Leaderboard github.com
fossasia/MMM-SUSI-AI
SUSI.AI implementation for Magic Mirror
AI provenance
0%
none-detected
- Confidence
- 49%
- Coverage
- 100%
Estimated share of AI-generated code. Explicit attribution is a lower bound.
Code quality
65/100
weak
- 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.
- Repository: https://github.com/fossasia/MMM-SUSI-AI
- Commit:
1ffa27541d0c9c3ff0a4a7aca1d106ab8554e6bf - Generated: 2026-11-13T23:40:26+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 | 49% | 100% |
| Code quality | 65 | weak | 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%
| Month | Lines added | Attributed to AI |
|---|---|---|
| 2017-06 | 24 | 0% |
| 2017-07 | 1,819 | 0% |
| 2017-08 | 68 | 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 weak: test-to-source ratio 0.00, no CI test run detected; 0% of function code in complex or long functions; 3% duplicated lines. Weakest area: type safety.
| Area | Score |
|---|---|
| Complexity (lizard) | 100 |
| Duplication | 86 |
| Code smells (Opengrep) | 100 |
| Tests and CI | 15 |
| Documentation | 65 |
| Type safety | 0 |
| Process (Scorecard review/maintenance) | n/a |
- Functions: 151; mean complexity 1.4, 90th percentile 2; 0 complex and 0 long functions
- Duplicated lines: 2.5% of 870 compared
- Tests: 0 test lines for 1,502 source lines (ratio 0.00); CI test commands: none detected; 0% 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) | 97 |
| Static analysis (Opengrep) | 94 |
| 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/javascript.lang.security.html-in-template-string: 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). [confidence low] |
src/main/speech-synthesis-service/bing-tts.ts:27 |
| low | gitleaks/generic-api-key: Possible generic-api-key secret in the current tree |
src/main/states/busy.state.ts:27 |
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.
Distribution signals
- readme-download-lure: gives an archive password
Signals consistent with a repository that exists to distribute a download. They are heuristics, not a verdict; release files were not downloaded or inspected.
Repository profile
- Source lines: 1,502; test lines: 0
| Language | Lines |
|---|---|
| TypeScript | 1,302 |
| JavaScript | 176 |
| Shell | 24 |