tokio-rs/tokio-core
I/O primitives and event loop for async I/O in Rust
- Repository: https://github.com/tokio-rs/tokio-core
- Commit:
fdba3f18370c67ec0c99c119157ad8e25be99fd9 - Generated: 2026-11-13T23:31:00+00:00
- Scorer 0.1.0, scoring prov-4+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 | 81 | strong | 90% | 100% |
| Security | 81 | 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 |
|---|---|---|
| 2017-06 | 41 | 0% |
| 2017-07 | 24 | 0% |
| 2017-08 | 13 | 0% |
| 2017-09 | 1,402 | 0% |
| 2017-10 | 104 | 0% |
| 2017-11 | 4 | 0% |
| 2017-12 | 20 | 0% |
| 2018-01 | 117 | 0% |
| 2018-03 | 1,118 | 0% |
| 2018-04 | 76 | 0% |
| 2018-05 | 5 | 0% |
| 2020-12 | 3 | 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 strong: test-to-source ratio 0.15, CI runs tests; 0% of function code in complex or long functions; 6% duplicated lines. Weakest area: docs.
| Area | Score |
|---|---|
| Complexity (lizard) | 100 |
| Duplication | 71 |
| Code smells (Opengrep) | 100 |
| Tests and CI | 67 |
| Documentation | 65 |
| Type safety | n/a |
| Process (Scorecard review/maintenance) | n/a |
- Functions: 374; mean complexity 1.7, 90th percentile 3; 0 complex and 0 long functions
- Duplicated lines: 5.8% of 4,770 compared
- Tests: 1,128 test lines for 7,433 source lines (ratio 0.15); CI test commands: go test, cargo test; 11% of recent source commits also change tests
- Docs missing or thin: contributing, changelog
Security
Security posture is adequate: no high-impact findings. Weakest area: posture.
| Area | Score |
|---|---|
| Secrets (gitleaks, tree + history) | 100 |
| Static analysis (Opengrep) | 96 |
| 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 |
|---|---|---|
| low | opengrep/rust.lang.security.unsafe-usage: Detected 'unsafe' usage, please audit for secure usage [confidence high] |
benches/tcp.rs:174 |
| low | opengrep/rust.lang.security.unsafe-usage: Detected 'unsafe' usage, please audit for secure usage [confidence high] |
src/net/tcp.rs:653 |
| low | opengrep/rust.lang.security.unsafe-usage: Detected 'unsafe' usage, please audit for secure usage [confidence high] |
src/net/tcp.rs:685 |
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: 7,433; test lines: 1,128
| Language | Lines |
|---|---|
| Rust | 8,561 |