Leaderboard github.com
unconst/ninja
Coding agent project
unreviewed-ai-risk
AI provenance
76%
explicit
- Confidence
- 95%
- Coverage
- 100%
Estimated share of AI-generated code. Explicit attribution is a lower bound.
Code quality
41/100
poor
- Confidence
- 90%
- Coverage
- 100%
Complexity, duplication, lint density, tests, CI, docs and review process.
Security
74/100
adequate
- Confidence
- 85%
- Coverage
- 100%
Secrets, static analysis, vulnerable dependencies, CI and supply-chain posture.
AI provenance
76% explicit
Explicit AI attribution on 76% of first-party code added; an estimated 76% including velocity signals.
How the score is built
- Explicitly attributed share76%
- Unattributed share in AI-pace bursts23%
- Estimated AI-generated share76%
- AI tool configuration files0
- Work sessions at AI pace5
- Releases at AI pacenot measured
- Coding-style index (1.0+ means possible)0.12
Attributed AI tools
| Tool | Commits | Lines added | First seen | Last seen |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Code | 212 | 20,060 | 2026-03-10 | 2026-03-13 |
Lines added per month all AI-attributed share
- 2026-0326,508 · 76% AI
Findings in AI-attributed lines vs the rest
From git blame: 18,926 lines trace to AI-attributed commits, 5,592 to others. Reported, not scored.
| Findings per 1,000 lines | AI-attributed | Other | Ratio |
|---|---|---|---|
| Code quality | 0.11 | 0.00 | — |
| Security | 0.90 | 0.00 | — |
Evidence by analyzer
Explicit AI attributionok26 items
- Claude Code: 212 attributed commits, 20,060 lines added
- Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude'
- Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude'
- Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude'
- Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude'
- Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude'
- Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude'
- Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude'
- Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude'
- Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude'
- Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude'
- Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude'
- Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude'
- Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude'
- Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude'
- Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude'
- Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude'
- Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude'
- Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude'
- Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude'
- Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude'
- Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude'
- Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude'
- Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude'
- Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude'
- Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude'
- attributed_commit_share
- 80.9%
- attributed_commits
- 212
- attributed_loc
- 20,060
- attributed_loc_share
- 75.7%
- commits
- 262
- effective_loc
- 26,508
- tools_detected
- 1
AI tool configurationok
- artifacts
- 0
- tools_configured
- 0
- workflow_agents
- 0
Commit velocityok5 items
- 7,922 lines of first-party code in ~2.6h (3,086 lines/hour, 13 commit session)
- 5,021 lines of first-party code in ~4.3h (1,164 lines/hour, 13 commit session)
- 4,622 lines of first-party code in ~4.1h (1,120 lines/hour, 17 commit session)
- 3,992 lines of first-party code in ~6.1h (653 lines/hour, 22 commit session)
- 2,297 lines of first-party code in ~4.4h (519 lines/hour, 29 commit session)
- excluded_import_loc
- 0
- flagged_loc
- 23,854
- flagged_loc_share
- 90.0%
- flagged_units
- 5
- max_loc_per_hour
- 3,085.83
- measured_loc
- 26,508
- median_loc_per_hour
- 161.76
- pr_timed_units
- 0
- pre_ai_era_burst_loc
- 0
- pre_ai_era_bursts
- 0
- pre_ai_era_measured_loc
- 0
- work_units
- 22
Release velocityskipped
Coding styleok1 item
- count:assistant_voice
- 1
- count:emoji_in_code
- 2
- count:narrated_steps
- 0
- count:placeholder
- 0
- files:assistant_voice
- 1
- files:emoji_in_code
- 1
- files:narrated_steps
- 0
- files:placeholder
- 0
- index
- 0.12
- lines_scanned
- 24,518
- per_kloc:assistant_voice
- 0.04
- per_kloc:emoji_in_code
- 0.08
- per_kloc:narrated_steps
- 0
- per_kloc:placeholder
- 0
Findings in AI-written linesok
- ai_lines
- 18,926
- blame_failures
- 0
- files_blamed
- 43
- other_lines
- 5,592
- quality:ai_findings
- 2
- quality:ai_per_kloc
- 0.11
- quality:other_findings
- 0
- quality:other_per_kloc
- 0
- security:ai_findings
- 17
- security:ai_per_kloc
- 0.90
- security:other_findings
- 0
- security:other_per_kloc
- 0
Code quality
41 poor
Code quality is poor: test-to-source ratio 0.00, no CI test run detected; 72% of function code in complex or long functions; 9% duplicated lines. Weakest area: complexity.
How the score is built
- Complexity12
- Duplication59
- Lint and smells98
- Tests and CI20
- Documentation40
- Type safety40
- Review processnot measured
Evidence by analyzer
Complexity (lizard)ok10 items
- run in src/agent/runner.rs: complexity 181, 846 lines
- run_turn in src/agent/runner.rs: complexity 85, 450 lines
- execute_tool_with_recovery in src/agent/runner.rs: complexity 43, 159 lines
- html_to_text in src/tools/web.rs: complexity 41, 121 lines
- edit_file in src/tools/file_ops.rs: complexity 31, 121 lines
- stream_anthropic in src/agent/api_client.rs: complexity 27, 131 lines
- execute_tool in src/tools/mod.rs: complexity 26, 30 lines
- run_tests in src/tools/testing.rs: complexity 25, 87 lines
- stream_openai in src/agent/api_client.rs: complexity 24, 103 lines
- validate_initial_environment in src/agent/runner.rs: complexity 24, 81 lines
- complex_functions
- 24
- function_nloc
- 21,713
- functions
- 284
- long_functions
- 66
- many_param_functions
- 0
- mean_ccn
- 5.59
- p90_ccn
- 13
- risky_nloc_share
- 72.0%
Duplication (jscpd)ok10 items
- 6+ duplicated lines: src/agent/api_client.rs:429 and src/agent/api_client.rs:559
- 6+ duplicated lines: src/agent/runner.rs:181 and src/agent/runner.rs:690
- 6+ duplicated lines: src/main.rs:117 and src/main.rs:341
- 6+ duplicated lines: src/tools/file_ops.rs:12 and src/tools/file_ops.rs:35
- 6+ duplicated lines: src/tools/git.rs:12 and src/tools/state.rs:15
- 6+ duplicated lines: src/tools/navigate.rs:14 and src/tools/navigate.rs:38
- 6+ duplicated lines: src/tools/search.rs:12 and src/tools/search.rs:33
- 6+ duplicated lines: src/tools/subagent.rs:99 and src/tools/subagent.rs:269
- 6+ duplicated lines: tasks/generators/ambiguous.py:35 and tasks/generators/boundary.py:35
- 6+ duplicated lines: tasks/generators/ambiguous.py:342 and tasks/generators/repo_debug.py:275
- compared_lines
- 18,604
- duplicated_lines
- 1,616
- duplicated_share
- 8.7%
- files
- 43
Lintok
- category:maintainability
- 2
- findings
- 2
- scanned_lines
- 24,518
- weighted_findings
- 2
Tests and CIok
- check:ci_present
- no
- check:ci_runs_lint
- no
- check:ci_runs_tests
- no
- check:has_tests
- yes
- check:test_ratio
- no
- check:tests_cochange
- no
- ci_files
- 0
- cochange_commits
- 149
- cochange_share
- 0.7%
- source_lines
- 24,518
- test_lines
- 64
- test_ratio
- 0.00
Documentationok1 item
- README.md
README.md
- check:changelog
- no
- check:contributing
- no
- check:license
- no
- check:readme
- yes
- readme_lines
- 240
Type safetyok
- check:low_escape_density
- yes
- check:strict_config
- no
- escapes
- 65
- escapes_per_kloc
- 3.94
Security
74 adequate
Security posture is adequate: 12 high-severity SAST findings. Weakest area: posture.
How the score is built
- Secrets100
- Static analysis (SAST)79
- 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 registriesok
- checked
- 12
- declared
- 12
- lookup_errors
- 0
- missing
- 0
- recent
- 0
Secrets (gitleaks)ok
- secrets_current
- 0
- secrets_history
- 0
- secrets_low_confidence
- 0
- secrets_nonprod
- 0
Static analysis (opengrep)ok
- findings
- 17
- findings_high
- 12
- findings_low
- 3
- findings_medium
- 2
- parse_errors
- 0
- scanned_lines
- 24,518
- weighted_findings
- 16.20
Dependencies (osv-scanner)skipped
CI workflows (zizmor)skipped
Security postureok1 item
- Cargo.toml has no lockfile alongside it (unpinned dependencies)
Cargo.toml
- 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
12 high4 medium3 low
19 findings
| Severity | Rule | Location | Message | Tool |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| high | opengrep/python.lang.security.audit.dangerous-subprocess-use-audit |
tasks/evaluators/evaluate.py:146 | Detected subprocess function 'run' without a static string. If this data can be controlled by a malicious actor, it may be an instance of command injection. Audit the use of this call to ensure it is not controllable by an external... | Static analysis (opengrep) |
| high | opengrep/python.lang.security.audit.subprocess-shell-true |
tasks/evaluators/evaluate.py:147 | Found 'subprocess' function 'run' with 'shell=True'. This is dangerous because this call will spawn the command using a shell process. Doing so propagates current shell settings and variables, which makes it much easier for a malicious... | Static analysis (opengrep) |
| high | opengrep/python.lang.security.audit.dangerous-subprocess-use-audit |
tasks/evaluators/evaluate.py:204 | Detected subprocess function 'run' without a static string. If this data can be controlled by a malicious actor, it may be an instance of command injection. Audit the use of this call to ensure it is not controllable by an external... | Static analysis (opengrep) |
| high | opengrep/python.lang.security.audit.subprocess-shell-true |
tasks/evaluators/evaluate.py:205 | Found 'subprocess' function 'run' with 'shell=True'. This is dangerous because this call will spawn the command using a shell process. Doing so propagates current shell settings and variables, which makes it much easier for a malicious... | Static analysis (opengrep) |
| high | opengrep/python.lang.security.audit.dangerous-subprocess-use-audit |
tasks/runner.py:111 | Detected subprocess function 'run' without a static string. If this data can be controlled by a malicious actor, it may be an instance of command injection. Audit the use of this call to ensure it is not controllable by an external... | Static analysis (opengrep) |
| high | opengrep/python.lang.security.audit.subprocess-shell-true |
tasks/runner.py:111 | Found 'subprocess' function 'run' with 'shell=True'. This is dangerous because this call will spawn the command using a shell process. Doing so propagates current shell settings and variables, which makes it much easier for a malicious... | Static analysis (opengrep) |
| high | opengrep/python.lang.security.audit.dangerous-subprocess-use-audit |
tasks/runner.py:158 | Detected subprocess function 'run' without a static string. If this data can be controlled by a malicious actor, it may be an instance of command injection. Audit the use of this call to ensure it is not controllable by an external... | Static analysis (opengrep) |
| high | opengrep/python.lang.security.audit.subprocess-shell-true |
tasks/runner.py:158 | Found 'subprocess' function 'run' with 'shell=True'. This is dangerous because this call will spawn the command using a shell process. Doing so propagates current shell settings and variables, which makes it much easier for a malicious... | Static analysis (opengrep) |
| high | opengrep/python.lang.security.audit.dangerous-subprocess-use-audit |
tasks/runner.py:181 | Detected subprocess function 'run' without a static string. If this data can be controlled by a malicious actor, it may be an instance of command injection. Audit the use of this call to ensure it is not controllable by an external... | Static analysis (opengrep) |
| high | opengrep/python.lang.security.audit.dangerous-subprocess-use-audit |
tasks/runner.py:260 | Detected subprocess function 'run' without a static string. If this data can be controlled by a malicious actor, it may be an instance of command injection. Audit the use of this call to ensure it is not controllable by an external... | Static analysis (opengrep) |
| high | opengrep/python.lang.security.audit.subprocess-shell-true |
tasks/runner.py:260 | Found 'subprocess' function 'run' with 'shell=True'. This is dangerous because this call will spawn the command using a shell process. Doing so propagates current shell settings and variables, which makes it much easier for a malicious... | Static analysis (opengrep) |
| high | opengrep/python.lang.security.audit.dangerous-subprocess-use-audit |
tasks/runner.py:277 | Detected subprocess function 'run' without a static string. If this data can be controlled by a malicious actor, it may be an instance of command injection. Audit the use of this call to ensure it is not controllable by an external... | Static analysis (opengrep) |
| medium | opengrep/python.lang.maintainability.useless-literal |
tasks/generators/local_ops.py:649 | key `".env.example"` is uselessly assigned twice | Lint |
| medium | opengrep/python.lang.maintainability.useless-literal |
tasks/generators/local_ops.py:650 | key `".env.example"` is uselessly assigned twice | Lint |
| medium | opengrep/python.lang.security.audit.insecure-file-permissions |
tasks/evaluators/evaluate.py:237 | These permissions `0o755` are widely permissive and grant access to more people than may be necessary. A good default is `0o644` which gives read and write access to yourself and read access to everyone else. [confidence medium] | Static analysis (opengrep) |
| medium | opengrep/python.lang.security.insecure-hash-algorithm-md5 |
tasks/schema.py:185 | Detected MD5 hash algorithm which is considered insecure. MD5 is not collision resistant and is therefore not suitable as a cryptographic signature. Use SHA256 or SHA3 instead. [confidence medium] | Static analysis (opengrep) |
| low | opengrep/rust.lang.security.unsafe-usage |
src/tools/file_ops.rs:159 | Detected 'unsafe' usage, please audit for secure usage [confidence high] | Static analysis (opengrep) |
| low | opengrep/rust.lang.security.current-exe |
src/tools/subagent.rs:167 | current_exe should not be used for security operations. From the docs: "The output of this function should not be trusted for anything that might have security implications. Basically, if users can run the executable, they can change... | Static analysis (opengrep) |
| low | opengrep/rust.lang.security.current-exe |
src/tools/subagent.rs:281 | current_exe should not be used for security operations. From the docs: "The output of this function should not be trusted for anything that might have security implications. Basically, if users can run the executable, they can change... | Static analysis (opengrep) |
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 | 2 | |
| Tests and CI | Code quality | ok | — | 0 | |
| Type safety | Code quality | ok | — | 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 | ok | — | 0 | |
| Static analysis (opengrep) | Security | ok | opengrep 1.33.1; rules f1d2b562b414 | 17 | |
| 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 | 245d502a1fff | prov-5+qual-2+sec-2 | 76% | 41 | 74 |
| 2026-11-14 | 245d502a1fff | prov-4+qual-2+sec-2 | 76% | 41 | 74 |
Full text report
- Repository: https://github.com/unconst/ninja
- Commit:
245d502a1ffff8706c90c82a9eec335a55f1f592 - Generated: 2026-11-14T14:52:08+00:00
- Scorer 0.1.0, scoring prov-5+qual-2+sec-2, report schema v2
Scores
Unreviewed AI code risk: a large share of this code is explicitly AI-attributed, and its tests or review process are weak while quality or security scores are low.
| Pillar | Score | Signal | Confidence | Coverage |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| AI provenance (estimated AI-generated share) | 76 | explicit | 95% | 100% |
| Code quality | 41 | poor | 90% | 100% |
| Security | 74 | adequate | 85% | 100% |
AI provenance
Explicit AI attribution on 76% of first-party code added; an estimated 76% including velocity signals.
- Explicitly attributed share (lower bound): 75.7%
- Unattributed share in AI-consistent velocity bursts: 22.8%
- Estimated AI-generated share: 75.7%
| AI tool | Attributed commits | Lines added |
|---|---|---|
| Claude Code | 212 | 20,060 |
Current source lines last changed by AI-attributed commits: 18,926 of 24,518.
| Findings per 1,000 lines | AI-attributed | Other | Ratio |
|---|---|---|---|
| Quality | 0.106 | 0.0 | n/a |
| Security | 0.898 | 0.0 | n/a |
- Stylometry index: 0.12 per 1,000 lines (narrated steps 0, placeholders 0, assistant phrasing 1, emoji 2). Reported as a signal, not scored.
| Month | Lines added | Attributed to AI |
|---|---|---|
| 2026-03 | 26,508 | 76% |
Evidence
- Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude' (245d502a1fff)
- Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude' (7185d56a500d)
- Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude' (f2c37b059c24)
- Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude' (c70f427b52c9)
- Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude' (437a7acff3e4)
- Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude' (c941fa08ade5)
- Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude' (249d3498c677)
- Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude' (6f039e269079)
- Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude' (6f50301fde84)
- Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude' (d3ae6c8554c1)
- Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude' (f858bab20913)
- Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude' (20774f28fe03)
- Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude' (65bade333b69)
- Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude' (e45b2a8e92d1)
- Claude Code: trailer 'Co-Authored-By: Claude' (bb12ee67f791)
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 poor: test-to-source ratio 0.00, no CI test run detected; 72% of function code in complex or long functions; 9% duplicated lines. Weakest area: complexity.
| Area | Score |
|---|---|
| Complexity (lizard) | 12 |
| Duplication | 59 |
| Code smells (Opengrep) | 98 |
| Tests and CI | 20 |
| Documentation | 40 |
| Type safety | 40 |
| Process (Scorecard review/maintenance) | n/a |
- Functions: 284; mean complexity 5.6, 90th percentile 13; 24 complex and 66 long functions
- Duplicated lines: 8.7% of 18,604 compared
- Tests: 64 test lines for 24,518 source lines (ratio 0.00); CI test commands: none detected; 1% of recent source commits also change tests
- Docs missing or thin: license, contributing, changelog
Most complex functions:
- run in src/agent/runner.rs: complexity 181, 846 lines
- run_turn in src/agent/runner.rs: complexity 85, 450 lines
- execute_tool_with_recovery in src/agent/runner.rs: complexity 43, 159 lines
- html_to_text in src/tools/web.rs: complexity 41, 121 lines
- edit_file in src/tools/file_ops.rs: complexity 31, 121 lines
Security
Security posture is adequate: 12 high-severity SAST findings. Weakest area: posture.
| Area | Score |
|---|---|
| Secrets (gitleaks, tree + history) | 100 |
| Static analysis (Opengrep) | 79 |
| 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 |
|---|---|---|
| high | opengrep/python.lang.security.audit.dangerous-subprocess-use-audit: Detected subprocess function 'run' without a static string. If this data can be controlled by a malicious actor, it may be an instance of command injection. Audit the use of this call to ensure it is not controllable by an external resource. You may consider using 'shlex.escape()'. [confidence low] |
tasks/evaluators/evaluate.py:146 |
| high | opengrep/python.lang.security.audit.subprocess-shell-true: Found 'subprocess' function 'run' with 'shell=True'. This is dangerous because this call will spawn the command using a shell process. Doing so propagates current shell settings and variables, which makes it much easier for a malicious actor to execute commands. Use 'shell=False' instead. [confidence medium] |
tasks/evaluators/evaluate.py:147 |
| high | opengrep/python.lang.security.audit.dangerous-subprocess-use-audit: Detected subprocess function 'run' without a static string. If this data can be controlled by a malicious actor, it may be an instance of command injection. Audit the use of this call to ensure it is not controllable by an external resource. You may consider using 'shlex.escape()'. [confidence low] |
tasks/evaluators/evaluate.py:204 |
| high | opengrep/python.lang.security.audit.subprocess-shell-true: Found 'subprocess' function 'run' with 'shell=True'. This is dangerous because this call will spawn the command using a shell process. Doing so propagates current shell settings and variables, which makes it much easier for a malicious actor to execute commands. Use 'shell=False' instead. [confidence medium] |
tasks/evaluators/evaluate.py:205 |
| high | opengrep/python.lang.security.audit.dangerous-subprocess-use-audit: Detected subprocess function 'run' without a static string. If this data can be controlled by a malicious actor, it may be an instance of command injection. Audit the use of this call to ensure it is not controllable by an external resource. You may consider using 'shlex.escape()'. [confidence low] |
tasks/runner.py:111 |
| high | opengrep/python.lang.security.audit.subprocess-shell-true: Found 'subprocess' function 'run' with 'shell=True'. This is dangerous because this call will spawn the command using a shell process. Doing so propagates current shell settings and variables, which makes it much easier for a malicious actor to execute commands. Use 'shell=False' instead. [confidence medium] |
tasks/runner.py:111 |
| high | opengrep/python.lang.security.audit.dangerous-subprocess-use-audit: Detected subprocess function 'run' without a static string. If this data can be controlled by a malicious actor, it may be an instance of command injection. Audit the use of this call to ensure it is not controllable by an external resource. You may consider using 'shlex.escape()'. [confidence low] |
tasks/runner.py:158 |
| high | opengrep/python.lang.security.audit.subprocess-shell-true: Found 'subprocess' function 'run' with 'shell=True'. This is dangerous because this call will spawn the command using a shell process. Doing so propagates current shell settings and variables, which makes it much easier for a malicious actor to execute commands. Use 'shell=False' instead. [confidence medium] |
tasks/runner.py:158 |
| high | opengrep/python.lang.security.audit.dangerous-subprocess-use-audit: Detected subprocess function 'run' without a static string. If this data can be controlled by a malicious actor, it may be an instance of command injection. Audit the use of this call to ensure it is not controllable by an external resource. You may consider using 'shlex.escape()'. [confidence low] |
tasks/runner.py:181 |
| high | opengrep/python.lang.security.audit.dangerous-subprocess-use-audit: Detected subprocess function 'run' without a static string. If this data can be controlled by a malicious actor, it may be an instance of command injection. Audit the use of this call to ensure it is not controllable by an external resource. You may consider using 'shlex.escape()'. [confidence low] |
tasks/runner.py:260 |
| high | opengrep/python.lang.security.audit.subprocess-shell-true: Found 'subprocess' function 'run' with 'shell=True'. This is dangerous because this call will spawn the command using a shell process. Doing so propagates current shell settings and variables, which makes it much easier for a malicious actor to execute commands. Use 'shell=False' instead. [confidence medium] |
tasks/runner.py:260 |
| high | opengrep/python.lang.security.audit.dangerous-subprocess-use-audit: Detected subprocess function 'run' without a static string. If this data can be controlled by a malicious actor, it may be an instance of command injection. Audit the use of this call to ensure it is not controllable by an external resource. You may consider using 'shlex.escape()'. [confidence low] |
tasks/runner.py:277 |
| medium | opengrep/python.lang.security.audit.insecure-file-permissions: These permissions 0o755 are widely permissive and grant access to more people than may be necessary. A good default is 0o644 which gives read and write access to yourself and read access to everyone else. [confidence medium] |
tasks/evaluators/evaluate.py:237 |
| medium | opengrep/python.lang.security.insecure-hash-algorithm-md5: Detected MD5 hash algorithm which is considered insecure. MD5 is not collision resistant and is therefore not suitable as a cryptographic signature. Use SHA256 or SHA3 instead. [confidence medium] |
tasks/schema.py:185 |
| low | opengrep/rust.lang.security.unsafe-usage: Detected 'unsafe' usage, please audit for secure usage [confidence high] |
src/tools/file_ops.rs:159 |
| low | opengrep/rust.lang.security.current-exe: current_exe should not be used for security operations. From the docs: "The output of this function should not be trusted for anything that might have security implications. Basically, if users can run the executable, they can change the output arbitrarily." [confidence high] |
src/tools/subagent.rs:167 |
| low | opengrep/rust.lang.security.current-exe: current_exe should not be used for security operations. From the docs: "The output of this function should not be trusted for anything that might have security implications. Basically, if users can run the executable, they can change the output arbitrarily." [confidence high] |
src/tools/subagent.rs:281 |
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: 24,518; test lines: 64
| Language | Lines |
|---|---|
| Python | 16,539 |
| Rust | 7,985 |
| C | 58 |