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。
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.
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.
Can maintainers explain intent, assumptions, and trade-offs? 4 finding(s).
Are imports declared and package/API names verified? 0 finding(s).
Are wrappers, guards, and repeated structures necessary? 0 finding(s).
Which changes need focused human review? 4 finding(s).
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.
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.
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.
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.
| Severity | File | Line | Snippet | Context |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MEDIUM | GitHub热门评测repo.md | 4 | | [opik](https://github.com/comet-ml/opik) | 21.3k | 国外 | Debug, evaluat | CODE |
| MEDIUM | README.md | 119 | | [opik](https://github.com/comet-ml/opik) | 21.3k | 国外 | Debug, evaluate, | CODE |
| MEDIUM | 每周最新模型.md | 161 | https://ai.google.dev/gemini-api/docs/video-understanding?hl=zh-cn#agentic-video-understanding | CODE |
| MEDIUM | 每周最新模型.md | 161 | https://ai.google.dev/gemini-api/docs/video-understanding?hl=zh-cn#agentic-video-understanding | CODE |