Public repository scan
Bring the repository.
We’ll look for receipts.
A deterministic evidence check for history, tests, claims, documentation, dependencies, security and maintenance. No authorship guessing. No code execution.
Try a sample
Fetching repository metadata18%
Nothing from the target repository is being executed.
Interactive prototype Results below are representative mock data.
Repository analysis
Repository evidence report
github.com/example/some-tool
● Online analysis
✓ No code executed
64Evidence scoreout of 100
Slop level4 / 10
Lower is better
Confidence91%
Most checks available
✓
VerdictPromising. Some receipts.
The repository shows credible work, with a few evidence gaps to inspect.
⌁
Maturity noteToo early to tell — 11 commits over 9 daysA short history limits long-term signals. Reassess as the project evolves.
Overview
Category scores
A balanced view across applicable evidence areas.
History & substance55Some activity, limited history.
Tests & CI90Strong tests and CI signals.
Claims vs. receipts50Some claims lack linked evidence.
Docs, release & composition72Useful docs; release trail is thin.
Dependencies & security80Reasonable dependency hygiene.
Maintenance & attention58Early signals; more time will help.
Details
Evidence checks
| Check | Status | Finding | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
H2 Largest-commit share | ▲ Warn | Largest commit holds 58% of added lines. | commit a1b2c3 |
T2 Tests assert | ✓ Pass | 9 of 10 test functions contain meaningful assertions. | tests/ (9/10) |
C1 Claims have receipts | ▲ Warn | 2 of 4 key claims link to evidence. | README.md:42 |
D1 README essentials | ✓ Pass | Description, installation and usage are present. | README.md |
D3 Release hygiene | × Fail | No tag or changelog was found. | — |
S4 Secret patterns | ✓ Pass | No high-confidence credential patterns found. | 28 files checked |
No checks match this filter.