Repository Analysis

AutoHotkey/AutoHotkey

AutoHotkey - macro-creation and automation-oriented scripting utility for Windows.

4.6 Likely human-written View on GitHub

Analysis Overview

This report presents the forensic synthetic code analysis of AutoHotkey/AutoHotkey, a C++ project with 12,728 GitHub stars. SynthScan v2.0 examined 149,886 lines of code across 150 source files, recording 813 pattern matches distributed across 2 syntactic categories. The overall adjusted score of 4.6 places this repository in the Likely human-written band.

The scanner applied 160+ deterministic lexical heuristics, multi-line block detectors, abstract syntax tree depth profilers, and a cross-file Jaccard similarity matrix to construct a statistically normalised synthetic code estimate. All matches are individually weighted by severity coefficient and contextual multiplier before summation, and the resulting headline score is temporally discounted to account for the repository's development history relative to the commercial emergence of large language model coding tooling (November 2022 onward).

4.6
Adjusted Score
4.6
Raw Score
100%
Time Factor
2026-05-17
Last Push
12.7K
Stars
C++
Language
149.9K
Lines of Code
150
Files
813
Pattern Hits
2026-07-14
Scan Date
0.00
HC Hit Rate

What These Metrics Mean

Adjusted Score
Primary synthetic code indicator. Raw score normalised per 1,000 lines of code and multiplied by the temporal discount factor. This is the definitive comparative metric — use it to rank repositories by AI authorship density.
Raw Score
The unmodified sum of all severity-weighted, context-multiplied pattern match scores before temporal discounting. Reflects the absolute signal strength independent of when the repository was last active.
Time Factor
The temporal discount multiplier (0–100%) applied to the raw score. Repositories last updated before ChatGPT's launch (Nov 2022) receive a 5% factor. Full signal is only assigned to repositories active in the post-adoption era (Jan 2024+).
Pattern Hits
Total count of individual pattern matches across all files and categories. A high hit count with a low score may indicate a very large codebase with isolated AI snippets; a low count with a high score indicates dense, concentrated AI signatures.
HC Hit Rate
High+Critical pattern hits per file, averaged across the repository. This orthogonal signal catches repositories where a few files are densely packed with high-severity AI tells — a strong indicator even when the normalised score appears moderate due to codebase size.
Lines of Code / Files
Total lines and files analysed. The scanner examines 94 file extensions. These denominators are used to normalise the score, enabling fair comparison between repositories of vastly different sizes.

Score History

This chart maps the temporal evolution of the adjusted synthetic code score across successive scan runs. An upward trajectory indicates ongoing incorporation of AI-generated code or expanding LLM-assisted scaffolding; a stable or declining trajectory may reflect active human refactoring, code removal, or the adoption of stricter authorship policies. The dashed secondary line (right axis) independently tracks total raw pattern hit count, which can diverge from the normalised score when codebase size changes significantly between scans.

Severity Breakdown

Classifies detected patterns by their diagnostic confidence and structural impact. CRITICAL patterns (coefficient 10) represent definitive synthetic signatures — hallucinated imports, explicit LLM attribution metadata — virtually never produced by human authors. HIGH (5) indicates strong structural tells such as cross-file repetition or cross-linguistic idioms. MEDIUM (2) covers recognisable conversational padding and AI-specific vocabulary. LOW (1) captures subtle indicators like tautological comments and generic boilerplate that require density to carry independent signal.

CRITICAL 0HIGH 0MEDIUM 9LOW 804

Directory Score Breakdown

This horizontal bar chart decomposes the repository's raw synthetic code score by top-level directory, allowing you to pinpoint precisely which modules or components carry the highest AI authorship density. Directories with disproportionately high scores relative to their size warrant targeted manual review: concentrated AI signatures often trace back to mass-generated configuration layers, auto-ported test suites, LLM-scaffolded boilerplate classes, or entire subsystems authored under heavy copilot assistance. Use this view to prioritise your human code-review effort.

Pattern Findings

The scanner identified 813 distinct pattern matches across 2 syntactic categories. Each entry below represents a discrete location in the source code where the engine recorded a statistically significant AI authorship indicator. Expand any category row to inspect the individual file paths, line numbers, code snippets, and the lexical context (CODE, COMMENT, or STRING) in which each match was detected.

Reading the findings table: The Severity column indicates the diagnostic confidence level (CRITICAL / HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW). The Context column identifies whether the match occurred inside executable code, an inline comment, or a string literal — comment-context matches receive a ×1.5 weight because LLMs systematically over-annotate. The ⚡ bolt icon marks clustered matches: three or more patterns within a 10-line window, each receiving an additional ×1.5 density multiplier as dense clusters constitute far stronger evidence of synthetic authorship than isolated hits.

Over-Commented Block803 hits · 656 pts
SeverityFileLineSnippetContext
LOWsource/TextIO.h1#pragma onceCOMMENT
LOWsource/util.cpp141// of the YYYYMMDDHH24MISS format is present.COMMENT
LOWsource/util.cpp321 return (__int64)((__int64)(uiEnd.QuadPart - uiStart.QuadPart) / 10000000); // Convert from tenths-of-microsecond.COMMENT
LOWsource/util.cpp461}COMMENT
LOWsource/util.cpp521}COMMENT
LOWsource/util.cpp541COMMENT
LOWsource/util.cpp661 } // while() find next matchCOMMENT
LOWsource/util.cpp681 // version 2.1 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.COMMENT
LOWsource/util.cpp1081// - aLimit: Specify UINT_MAX to have no restriction on the number of replacements. Otherwise, specify a number >=0.COMMENT
LOWsource/util.cpp1101// two other/related StrReplace() functions obsolete. Also, the code has been simplified to avoid doingCOMMENT
LOWsource/util.cpp1161 if (!length_delta // old_len==new_len, so use in-place method because it's just as fast in this case but it avoids theCOMMENT
LOWsource/util.cpp1261 }COMMENT
LOWsource/util.cpp1301}COMMENT
LOWsource/util.cpp1361 { // A limit is currently in effect and it's less than expected replacements, so cap the expected.COMMENT
LOWsource/util.cpp1381 double quality = 1 + 2*(1-(COMMENT
LOWsource/util.cpp1861// Caller has ensured that aBuf is large enough (though anything >=32767 is always large enough).COMMENT
LOWsource/util.cpp1961 // Since above didn't return, an error occurred. MSDN isn't clear about what conditions canCOMMENT
LOWsource/util.cpp2061 // This differs from GetDpiForSystem, as it appears the "system DPI" is fixed at initial loginCOMMENT
LOWsource/util.cpp2121 return NULL;COMMENT
LOWsource/util.cpp2141 // said that an ICL is an "ICon Library... a renamed 16-bit Windows .DLL (an NE format executable) whichCOMMENT
LOWsource/util.cpp2201 // It is also not documented to support resource IDs, unlike ExtractIcon and ExtractIconEx.COMMENT
LOWsource/util.cpp2261 // LR_CREATEDIBSECTION applies only when aImageType == IMAGE_BITMAP, but seems appropriate in that case.COMMENT
LOWsource/util.cpp2281 // Gui, ShowCOMMENT
LOWsource/util.cpp2501 // The following will also handle HICON/HCURSOR correctly if aImageType == IMAGE_ICON/CURSOR.COMMENT
LOWsource/util.cpp2521 // Therefore, it seems best to call the right function even though DeleteObject might work onCOMMENT
LOWsource/MdType.h121#define md_arg_decl_type_Out(type) md_outtype<MdType::type>::tCOMMENT
LOWsource/TextIO.cpp121 {COMMENT
LOWsource/debug.h1#pragma onceCOMMENT
LOWsource/debug.h21// #define _CRTDBG_MAP_ALLOCCOMMENT
LOWsource/debug.h41#ifndef VERIFYCOMMENT
LOWsource/AutoHotkey.cpp41 // that has no media (and possibly other errors) won't cause the system to display an errorCOMMENT
LOWsource/AutoHotkey.cpp101COMMENT
LOWsource/AutoHotkey.cpp301 // top part (the auto-execute part) of the script so that they will be in effect even if theCOMMENT
LOWsource/stdafx.h21COMMENT
LOWsource/stdafx.h41 #include <stdlib.h>COMMENT
LOWsource/stdafx.h61 // dependencies sneaking in, or subtle naming conflicts:COMMENT
LOWsource/script.h21#include "defines.h"COMMENT
LOWsource/script.h41// Explanation: If/when AutoExec() finishes, although it no longer needs g_array[0] (not evenCOMMENT
LOWsource/script.h121#define ERR_ABORT_DELETE _T("__Delete will now return.")COMMENT
LOWsource/script.h141#define ERR_PARAM4_INVALID _T("Parameter #4 invalid.")COMMENT
LOWsource/script.h161#define ERR_MISSING_PARAM_NAME _T("Missing parameter name.")COMMENT
LOWsource/script.h181#define ERR_INVALID_LINE_IN_CLASS_DEF _T("Not a valid method, class or property definition.")COMMENT
LOWsource/script.h201#define ERR_NO_WINDOW _T("Target window not found.")COMMENT
LOWsource/script.h381COMMENT
LOWsource/script.h401// returning if there's any chance _f_throw() will be used, since in that case the callerCOMMENT
LOWsource/script.h421#define _o_throw _f_throwCOMMENT
LOWsource/script.h441 // performs marginally better, but file system performance has a much bigger impact.COMMENT
LOWsource/script.h701 Line *mRelatedLine; // e.g. the "else" that belongs to this "if"COMMENT
LOWsource/script.h721 #define RAW_ARG3 (mArgc > 2 ? mArg[2].text : _T(""))COMMENT
LOWsource/script.h741 #define NEW_RAW_ARG4 (aArgc > 3 ? new_arg[3].text : _T(""))COMMENT
LOWsource/script.h761 #define ARG8 sArgDeref[7]COMMENT
LOWsource/script.h781 // Uses arg number (i.e. the first arg is 1, not 0). Caller must ensure that ArgNum >= 1 and thatCOMMENT
LOWsource/script.h801COMMENT
LOWsource/script.h1561 // 2) The fact that any return encountered after the Goto cannot provide a return value forCOMMENT
LOWsource/script.h1581 if (result == EARLY_RETURN)COMMENT
LOWsource/script_gui.h21COMMENT
LOWsource/script_gui.h101 // Keep any fields that are smaller than 4 bytes adjacent to each other. This conserves memoryCOMMENT
LOWsource/script_gui.h161 return TypeHasAttrib(TYPE_SUPPORTS_BGTRANS);COMMENT
LOWsource/script_gui.h361class GuiType : public ObjectCOMMENT
LOWsource/keyboard_mouse.cpp61// For v1.0.25, the following situation is fixed by the code below: If LWin or LAltCOMMENT
743 more matches not shown…
AI Slop Vocabulary10 hits · 28 pts
SeverityFileLineSnippetContext
MEDIUMsource/script_object.h21 // Used by Object, but defined here on (x64 builds only) to utilize the spaceCOMMENT
LOWsource/script_com.cpp1827 // - foo.bar() and foo.bar[] in C#. There's no way to differentiate, so we just use METHODCOMMENT
MEDIUMsource/defines.h189#define YIELDS_AN_OPERAND(symbol) ((symbol) < SYM_OPAREN) // CPAREN also covers the tail end of a function call. Post-iCOMMENT
MEDIUMsource/defines.h189#define YIELDS_AN_OPERAND(symbol) ((symbol) < SYM_OPAREN) // CPAREN also covers the tail end of a function call. Post-iCOMMENT
MEDIUMsource/script_gui.cpp1025 // script is unable to alternate between tab controls and still utilize autosizing.COMMENT
MEDIUMsource/script_gui.cpp3646 // control types won't utilize the extra space (they are apparently clipped accordingCOMMENT
MEDIUMsource/script_gui.cpp10997 // maintainable/robust (plus LV_GeneralSort() relies on us to do this check).COMMENT
MEDIUMsource/script_object.cpp2500 if (si->nested_object_size < sizeof(Object)) // Definitely no constructible properties defined by aBase.CODE
MEDIUMsource/script_autoit.cpp524 // utilize the notification in that case (e.g. Notepad's Save As dialog).COMMENT
MEDIUMsource/lib/drive.cpp40 // support within the OS is improved in future, callers can utilize it.COMMENT