A powerful little TUI framework 🏗
This report presents the forensic synthetic code analysis of charmbracelet/bubbletea, a Go project with 43,737 GitHub stars. SynthScan v2.0 examined 16,693 lines of code across 168 source files, recording 51 pattern matches distributed across 4 syntactic categories. The overall adjusted score of 3.2 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).
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.
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.
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.
The scanner identified 51 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.
| Severity | File | Line | Snippet | Context |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| LOW | raw.go | 1 | package tea | COMMENT |
| LOW | raw.go | 21 | // for _, attr := range msg { | COMMENT |
| LOW | color.go | 41 | } | COMMENT |
| LOW | options.go | 41 | return func(p *Program) { | COMMENT |
| LOW | options.go | 101 | } | COMMENT |
| LOW | options.go | 121 | // return nil | COMMENT |
| LOW | tea.go | 61 | COMMENT | |
| LOW | tea.go | 81 | COMMENT | |
| LOW | tea.go | 101 | // breaking the unidirectional data flow of Bubble Tea. | COMMENT |
| LOW | tea.go | 121 | // } | COMMENT |
| LOW | tea.go | 141 | // WindowTitle sets the terminal window title. Support depends on the | COMMENT |
| LOW | tea.go | 161 | AltScreen bool | COMMENT |
| LOW | tea.go | 181 | // | COMMENT |
| LOW | tea.go | 201 | // | COMMENT |
| LOW | tea.go | 221 | // case "shift+enter": | COMMENT |
| LOW | tea.go | 241 | type KeyboardEnhancements struct { | COMMENT |
| LOW | tea.go | 261 | // ReportAssociatedText requests the terminal to report the text associated | COMMENT |
| LOW | tea.go | 281 | } | COMMENT |
| LOW | tea.go | 381 | } | COMMENT |
| LOW | tea.go | 441 | // filter supplies an event filter that will be invoked before Bubble Tea | COMMENT |
| LOW | tea.go | 461 | // | COMMENT |
| LOW | tea.go | 961 | // queried for various capabilities. | COMMENT |
| LOW | screen.go | 21 | return clearScreenMsg{} | COMMENT |
| LOW | screen.go | 41 | // | COMMENT |
| LOW | exec.go | 21 | // For non-interactive i/o you should use a Cmd (that is, a tea.Cmd). | COMMENT |
| LOW | exec.go | 41 | // cmd := ExecProcess(c, func(err error) Msg { | COMMENT |
| LOW | key.go | 201 | // convenient and readable to use this method when matching against keys. | COMMENT |
| LOW | key.go | 221 | } | COMMENT |
| LOW | key.go | 261 | COMMENT | |
| LOW | key.go | 281 | // | COMMENT |
| LOW | key.go | 301 | // 'A', '1', '!', etc.). | COMMENT |
| LOW | key.go | 321 | // | COMMENT |
| LOW | key.go | 341 | // Console API. | COMMENT |
| LOW | key.go | 361 | // - alt | COMMENT |
| LOW | mouse.go | 41 | MouseButton11 | COMMENT |
| LOW | mouse.go | 61 | // case MouseMsg: | COMMENT |
| LOW | cursed_renderer.go | 141 | COMMENT | |
| LOW | cursed_renderer.go | 501 | // just a cursor visibility change, we don't need to enter | COMMENT |
| LOW | termcap.go | 1 | package tea | COMMENT |
| LOW | termcap.go | 21 | // switch msg := msg.(type) { | COMMENT |
| LOW | environ.go | 1 | package tea | COMMENT |
| LOW | keyboard.go | 1 | package tea | COMMENT |
| LOW | keyboard.go | 21 | // } | COMMENT |
| LOW | commands.go | 61 | // the entire specified duration. For example, if we're ticking for one minute | COMMENT |
| LOW | commands.go | 81 | // func tickEvery() Cmd { | COMMENT |
| LOW | commands.go | 121 | // a message containing the time at which the tick occurred. | COMMENT |
| LOW | commands.go | 141 | // func (m model) Init() (Model, Cmd) { | COMMENT |
| LOW | examples/progress-static/main.go | 1 | package main | COMMENT |
| Severity | File | Line | Snippet | Context |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MEDIUM | examples/keyboard-enhancements/main.go | 41 | // This allows for more nuanced input handling in terminal applications. | COMMENT |
| Severity | File | Line | Snippet | Context |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| LOW | options.go | 14 | // Example usage: | COMMENT |
| Severity | File | Line | Snippet | Context |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| LOW | logging.go | 15 | // Don't forget to close the file when you're done with it. | COMMENT |