Repository Analysis

fullstorydev/grpcui

An interactive web UI for gRPC, along the lines of postman

3.6 Likely human-written View on GitHub

Analysis Overview

This report presents the forensic synthetic code analysis of fullstorydev/grpcui, a JavaScript project with 5,911 GitHub stars. SynthScan v2.0 examined 14,462 lines of code across 36 source files, recording 32 pattern matches distributed across 4 syntactic categories. The overall adjusted score of 3.6 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).

3.6
Adjusted Score
3.6
Raw Score
100%
Time Factor
2026-07-13
Last Push
5.9K
Stars
JavaScript
Language
14.5K
Lines of Code
36
Files
32
Pattern Hits
2026-07-14
Scan Date
0.06
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 2HIGH 0MEDIUM 1LOW 29

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 32 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 Block28 hits · 28 pts
SeverityFileLineSnippetContext
LOWhandlers.go21 "google.golang.org/grpc"COMMENT
LOWhandlers.go41// Note that the returned handler does not implement any CSRF protection. ToCOMMENT
LOWdoc.go1// Package grpcui provides a gRPC web UI in the form of HTTP handlers that canCOMMENT
LOWwebform.go21 webFormTemplate = template.Must(template.New("grpc web form").Parse(string(webform.Template())))COMMENT
LOWwebform.go41// pageHandler := func(w http.ResponseWriter, r *http.Request) {COMMENT
LOWwebform.go61 return WebFormContentsWithOptions(invokeURI, metadataURI, target, descs, WebFormOptions{})COMMENT
LOWwebform.go201// Note that the script, by default, does not handle CSRF protection. To addCOMMENT
LOWstandalone/doc.go1// Package standalone provides a stand-alone HTTP handler that provides aCOMMENT
LOWstandalone/doc.go21// return errCOMMENT
LOWstandalone/opts.go61// AddJSFile is like AddJS except that the contents are provided in the form ofCOMMENT
LOWstandalone/opts.go81 })COMMENT
LOWstandalone/opts.go121// given name is "foo/bar" and a request is made for "foo/bar/baz/buzz", thenCOMMENT
LOWinternal/resources/webform/webform.js301 * such as different border, then the message that contains it). TheCOMMENT
LOWinternal/resources/webform/webform.js641 }COMMENT
LOWinternal/resources/webform/webform.js2481COMMENT
LOWtesting/cmd/testsvr/test.pb.go181 // an error space that is not known in this address space. AlsoCOMMENT
LOWtesting/cmd/testsvr/test.pb.go201 RpcStatusCode_DEADLINE_EXCEEDED RpcStatusCode = 4COMMENT
LOWtesting/cmd/testsvr/test.pb.go221 // used if the caller can not be identified (use `UNAUTHENTICATED`COMMENT
LOWtesting/cmd/testsvr/test.pb.go241 // a non-directory, etc.COMMENT
LOWtesting/cmd/testsvr/test.pb.go261 // See the guidelines above for deciding between `FAILED_PRECONDITION`,COMMENT
LOWtesting/cmd/testsvr/test.pb.go281 //COMMENT
LOWtesting/cmd/testsvr/test_grpc.pb.go21const _ = grpc.SupportPackageIsVersion7COMMENT
LOWtesting/cmd/testsvr/test_grpc.pb.go41 // The DownloadMany method is like Exchange, except that it is for testing RPCs that haveCOMMENT
LOWtesting/cmd/testsvr/test_grpc.pb.go61 // form that has only the single Any message input.COMMENT
LOWtesting/cmd/testsvr/test_grpc.pb.go81 // SendDouble is for testing the UI web form, that it can construct a requestCOMMENT
LOWtesting/cmd/testsvr/test_grpc.pb.go921 Ping(context.Context, *emptypb.Empty) (*emptypb.Empty, error)COMMENT
LOWtesting/cmd/testsvr/test_grpc.pb.go941 // stream, so each request is mirrored to the response stream as it is received.COMMENT
LOWtesting/cmd/testsvr/test_grpc.pb.go961 SendValue(context.Context, *structpb.Value) (*emptypb.Empty, error)COMMENT
Hallucination Indicators2 hits · 20 pts
SeverityFileLineSnippetContext
CRITICALinternal/resources/standalone/jquery-3.4.1.min.js2!function(e,t){"use strict";"object"==typeof module&&"object"==typeof module.exports?module.exports=e.document?t(e,!0):fCODE
CRITICALinternal/resources/standalone/jquery-ui-1.12.1.min.js6(function(t){"function"==typeof define&&define.amd?define(["jquery"],t):t(jQuery)})(function(t){function e(t){for(var e=CODE
Self-Referential Comments1 hit · 3 pts
SeverityFileLineSnippetContext
MEDIUMreleasing/do-release.sh48# Create a new builder instanceCOMMENT
Fake / Example Data1 hit · 1 pts
SeverityFileLineSnippetContext
LOWinternal/resources/standalone/jquery-ui-1.12.1.min.js13}),a.closing=!0,this._trigger("close",e,{tooltip:i}),a.hiding||(a.closing=!1)),void 0):(n.removeData("ui-tooltip-open"),CODE