Leaderboard github.com
jaylikesbunda/CrashoftheTitans-Wiicomp
Recompilation of the Wii version of Crash of the Titans
AI provenance
0%
possible
- Confidence
- 48%
- Coverage
- 100%
Estimated share of AI-generated code. Explicit attribution is a lower bound.
Code quality
54/100
weak
- Confidence
- 90%
- Coverage
- 100%
Complexity, duplication, lint density, tests, CI, docs and review process.
Security
47/100
poor
- Confidence
- 85%
- Coverage
- 100%
Secrets, static analysis, vulnerable dependencies, CI and supply-chain posture.
- Repository: https://github.com/jaylikesbunda/CrashoftheTitans-Wiicomp
- Commit:
25c8358fd1fd0a5bc9ae442c11e79ab8559a3db8 - Generated: 2026-11-13T23:50:24+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 | possible | 48% | 100% |
| Code quality | 54 | weak | 90% | 100% |
| Security | 47 | poor | 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: 11.4%
-
Estimated AI-generated share: 0.0%
-
Stylometry index: 0.02 per 1,000 lines (narrated steps 2, placeholders 0, assistant phrasing 0, emoji 0). Reported as a signal, not scored.
| Month | Lines added | Attributed to AI |
|---|---|---|
| 2026-10 | 88,243 | 0% |
| 2026-11 | 764 | 0% |
Evidence
- 10,156 lines of first-party code in ~4.0h (2,536 lines/hour, 2 commit session) (97d801f2efca)
- step-by-step narration comment: // First, we need to send the contents of our AUX buffers to the CPU. (reference/do)
- step-by-step narration comment: // Then, we read the new temp from the CPU and add to our current (reference/do)
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, CI runs tests; 35% of function code in complex or long functions; 6% duplicated lines. Weakest area: testing.
| Area | Score |
|---|---|
| Complexity (lizard) | 35 |
| Duplication | 69 |
| Code smells (Opengrep) | 80 |
| Tests and CI | 35 |
| Documentation | 85 |
| Type safety | 40 |
| Process (Scorecard review/maintenance) | n/a |
- Functions: 3,374; mean complexity 4.9, 90th percentile 11; 199 complex and 41 long functions
- Duplicated lines: 6.2% of 73,956 compared
- Tests: 0 test lines for 88,921 source lines (ratio 0.00); CI test commands: go test, cargo test; 0% of recent source commits also change tests
- Docs missing or thin: contributing
Most complex functions:
- func_803A2CC8 in tools/native_lower_vector_tests.cpp: complexity 180, 620 lines
- translated_8028199C in tools/native_lower_inferred_tests.cpp: complexity 113, 300 lines
- effects in tools/ppc_effects.py: complexity 109, 173 lines
- _promote in tools/promote_regs.py: complexity 107, 244 lines
- main in tools/fix_hot_split.py: complexity 87, 174 lines
Security
Security posture is poor: 32 known vulnerabilities in 13 dependencies; 260 high-severity SAST findings; 11 high-severity workflow issues. Weakest area: posture.
| Area | Score |
|---|---|
| Secrets (gitleaks, tree + history) | 100 |
| Static analysis (Opengrep) | 37 |
| Vulnerable dependencies (OSV) | 43 |
| CI workflows (zizmor) | 12 |
| Posture (policy, updates, signing, lockfiles) | 0 |
| OpenSSF Scorecard | n/a |
-
Known vulnerabilities: 32 in 13 packages (critical 2, high 2, medium 3, low 3)
-
Posture checks passed: lockfiles; missing: security policy, dependency updates, signed commits
Top findings
| Severity | Finding | Location |
|---|---|---|
| critical | osv/RUSTSEC-2026-0369: zip@2.4.2 (crates.io) is affected by RUSTSEC-2026-0369 |
launcher/src-tauri/Cargo.lock |
| critical | osv/GHSA-m665-v7pm-7grj: zip@2.4.2 (crates.io) is affected by GHSA-m665-v7pm-7grj |
launcher/src-tauri/Cargo.lock |
| 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] |
launcher/ui/app.js:125 |
| high | opengrep/javascript.browser.security.insecure-innerhtml: User controlled data in a host.innerHTML is an anti-pattern that can lead to XSS vulnerabilities [confidence low] |
launcher/ui/app.js:125 |
| 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] |
launcher/ui/app.js:686 |
| high | opengrep/javascript.browser.security.insecure-innerhtml: User controlled data in a $("players").innerHTML is an anti-pattern that can lead to XSS vulnerabilities [confidence low] |
launcher/ui/app.js:686 |
| 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] |
launcher/ui/app.js:739 |
| high | opengrep/javascript.browser.security.insecure-innerhtml: User controlled data in a $("mapRows").innerHTML is an anti-pattern that can lead to XSS vulnerabilities [confidence low] |
launcher/ui/app.js:739 |
| 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] |
launcher/ui/app.js:857 |
| high | opengrep/javascript.browser.security.insecure-innerhtml: User controlled data in a $("motionRows").innerHTML is an anti-pattern that can lead to XSS vulnerabilities [confidence low] |
launcher/ui/app.js:857 |
| 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] |
launcher/ui/app.js:932 |
| high | opengrep/javascript.browser.security.insecure-innerhtml: User controlled data in a host.innerHTML is an anti-pattern that can lead to XSS vulnerabilities [confidence low] |
launcher/ui/app.js:932 |
| 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] |
tools/analyze_cpu_profile.py:34 |
| high | opengrep/python.lang.security.audit.dangerous-subprocess-use-tainted-env-args: Detected subprocess function 'run' with user controlled data. A malicious actor could leverage this to perform command injection. You may consider using 'shlex.quote()'. [confidence medium] |
tools/analyze_cpu_profile.py:34 |
| 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] |
tools/analyze_cpu_profile.py:37 |
| high | opengrep/python.lang.security.audit.dangerous-subprocess-use-tainted-env-args: Detected subprocess function 'run' with user controlled data. A malicious actor could leverage this to perform command injection. You may consider using 'shlex.quote()'. [confidence medium] |
tools/analyze_cpu_profile.py:37 |
| 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] |
tools/analyze_cpu_profile.py:38 |
| high | opengrep/python.lang.security.audit.dangerous-subprocess-use-tainted-env-args: Detected subprocess function 'run' with user controlled data. A malicious actor could leverage this to perform command injection. You may consider using 'shlex.quote()'. [confidence medium] |
tools/analyze_cpu_profile.py:38 |
| 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] |
tools/bench_guest_ram_fast.py:56 |
| high | opengrep/python.lang.security.audit.dangerous-subprocess-use-tainted-env-args: Detected subprocess function 'run' with user controlled data. A malicious actor could leverage this to perform command injection. You may consider using 'shlex.quote()'. [confidence medium] |
tools/bench_guest_ram_fast.py:56 |
| 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] |
tools/bench_guest_region_poll.py:83 |
| high | opengrep/python.lang.security.audit.dangerous-subprocess-use-tainted-env-args: Detected subprocess function 'run' with user controlled data. A malicious actor could leverage this to perform command injection. You may consider using 'shlex.quote()'. [confidence medium] |
tools/bench_guest_region_poll.py:83 |
| 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] |
tools/bench_guest_region_poll.py:90 |
| high | opengrep/python.lang.security.audit.dangerous-subprocess-use-tainted-env-args: Detected subprocess function 'run' with user controlled data. A malicious actor could leverage this to perform command injection. You may consider using 'shlex.quote()'. [confidence medium] |
tools/bench_guest_region_poll.py:90 |
| 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] |
tools/build_native.py:43 |
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
- binary-release-asset: release v0.1.9 ships CrashLauncher-0.1.9-windows-x64-setup.exe (115 downloads)
- binary-release-asset: release v0.1.8 ships CrashLauncher-0.1.8-windows-x64-setup.exe (193 downloads)
- binary-release-asset: release v0.1.7 ships CrashLauncher-0.1.7-windows-x64-setup.exe (21 downloads)
- binary-release-asset: release v0.1.6 ships CrashLauncher-0.1.6-windows-x64-setup.exe (13 downloads)
- binary-release-asset: release v0.1.5 ships CrashLauncher-0.1.5-windows-x64-setup.exe (18 downloads)
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: 88,921; test lines: 0
| Language | Lines |
|---|---|
| Python | 52,705 |
| C++ | 17,970 |
| C | 13,083 |
| Rust | 4,192 |
| JavaScript | 965 |
| PowerShell | 6 |