Repository Analysis

gitleaks/gitleaks

Find secrets with Gitleaks 🔑

2.3 Likely human-written View on GitHub

Analysis Overview

This report presents the forensic synthetic code analysis of gitleaks/gitleaks, a Go project with 28,133 GitHub stars. SynthScan v2.0 examined 27,340 lines of code across 297 source files, recording 50 pattern matches distributed across 4 syntactic categories. The overall adjusted score of 2.3 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).

2.3
Adjusted Score
2.3
Raw Score
100%
Time Factor
2026-07-08
Last Push
28.1K
Stars
Go
Language
27.3K
Lines of Code
297
Files
50
Pattern Hits
2026-07-14
Scan Date
0.01
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 3MEDIUM 0LOW 47

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 50 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.

Fake / Example Data24 hits · 24 pts
SeverityFileLineSnippetContext
LOWdetect/detect_test.go955 Email: "user@example.com",CODE
LOWdetect/detect_test.go976 Email: "user@example.com",CODE
LOWdetect/detect_test.go997 Email: "user@example.com",CODE
LOWdetect/detect_test.go1018 Email: "user@example.com",CODE
LOWdetect/detect_test.go1039 Email: "user@example.com",CODE
LOWdetect/detect_test.go1060 Email: "user@example.com",CODE
LOWdetect/detect_test.go1081 Email: "user@example.com",CODE
LOWdetect/detect_test.go1102 Email: "user@example.com",CODE
LOWdetect/detect_test.go1123 Email: "user@example.com",CODE
LOWdetect/detect_test.go1144 Email: "user@example.com",CODE
LOWdetect/detect_test.go1165 Email: "user@example.com",CODE
LOWdetect/detect_test.go1186 Email: "user@example.com",CODE
LOWdetect/detect_test.go1207 Email: "user@example.com",CODE
LOWdetect/detect_test.go1228 Email: "user@example.com",CODE
LOWdetect/detect_test.go1249 Email: "user@example.com",CODE
LOWdetect/detect_test.go1270 Email: "user@example.com",CODE
LOWtestdata/expected/report/json_simple.json15 "Author": "John Doe",CODE
LOWtestdata/expected/report/template_jsonextra.json15 "Author": "John Doe",CODE
LOWreport/template_test.go36 Author: "John Doe",CODE
LOWreport/template_test.go61 Author: "John Doe",CODE
LOWreport/json_test.go25 Author: "John Doe",CODE
LOWreport/junit_test.go36 Author: "John Doe",CODE
LOWreport/csv_test.go35 Author: "John Doe",CODE
LOWreport/sarif_test.go40 Author: "John Doe",CODE
Over-Commented Block22 hits · 22 pts
SeverityFileLineSnippetContext
LOWREADME.md241COMMENT
LOWREADME.md261# appended and can contain duplicates.COMMENT
LOWdetect/detect_test.go61secret=6465636F6465642D7365637265742D76616C756576484558COMMENT
LOWdetect/reader.go41// StreamDetectReader streams the detection results from the provided io.Reader.COMMENT
LOWdetect/reader.go61// findingsCh, errCh := detector.StreamDetectReader(myReader, 64) // using 64 KB buffer sizeCOMMENT
LOWcmd/detect.go1// The `detect` and `protect` command is now deprecated. Here are some equivalent commandsCOMMENT
LOWcmd/generate/config/utils/generate.go121 // TODO: "php - null coalesce": `${i}Token ??= "{s}"`,COMMENT
LOWcmd/generate/config/rules/curl.go121 // Short flag.COMMENT
LOWcmd/generate/config/rules/1password.go41 return utils.Validate(r, tps, fps)COMMENT
LOWcmd/generate/config/rules/sentry.go21 },COMMENT
LOWcmd/generate/config/base/config.go41 // ----------- Interpolated Variables -----------COMMENT
LOWconfig/gitleaks.toml1# This file has been auto-generated. Do not edit manually.COMMENT
LOWconfig/allowlist.go41COMMENT
LOWscripts/profile.sh1#! /usr/bin/env bashCOMMENT
LOWsources/git_test.go1package sourcesCOMMENT
LOWsources/git_test.go21// source: filepath.Join(repoBasePath, "small"),COMMENT
LOWsources/git_test.go41// }COMMENT
LOWsources/git_test.go61// t.Error("expected: ", expected, "got: ", diffSb.String())COMMENT
LOWsources/git_test.go81// err := moveDotGit("dotGit", ".git")COMMENT
LOWsources/git_test.go101COMMENT
LOWsources/git_test.go121COMMENT
LOWsources/git_test.go141// os.RemoveAll(fmt.Sprintf("%s/%s/%s", repoBasePath, dir.Name(), ".git"))COMMENT
Cross-File Repetition3 hits · 15 pts
SeverityFileLineSnippetContext
HIGHtestdata/config/valid/rule_entropy_group.toml0(?i)(discord[a-z0-9_ .\-,]{0,25})(=|>|:=|\|\|:|<=|=>|:).{0,5}['\"]([a-h0-9]{64})['\"]STRING
HIGHtestdata/config/invalid/rule_bad_entropy_group.toml0(?i)(discord[a-z0-9_ .\-,]{0,25})(=|>|:=|\|\|:|<=|=>|:).{0,5}['\"]([a-h0-9]{64})['\"]STRING
HIGHtestdata/config/invalid/rule_missing_id.toml0(?i)(discord[a-z0-9_ .\-,]{0,25})(=|>|:=|\|\|:|<=|=>|:).{0,5}['\"]([a-h0-9]{64})['\"]STRING
Hyper-Verbose Identifiers1 hit · 1 pts
SeverityFileLineSnippetContext
LOWcmd/generate/config/rules/huggingface.go105 `def test_internal_api_org_inclusion_with_href(api_name, href, expected, monkeypatch, called_with):CODE