Repository Analysis

go-resty/resty

Simple HTTP, REST, and SSE client library for Go

3.8 Likely human-written View on GitHub

Analysis Overview

This report presents the forensic synthetic code analysis of go-resty/resty, a Go project with 11,723 GitHub stars. SynthScan v2.0 examined 25,654 lines of code across 44 source files, recording 122 pattern matches distributed across 2 syntactic categories. The overall adjusted score of 3.8 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).

3.8
Adjusted Score
3.8
Raw Score
100%
Time Factor
2026-07-09
Last Push
11.7K
Stars
Go
Language
25.7K
Lines of Code
44
Files
122
Pattern Hits
2026-07-14
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

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 0MEDIUM 0LOW 122

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 122 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 Block120 hits · 94 pts
SeverityFileLineSnippetContext
LOWhedging.go41// - 50ms delay between requestsCOMMENT
LOWhedging.go61 delay: 50 * time.Millisecond, // delay between requestsCOMMENT
LOWmultipart.go41 // FilePath is the file path used for multipart upload. It is optional ifCOMMENT
LOWsse.go101// OnMessage(COMMENT
LOWsse.go221 return cfgCOMMENT
LOWsse.go281// },COMMENT
LOWsse.go301// the request while establishing a connection to the event sourceCOMMENT
LOWsse.go341COMMENT
LOWsse.go441 sse.log.Warnf("Overwriting an existing OnRequestFailure callback from=%s to=%s",COMMENT
LOWsse.go461// // to do auto-unmarshalCOMMENT
LOWsse.go481// fmt.Println(event)COMMENT
LOWstream.go21var (COMMENT
LOWstream.go41COMMENT
LOWresponse.go61 return ""COMMENT
LOWresponse.go81// fmt.Println(err, res)COMMENT
LOWresponse.go141COMMENT
LOWrequest.go181//COMMENT
LOWrequest.go201COMMENT
LOWrequest.go221//COMMENT
LOWrequest.go241//COMMENT
LOWrequest.go261// SetHeaderVerbatim("all_lowercase", "available").COMMENT
LOWrequest.go281//COMMENT
LOWrequest.go301 return rCOMMENT
LOWrequest.go321 r.QueryParams.Set(param, strVal)COMMENT
LOWrequest.go341 return rCOMMENT
LOWrequest.go381 }COMMENT
LOWrequest.go421COMMENT
LOWrequest.go441//COMMENT
LOWrequest.go461// }`)COMMENT
LOWrequest.go481//COMMENT
LOWrequest.go501}COMMENT
LOWrequest.go541// SetFiles method sets multiple file field names and their paths for multipart uploads.COMMENT
LOWrequest.go621// &resty.MultipartField{COMMENT
LOWrequest.go641// },COMMENT
LOWrequest.go681//COMMENT
LOWrequest.go701//COMMENT
LOWrequest.go721// Information about Auth schemes can be found in [RFC 7235], IANA [HTTP Auth schemes]COMMENT
LOWrequest.go741COMMENT
LOWrequest.go761}COMMENT
LOWrequest.go801// SetResponseBodyLimit method sets a maximum body size limit in bytes on response,COMMENT
LOWrequest.go821//COMMENT
LOWrequest.go841// client.R().SetPathParam("path", "groups/developers")COMMENT
LOWrequest.go861//COMMENT
LOWrequest.go881// Resty current request instance.COMMENT
LOWrequest.go901 return rCOMMENT
LOWrequest.go921//COMMENT
LOWrequest.go941// The value will be used as-is, no path escape applied.COMMENT
LOWrequest.go981}COMMENT
LOWrequest.go1001 r.jsonEscapeHTML = bCOMMENT
LOWrequest.go1021// &http.Cookie{COMMENT
LOWrequest.go1041//COMMENT
LOWrequest.go1061}COMMENT
LOWrequest.go1081//COMMENT
LOWrequest.go1121//COMMENT
LOWrequest.go1161 return rCOMMENT
LOWrequest.go1181 r.IsRetryDefaultConditions = bCOMMENT
LOWrequest.go1201// client := resty.New()COMMENT
LOWrequest.go1221//COMMENT
LOWrequest.go1261 r.curlCmdString = buildCurlCmd(r)COMMENT
LOWrequest.go1381//‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾COMMENT
60 more matches not shown…
Structural Annotation Overuse2 hits · 3 pts
SeverityFileLineSnippetContext
LOWsse.go233// NOTE: This method overwrites existing [http.Transport.TLSClientConfig]COMMENT
LOWclient.go1615// NOTE: This method overwrites existing [http.Transport.TLSClientConfig]COMMENT