Repository Analysis

dtolnay/proc-macro-workshop

Learn to write Rust procedural macros  [Rust Latam conference, Montevideo Uruguay, March 2019]

24.6 Moderate AI signal View on GitHub

Analysis Overview

This report presents the forensic synthetic code analysis of dtolnay/proc-macro-workshop, a Rust project with 4,834 GitHub stars. SynthScan v2.0 examined 2,840 lines of code across 71 source files, recording 62 pattern matches distributed across 2 syntactic categories. The overall adjusted score of 24.6 places this repository in the Moderate 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).

24.6
Adjusted Score
24.6
Raw Score
100%
Time Factor
2026-07-19
Last Push
4.8K
Stars
Rust
Language
2.8K
Lines of Code
71
Files
62
Pattern Hits
2026-08-02
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 4LOW 58

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 62 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 Block58 hits · 58 pts
SeverityFileLineSnippetContext
LOWmain.rs1// Write code here.COMMENT
LOWseq/tests/05-repeat-section.rs1// So far our macro has repeated the entire loop body. This is not sufficientCOMMENT
LOWseq/tests/05-repeat-section.rs21// enum Interrupt {COMMENT
LOWseq/tests/03-expand-four-errors.rs1// Now construct the generated code! Produce the output TokenStream by repeatingCOMMENT
LOWseq/tests/01-parse-header.rs1// This test looks for a function-like macro with the right name to exist. ForCOMMENT
LOWseq/tests/02-parse-body.rs1// The macro invocation in the previous test case contained an empty loop bodyCOMMENT
LOWseq/tests/08-ident-span.rs1// The procedural macro API uses a type called Span to attach source locationCOMMENT
LOWseq/tests/09-interaction-with-macrorules.rs1// Suppose we wanted a seq invocation in which the upper bound is given by theCOMMENT
LOWseq/tests/progress.rs1#[test]COMMENT
LOWseq/tests/04-paste-ident.rs1// One of the big things callers will want to do with the sequential indices NCOMMENT
LOWbitfield/tests/07-optional-discriminant.rs1// For bitfield use limited to a single binary, such as a space optimization forCOMMENT
LOWbitfield/tests/01-specifier-types.rs1// Our design for #[bitfield] (see the readme) involves marker types B1 throughCOMMENT
LOWbitfield/tests/01-specifier-types.rs21// Physical = 0,COMMENT
LOWbitfield/tests/01-specifier-types.rs41// Create a trait called bitfield::Specifier with an associated constant BITS,COMMENT
LOWbitfield/tests/06-enums.rs1// For some bitfield members, working with them as enums will make more sense toCOMMENT
LOWbitfield/tests/06-enums.rs21// explicit discriminant that is an integer literal. We will relax thisCOMMENT
LOWbitfield/tests/03-accessors.rs1// Generate getters and setters that manipulate the right range of bitsCOMMENT
LOWbitfield/tests/progress.rs1#[test]COMMENT
LOWbitfield/tests/12-accessors-edge.rs1// This test is equivalent to 03-accessors but with some fields spanning acrossCOMMENT
LOWbitfield/tests/10-bits-attribute.rs1// One downside of the way we have implemented enum support so far is that itCOMMENT
LOWbitfield/tests/04-multiple-of-8bits.rs1// Make it so that a bitfield with a size not a multiple of 8 bits will notCOMMENT
LOWbitfield/tests/04-multiple-of-8bits.rs21//COMMENT
LOWbitfield/tests/02-storage.rs1// Write an attribute macro that replaces the struct in its input with a byteCOMMENT
LOWbitfield/src/lib.rs1// Crates that have the "proc-macro" crate type are only allowed to exportCOMMENT
LOWsorted/tests/02-not-enum.rs1// The #[sorted] macro is only defined to work on enum types, so this is a testCOMMENT
LOWsorted/tests/03-out-of-order.rs1// At this point we have an enum and we need to check whether the variantsCOMMENT
LOWsorted/tests/06-pattern-path.rs1// When we checked enum definitions for sortedness, it was sufficient to compareCOMMENT
LOWsorted/tests/05-match-expr.rs1// Get ready for a challenging step -- this test case is going to be a muchCOMMENT
LOWsorted/tests/05-match-expr.rs21//COMMENT
LOWsorted/tests/05-match-expr.rs41// before.COMMENT
LOWsorted/tests/progress.rs1#[test]COMMENT
LOWsorted/tests/01-parse-enum.rs1// This test checks that an attribute macro #[sorted] exists and is importedCOMMENT
LOWbuilder/tests/06-optional-field.rs1// Some fields may not always need to be specified. Typically these would beCOMMENT
LOWbuilder/tests/06-optional-field.rs21// In the context of the current test case, all of this means that there isn'tCOMMENT
LOWbuilder/tests/06-optional-field.rs41// AngleBracketedGenericArguments {COMMENT
LOWbuilder/tests/09-redefined-prelude-types.rs1// Does your macro still work if some of the standard library prelude item namesCOMMENT
LOWbuilder/tests/02-create-builder.rs1// Have the macro produce a struct for the builder state, and a `builder`COMMENT
LOWbuilder/tests/02-create-builder.rs21// }COMMENT
LOWbuilder/tests/progress.rs1#[test]COMMENT
LOWbuilder/tests/08-unrecognized-attribute.rs1// Ensure that your macro reports a reasonable error message when the callerCOMMENT
LOWbuilder/tests/07-repeated-field.rs1// The std::process::Command builder handles args in a way that is potentiallyCOMMENT
LOWbuilder/tests/07-repeated-field.rs21// If the new one-at-a-time builder method is given the same name as the field,COMMENT
LOWbuilder/tests/03-call-setters.rs1// Generate methods on the builder for setting a value of each of the structCOMMENT
LOWbuilder/tests/01-parse.rs1// This test looks for a derive macro with the right name to exist. For now theCOMMENT
LOWbuilder/tests/04-call-build.rs1// Generate a `build` method to go from builder to original struct.COMMENT
LOWdebug/tests/07-associated-type.rs1// This test case covers one more heuristic that is often worth incorporatingCOMMENT
LOWdebug/tests/04-type-parameter.rs1// Figure out what impl needs to be generated for the Debug impl of Field<T>.COMMENT
LOWdebug/tests/08-escape-hatch.rs1// There are some cases where no heuristic would be sufficient to infer theCOMMENT
LOWdebug/tests/progress.rs1#[test]COMMENT
LOWdebug/tests/05-phantom-data.rs1// Some generic types implement Debug even when their type parameters do not.COMMENT
LOWdebug/tests/05-phantom-data.rs21// in other application-specific special cases.COMMENT
LOWdebug/tests/03-custom-format.rs1// Look for a field attribute #[debug = "..."] on each field. If present, find aCOMMENT
LOWdebug/tests/02-impl-debug.rs1// Emit an implementation of std::fmt::Debug for a basic struct with namedCOMMENT
LOWdebug/tests/01-parse.rs1// This test looks for a derive macro with the right name to exist. For now theCOMMENT
LOWdebug/tests/06-bound-trouble.rs1// This test case should not require any code change in your macro if you haveCOMMENT
LOWdebug/tests/06-bound-trouble.rs21// T: Debug,COMMENT
LOWdebug/tests/06-bound-trouble.rs41//COMMENT
LOWdebug/tests/06-bound-trouble.rs61// -->COMMENT
Decorative Section Separators4 hits · 12 pts
SeverityFileLineSnippetContext
MEDIUMbitfield/tests/03-accessors.rs6// ╟───────────────╫───────────────╫───────────────╫───────────────╢COMMENT
MEDIUMbitfield/tests/03-accessors.rs8// ╟─╫─────╫───────╫───────────────────────────────────────────────╢COMMENT
MEDIUMbitfield/tests/12-accessors-edge.rs7// ╟───────────────╫───────────────╫───────────────╫───────────────╢COMMENT
MEDIUMbitfield/tests/12-accessors-edge.rs9// ╟─────────────────╫───────────╫─────────────────────────╫───────╢COMMENT