift:171	A random number generator was detected which is not guaranteed to be Cryptographically secure. If the source of entropy is used for security purposes (e.g. with other Cryptographic operations), make sure to use the...	Static analysis (opengrep)
medium	`opengrep/swift.lang.crypto.insecure-random`	DiffViewerTests/RowFoldingTests.swift:174	A random number generator was detected which is not guaranteed to be Cryptographically secure. If the source of entropy is used for security purposes (e.g. with other Cryptographic operations), make sure to use the...	Static analysis (opengrep)
low	`opengrep/bash.lang.correctness.unquoted-variable-expansion-in-command`	scripts/check-unstaged.sh:29	Variable expansions must be double-quoted so as to prevent being split into multiple pieces according to whitespace or whichever separator is specified by the IFS variable. If you really wish to split the variable's contents, you may...	Lint
low	`opengrep/bash.lang.correctness.unquoted-variable-expansion-in-command`	scripts/check-unstaged.sh:36	Variable expansions must be double-quoted so as to prevent being split into multiple pieces according to whitespace or whichever separator is specified by the IFS variable. If you really wish to split the variable's contents, you may...	Lint
low	`opengrep/bash.lang.correctness.unquoted-variable-expansion-in-command`	scripts/check-unstaged.sh:42	Variable expansions must be double-quoted so as to prevent being split into multiple pieces according to whitespace or whichever separator is specified by the IFS variable. If you really wish to split the variable's contents, you may...	Lint
low	`opengrep/bash.lang.correctness.unquoted-variable-expansion-in-command`	scripts/snapshot.sh:31	Variable expansions must be double-quoted so as to prevent being split into multiple pieces according to whitespace or whichever separator is specified by the IFS variable. If you really wish to split the variable's contents, you may...	Lint
low	`opengrep/bash.lang.correctness.unquoted-variable-expansion-in-command`	scripts/swift-format.sh:23	Variable expansions must be double-quoted so as to prevent being split into multiple pieces according to whitespace or whichever separator is specified by the IFS variable. If you really wish to split the variable's contents, you may...	Lint
low	`opengrep/bash.lang.correctness.unquoted-variable-expansion-in-command`	scripts/swift-format.sh:23	Variable expansions must be double-quoted so as to prevent being split into multiple pieces according to whitespace or whichever separator is specified by the IFS variable. If you really wish to split the variable's contents, you may...	Lint
low	`opengrep/bash.lang.correctness.unquoted-variable-expansion-in-command`	scripts/swiftlint.sh:24	Variable expansions must be double-quoted so as to prevent being split into multiple pieces according to whitespace or whichever separator is specified by the IFS variable. If you really wish to split the variable's contents, you may...	Lint
low	`opengrep/bash.lang.correctness.unquoted-variable-expansion-in-command`	scripts/swiftlint.sh:24	Variable expansions must be double-quoted so as to prevent being split into multiple pieces according to whitespace or whichever separator is specified by the IFS variable. If you really wish to split the variable's contents, you may...	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
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`	8
Tests and CI	Code quality	ok	`—`	0
Type safety	Code quality	skipped	`—`	0
CI workflows (zizmor)	Security	ok	`zizmor 1.32.0`	3
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`	7
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	`eaa47cef4315`	`prov-5+qual-2+sec-2`	10%	67	87
2026-11-14	`eaa47cef4315`	`prov-4+qual-2+sec-2`	10%	67	87

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/selwin/diff-viewer/ai.svg)](https://repotrust.synapticcyber.com/r/github.com/selwin/diff-viewer/)

[![RepoTrust quality](https://repotrust.synapticcyber.com/badge/github.com/selwin/diff-viewer/quality.svg)](https://repotrust.synapticcyber.com/r/github.com/selwin/diff-viewer/)

[![RepoTrust security](https://repotrust.synapticcyber.com/badge/github.com/selwin/diff-viewer/security.svg)](https://repotrust.synapticcyber.com/r/github.com/selwin/diff-viewer/)

Full text report

Repository: https://github.com/selwin/diff-viewer
Commit: eaa47cef4315003b08d15754e2bc0374140864b0
Generated: 2026-11-14T14:52:07+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)	10	explicit	95%	100%
Code quality	67	adequate	90%	100%
Security	87	strong	85%	100%

AI provenance

Explicit AI attribution on 10% of first-party code added; an estimated 10% including velocity signals.

Explicitly attributed share (lower bound): 10.0%
Unattributed share in AI-consistent velocity bursts: 29.1%
Estimated AI-generated share: 10.0%

AI tool	Attributed commits	Lines added
Claude Code	25	9,654
GitHub Copilot coding agent	1	773

Current source lines last changed by AI-attributed commits: 7,034 of 75,542.

Findings per 1,000 lines	AI-attributed	Other	Ratio
Quality	0.569	0.058	9.81x
Security	0.995	0.0	n/a

Stylometry index: 0.09 per 1,000 lines (narrated steps 0, placeholders 0, assistant phrasing 0, emoji 14). Reported as a signal, not scored.

Month	Lines added	Attributed to AI
2026-09	68,183	15%
2026-10	26,562	0%
2026-11	9,168	0%

Evidence

Claude Code: PR description attribution (a64ef7e33a6c)
Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude' (5b3e225a3d6f)
Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude' (922c1ef29352)
Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude' (01bf79d97624)
Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude' (50055c751020)
Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude' (94b4c8ae8fca)
Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude' (77269cefcd6b)
Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude' (dd56dd51e0a7)
Claude Code: trailer 'Co-authored-by: Claude' (b90273baa796)
Claude Code: trailer 'Co-authored-by: Claude' (11ca7a8445db)
GitHub Copilot coding agent: trailer 'Co-authored-by: copilot' (6b95d51a678c)
Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude' (a7e7305c67b6)
Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude' (a045da284fd5)
Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude' (8894631ccb5e)
Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude' (b6a0bd404aa2)

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; 2% of function code in complex or long functions; 2% duplicated lines. Weakest area: testing.

Area	Score
Complexity (lizard)	94
Duplication	88
Code smells (Opengrep)	99
Tests and CI	25
Documentation	40
Type safety	n/a
Process (Scorecard review/maintenance)	n/a

Functions: 5,392; mean complexity 2.2, 90th percentile 5; 22 complex and 0 long functions
Duplicated lines: 2.2% of 57,236 compared
Tests: 0 test lines for 75,542 source lines (ratio 0.00); CI test commands: none detected; 0% of recent source commits also change tests
Docs missing or thin: license, contributing, changelog

Most complex functions:

Security

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

Area	Score
Secrets (gitleaks, tree + history)	100
Static analysis (Opengrep)	99
Vulnerable dependencies (OSV)	n/a
CI workflows (zizmor)	94
Posture (policy, updates, signing, lockfiles)	20
OpenSSF Scorecard	n/a

Posture checks passed: signed commits, lockfiles; missing: security policy, dependency updates

Top findings

Severity	Finding	Location
medium	`opengrep/swift.lang.crypto.insecure-random`: A random number generator was detected which is not guaranteed to be Cryptographically secure. If the source of entropy is used for security purposes (e.g. with other Cryptographic operations), make sure to use the `SecCopyRandomBytes` API explicitly. [confidence low]	DiffViewerTests/LineDiffTests.swift:66
medium	`opengrep/swift.lang.crypto.insecure-random`: A random number generator was detected which is not guaranteed to be Cryptographically secure. If the source of entropy is used for security purposes (e.g. with other Cryptographic operations), make sure to use the `SecCopyRandomBytes` API explicitly. [confidence low]	DiffViewerTests/LineDiffTests.swift:69
medium	`opengrep/swift.lang.crypto.insecure-random`: A random number generator was detected which is not guaranteed to be Cryptographically secure. If the source of entropy is used for security purposes (e.g. with other Cryptographic operations), make sure to use the `SecCopyRandomBytes` API explicitly. [confidence low]	DiffViewerTests/RowFoldingTests.swift:161
medium	`opengrep/swift.lang.crypto.insecure-random`: A random number generator was detected which is not guaranteed to be Cryptographically secure. If the source of entropy is used for security purposes (e.g. with other Cryptographic operations), make sure to use the `SecCopyRandomBytes` API explicitly. [confidence low]	DiffViewerTests/RowFoldingTests.swift:163
medium	`opengrep/swift.lang.crypto.insecure-random`: A random number generator was detected which is not guaranteed to be Cryptographically secure. If the source of entropy is used for security purposes (e.g. with other Cryptographic operations), make sure to use the `SecCopyRandomBytes` API explicitly. [confidence low]	DiffViewerTests/RowFoldingTests.swift:165
medium	`opengrep/swift.lang.crypto.insecure-random`: A random number generator was detected which is not guaranteed to be Cryptographically secure. If the source of entropy is used for security purposes (e.g. with other Cryptographic operations), make sure to use the `SecCopyRandomBytes` API explicitly. [confidence low]	DiffViewerTests/RowFoldingTests.swift:171
medium	`opengrep/swift.lang.crypto.insecure-random`: A random number generator was detected which is not guaranteed to be Cryptographically secure. If the source of entropy is used for security purposes (e.g. with other Cryptographic operations), make sure to use the `SecCopyRandomBytes` API explicitly. [confidence low]	DiffViewerTests/RowFoldingTests.swift:174
medium	`zizmor/artipacked`: credential persistence through GitHub Actions artifacts [confidence low]	.github/workflows/format.yml:38
medium	`zizmor/artipacked`: credential persistence through GitHub Actions artifacts [confidence low]	.github/workflows/lint.yml:35
medium	`zizmor/artipacked`: credential persistence through GitHub Actions artifacts [confidence low]	.github/workflows/test.yml:26

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: 75,542; test lines: 0

Language	Lines
Swift	75,361
Shell	181