Repository Analysis

ClemensElflein/OpenMower

Let's upgrade cheap off-the-shelf robotic mowers to modern, smart RTK GPS based lawn mowing robots!

11.5 Low AI signal View on GitHub

Analysis Overview

This report presents the forensic synthetic code analysis of ClemensElflein/OpenMower, a Shell project with 6,667 GitHub stars. SynthScan v2.0 examined 4,209 lines of code across 30 source files, recording 45 pattern matches distributed across 4 syntactic categories. The overall adjusted score of 11.5 places this repository in the Low AI signal 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).

11.5
Adjusted Score
11.5
Raw Score
100%
Time Factor
2026-08-11
Last Push
6.7K
Stars
Shell
Language
4.2K
Lines of Code
30
Files
45
Pattern Hits
2026-08-13
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

Longitudinal tracking requires multiple scan runs. Once this repository is re-scanned after new commits land, this chart will visualise how the synthetic code signal evolves over time — enabling you to detect whether AI authorship is growing, stabilising, or being actively corrected by human engineers.

No multi-scan history yet — run the scanner again to build trend data.

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 1LOW 44

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 45 distinct pattern matches across 4 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 Block41 hits · 41 pts
SeverityFileLineSnippetContext
LOW.github/workflows/os-build.yaml141 # content-hash-keyed cache below: they hold Buildroot's per-packageCOMMENT
LOW.github/workflows/os-build.yaml161 # every single run, and force-wipes .stamp_configured/.stamp_builtCOMMENT
LOW.github/workflows/os-build.yaml201 key: os-build-output-${{ steps.buildroot-rev.outputs.sha }}-${{ hashFiles('os/external/configs/openmower_defcoCOMMENT
LOW.github/workflows/os-build.yaml281 uses: actions/cache/save@v4COMMENT
LOW.github/workflows/os-build.yaml301 # from a real failure). Skip the attempt entirely instead.COMMENT
LOW.github/workflows/os-build.yaml321 with:COMMENT
LOWos/build.sh1#!/usr/bin/env bashCOMMENT
LOWos/build.sh101elseCOMMENT
LOWos/build.sh121# delete every package's .stamp_target_installed/.stamp_staging_installedCOMMENT
LOWos/build.sh161 # same staleness reasoning applies to each; the satellites are cheapCOMMENT
LOWos/build.sh181# reconfigured: same bug class as the target/staging wipe above, one stageCOMMENT
LOWos/build.sh221 "$HERE/keys-gen-dev.sh"COMMENT
LOWos/build.sh241# build just docker-loads and vendors that,COMMENT
LOWos/build.sh321 echo -n "$OMR_KEY" > "$OMR_CACHE/.br-content-hash"COMMENT
LOWos/build.sh421 menuconfig | menuconfig-migration | menuconfig-kernel-cm4 | menuconfig-kernel-cm5)COMMENT
LOWos/scripts/migrate-to-openmower.sh1#!/bin/shCOMMENT
LOWos/scripts/migrate-to-openmower.sh21# `make image-migration` need re-running.COMMENT
LOWos/scripts/migrate-to-openmower.sh41# the migration boot never gets far enough to trigger its ownCOMMENT
LOWos/scripts/migrate-to-openmower.sh61# image (a GitHub Releases asset -- pick whichever version youCOMMENT
LOWos/scripts/migrate-to-openmower.sh141# BACK UP YOUR MAP AND SETTINGS NOW if you haven't already. This tool makesCOMMENT
LOWos/scripts/migrate-to-openmower.sh161# --- Stop the running stack, reclaim disk space -----------------------------COMMENT
LOWos/scripts/migrate-to-openmower.sh201# --- Locate the boot (firmware) partition ----------------------------------COMMENT
LOWos/scripts/migrate-to-openmower.sh281echo "$IMG_SHA256 $IMG_GZ" | sha256sum -c - >/dev/null \COMMENT
LOWos/scripts/migrate-to-openmower.sh381# --- Stage the migration boot files onto the EXISTING boot partition ----------COMMENT
LOWos/scripts/migrate-to-openmower.sh401log "writing migration boot files to $BOOT_MIGRATION_DIR..."COMMENT
LOWos/scripts/migrate-to-openmower.sh461# Everything from here on is unreachable when embedded in a real installerCOMMENT
LOWos/external/board/openmower/genimage.cfg1# Disk layout. MBR; genimage puts partitions 4+ into an extended partition,COMMENT
LOWos/external/board/openmower/genimage.cfg61 image = "boot-a.vfat"COMMENT
LOWos/external/board/openmower/post-build.sh41# sides -- otherwise the two release dirs collide and one board's modulesCOMMENT
LOWos/external/board/openmower/post-build.sh101# Overwrites whatever BR2_TARGET_GENERIC_ISSUE put here atCOMMENT
LOWos/external/board/openmower/post-build.sh181# prompt/aliases that go with it.COMMENT
LOWos/external/board/openmower/post-build.sh201install -D -m 0644 "$OS_DIR/keys/dev-cert.pem" "$TARGET_DIR/etc/rauc/keyring.pem"COMMENT
LOWos/external/board/openmower/post-build.sh221# ever recreates it. A symlink placed here (or in post-fakeroot.sh, or viaCOMMENT
LOWos/external/board/openmower/post-build.sh241# Dockge, ttyd): /opt/stacks and /opt/dockge are the paths Dockge's ownCOMMENT
LOWos/external/board/openmower/post-image.sh1#!/bin/bashCOMMENT
LOWos/external/board/openmower/post-image.sh21# on the specific pinned firmware blob version (rpi-firmware.mk) actuallyCOMMENT
LOWos/external/board/openmower/post-fakeroot.sh1#!/bin/shCOMMENT
LOWos/external/board/openmower/device_table.txt1# Applied by Buildroot under fakeroot when creating the target filesystem.COMMENT
LOW…ard/openmower/rootfs-overlay/etc/openocd/xcore-cm4.cfg1# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-laterCOMMENT
LOW…ard/openmower/rootfs-overlay/etc/openocd/xcore-cm5.cfg1# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-laterCOMMENT
LOWos/external/board/openmower-cm4-migration/post-image.sh1#!/bin/bashCOMMENT
Example Usage Blocks2 hits · 3 pts
SeverityFileLineSnippetContext
LOWos/build.sh4# Usage:COMMENT
LOWos/scripts/migrate-to-openmower.sh57# Usage:COMMENT
Self-Referential Comments1 hit · 3 pts
SeverityFileLineSnippetContext
MEDIUMos/scripts/migrate-to-openmower.sh5# This file is the HEADER of a self-extracting installer: `make image-migration`COMMENT
AI Slop Vocabulary1 hit · 2 pts
SeverityFileLineSnippetContext
LOWos/build.sh433 # just set there instead. Harmless no-op diff if nothing changedCOMMENT