Leaderboard github.com
lionhylra/cc-usage-bar
Minimal macOS menu bar app to check Claude Code usage at a glance — accurate, safe, zero setup
AI provenance
0%
none-detected
- Confidence
- 43%
- Coverage
- 100%
Estimated share of AI-generated code. Explicit attribution is a lower bound.
Code quality
52/100
weak
- Confidence
- 90%
- Coverage
- 100%
Complexity, duplication, lint density, tests, CI, docs and review process.
Security
82/100
adequate
- Confidence
- 85%
- Coverage
- 100%
Secrets, static analysis, vulnerable dependencies, CI and supply-chain posture.
- Repository: https://github.com/lionhylra/cc-usage-bar
- Commit:
c483481c0fabc0057a4f72ff45fe098cc2f93f15 - Generated: 2026-11-13T23:56:06+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 | 43% | 100% |
| Code quality | 52 | weak | 90% | 100% |
| Security | 82 | 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 |
|---|---|---|
| 2026-03 | 1,248 | 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; 44% of function code in complex or long functions; 0% duplicated lines. Weakest area: testing.
| Area | Score |
|---|---|
| Complexity (lizard) | 27 |
| Duplication | 100 |
| Code smells (Opengrep) | 100 |
| Tests and CI | 0 |
| Documentation | 85 |
| Type safety | n/a |
| Process (Scorecard review/maintenance) | n/a |
- Functions: 60; mean complexity 3.8, 90th percentile 9; 4 complex and 1 long functions
- Duplicated lines: 0.0% of 830 compared
- Tests: 0 test lines for 1,125 source lines (ratio 0.00); CI test commands: none detected; 0% of recent source commits also change tests
- Docs missing or thin: contributing
Most complex functions:
- parse in CCUsageBar/CCUsageBar/ANSIParser.swift: complexity 59, 159 lines
- applyCode in CCUsageBar/CCUsageBar/ANSIParser.swift: complexity 22, 43 lines
- makeReadSource in CCUsageBar/CCUsageBar/UsageViewModel.swift: complexity 21, 95 lines
- launchSession in CCUsageBar/CCUsageBar/UsageViewModel.swift: complexity 16, 69 lines
Security
Security posture is adequate: no high-impact findings. Weakest area: posture.
| Area | Score |
|---|---|
| Secrets (gitleaks, tree + history) | 100 |
| Static analysis (Opengrep) | 100 |
| Vulnerable dependencies (OSV) | n/a |
| CI workflows (zizmor) | n/a |
| Posture (policy, updates, signing, lockfiles) | 0 |
| OpenSSF Scorecard | n/a |
- Posture checks passed: lockfiles; missing: security policy, dependency updates, signed commits
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 1.1.1 ships CCUsageBar.zip (419 downloads)
- binary-release-asset: release 1.1 ships CCUsageBar.zip (15 downloads)
- binary-release-asset: release 1.0 ships CCUsageBar.zip (26 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: 1,125; test lines: 0
| Language | Lines |
|---|---|
| Swift | 1,125 |