AI Slop Code Risk Monitor

jeinlee1991/chinese-llm-benchmark

SlopCodeMonitor badge for jeinlee1991/chinese-llm-benchmark Adjusted legacy signal; badge bands: 25 / 50 / 75 (different from dashboard bands).

非线智能 NoneLinear - ReLE评测:中文AI大模型能力评测(持续更新):目前已囊括374个大模型,覆盖chatgpt、gpt-5.4、谷歌gemini-3.1-pro、Claude-4.6、文心ERNIE-X1.1、ERNIE-5.0、qwen3.6-max、qwen3.6-plus、百川、讯飞星火、商汤senseChat等商用模型, 以及step3.5-flash、kimi-k2.6、ernie4.5、MiniMax-M2.7、deepseek-v4、Qwen3.6、llama4、智谱GLM-5.1、MiMo-V2、LongCat、gemma4、mistral等开源大模型。不仅提供排行榜,也提供规模超200万的大模型缺陷库!方便广大社区研究分析、改进大模型。

0.3 Low pattern signal View on GitHub

Open-Source Code Quality, Security and Technical Debt Review

This report summarizes scanner evidence for jeinlee1991/chinese-llm-benchmark with 6,493 GitHub stars. SynthScan examined 29,000 lines of code across 298 source files, recording 4 pattern matches distributed across 1 syntactic category. The legacy adjusted pattern signal is 0.3 (Low pattern signal); it is not an authorship estimate.

Use the findings to ask whether maintainers can explain intent, verify dependencies, simplify unnecessary scaffolding, and focus review effort. Risk Payload v1 adds ownership, supply-chain, over-engineering, and review-effort vectors when available. These are prompts for human verification, not probabilities, security findings, or measured maintenance costs.

0.3
Adjusted Signal
0.3
Raw Pattern Score
100%
Time Factor
2026-10-27
Last Push
6.5K
Stars
—
Language
29.0K
Lines of Code
298
Files
4
Pattern Hits
2026-10-31
Scan Date
0.00
HC Hit Rate

Risk Review · Payload v1

Use each vector to guide manual verification of the underlying findings.

Payload schema: 1.0.0 · Engine: 2.0.0 · Scoring: heuristic-density-v1 · Scan date: 2026-10-31.

Cognitive Ownership Risk 1.4/100 · LOW

Can maintainers explain intent, assumptions, and trade-offs? 4 finding(s).

Hallucinated Dependency & Supply Chain Risk 0.0/100 · LOW

Are imports declared and package/API names verified? 0 finding(s).

Agent Over-Engineering Ratio 0.0/100 · LOW

Are wrappers, guards, and repeated structures necessary? 0 finding(s).

PR Review Velocity Impact 2.0/100 · LOW

Which changes need focused human review? 4 finding(s).

What These Metrics Mean

Adjusted Signal
Legacy pattern score normalized per 1,000 scanned lines and multiplied by the repository-level time factor. It is not an estimate of AI authorship.
Raw Pattern Score
Sum of severity- and context-weighted pattern findings before applying the time factor.
Time Factor
A coarse multiplier based on repository last-push metadata. It does not identify when individual code was written.
Pattern Hits
Count of configured pattern findings. Review each location and surrounding code before acting.
HC Hit Rate
High- and critical-severity findings per scanned file. Severity is a configured detector weight, not proof of a vulnerability or authorship.
Lines / Files
Scan coverage denominators used by the legacy normalized score.

Pattern-Signal History

This chart tracks the legacy adjusted pattern score across scan runs. Changes can reflect source changes, scan coverage, or detector/scoring versions; they do not measure AI adoption or prove that a team refactored code. Compare runs only when their scoring versions are compatible. The dashed line tracks the raw pattern-hit count.

Severity Breakdown

Groups findings by configured severity weight. Severity is not a confidence estimate, security rating, or proof that a package is missing. Verify imports against the project's manifests and inspect each finding in its local design context.

CRITICAL 0HIGH 0MEDIUM 4LOW 0

Directory Score Breakdown

This horizontal bar chart shows where configured pattern scores accumulate across directories. Treat the bars as locations to inspect, not as evidence of authorship or code quality. Use the file-level findings to decide whether a directory needs a focused ownership, dependency, complexity, or review check.

Pattern Findings

The scanner identified 4 distinct pattern matches across 1 syntactic category. Each entry below represents a discrete location in the source code where the engine recorded a detector match to inspect in context. 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 configured finding weight (CRITICAL / HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW). The Context column identifies whether the match occurred inside executable code, an inline comment, or a string literal — legacy comment-context matches receive a ×1.5 score weight. The ⚡ bolt icon marks clustered matches: three or more patterns within a 10-line window, each receiving an additional ×1.5 density multiplier under the legacy scoring model.

Modern AI Meta-Vocabulary4 hits · 8 pts
SeverityFileLineSnippetContext
MEDIUMGitHub热门评测repo.md4| [opik](https://github.com/comet-ml/opik) | 21.3k | 国外 | Debug, evaluatCODE
MEDIUMREADME.md119| [opik](https://github.com/comet-ml/opik) | 21.3k | 国外 | Debug, evaluate,CODE
MEDIUM每周最新模型.md161https://ai.google.dev/gemini-api/docs/video-understanding?hl=zh-cn#agentic-video-understandingCODE
MEDIUM每周最新模型.md161https://ai.google.dev/gemini-api/docs/video-understanding?hl=zh-cn#agentic-video-understandingCODE