Repository Analysis

nginx-proxy/acme-companion

Automated ACME SSL certificate generation for nginx-proxy

11.3 Low AI signal View on GitHub

Analysis Overview

This report presents the forensic synthetic code analysis of nginx-proxy/acme-companion, a Shell project with 7,716 GitHub stars. SynthScan v2.0 examined 6,430 lines of code across 67 source files, recording 49 pattern matches distributed across 4 syntactic categories. The overall adjusted score of 11.3 places this repository in the Low AI signal 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).

11.3
Adjusted Score
11.3
Raw Score
100%
Time Factor
2026-07-12
Last Push
7.7K
Stars
Shell
Language
6.4K
Lines of Code
67
Files
49
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 3LOW 46

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 49 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.

Redundant / Tautological Comments25 hits · 38 pts
SeverityFileLineSnippetContext
LOWapp/functions.sh180 # Check if a certificate ($1) is still valid for a given amount of time in seconds ($2).COMMENT
LOWapp/functions.sh376 # Check if this user exist inside the containerCOMMENT
LOWapp/functions.sh389 # Check if this group exist inside the containerCOMMENT
LOWapp/entrypoint.sh112 # Check if the DH params file is user provided or comes from acme-companionCOMMENT
LOWapp/entrypoint.sh121 # Check if /etc/nginx/certs/dhparam.pem matches the expected pre-generated DH groupCOMMENT
LOWapp/entrypoint.sh152 # Check if the existing default certificate is still valid for moreCOMMENT
LOWtest/run.sh318# Check if output should be considered "no output"COMMENT
LOWtest/tests/container_restart/run.sh49 # Check if container restartedCOMMENT
LOWtest/tests/symlinks/run.sh61# Check if ${domains[2]} symlink is still thereCOMMENT
LOWtest/tests/symlinks/run.sh88# Check if the symlinks are correctly removedCOMMENT
LOWtest/tests/symlinks/run.sh112# Check if the custom certificate is still thereCOMMENT
LOWtest/tests/symlinks/run.sh116# Check if the default certificate is still thereCOMMENT
LOWtest/tests/certs_standalone/run.sh71# Check if the domain is on the certificate.COMMENT
LOWtest/tests/certs_standalone/run.sh107 # Check if the domain is on the certificate.COMMENT
LOWtest/tests/ocsp_must_staple/run.sh37# Check if the OCSP Must-Staple extension is present in the ${domains[0]} certificateCOMMENT
LOWtest/tests/ocsp_must_staple/run.sh47# Check if the OCSP Must-Staple extension is absent from the ${domains[1]} certificateCOMMENT
LOWtest/tests/certs_single_domain/run.sh68 # Check if the domain is on the certificate.COMMENT
LOWtest/tests/certs_single/run.sh49 # Check if the domain is on the certificate.COMMENT
LOWtest/tests/certs_san/run.sh64 # Check if the domain is on the certificate.COMMENT
LOWtest/tests/acme_hooks/run.sh58# Check if the default command is deliverd properly in /etc/acme.shCOMMENT
LOWtest/tests/acme_hooks/run.sh81# Check if the default action is performedCOMMENT
LOWtest/tests/acme_hooks/run.sh92# Check if the per-container command is deliverd properly in /etc/acme.shCOMMENT
LOWtest/tests/acme_hooks/run.sh113# Check if the percontainer action is performedCOMMENT
LOWtest/tests/location_config/run.sh40# Check if the ACME location configuration was correctly applied (ie only once) to the target fileCOMMENT
LOWtest/tests/certs_default_renew_deprecated/run.sh57# Check if the default command is delivered properly in /etc/acme.shCOMMENT
Structural Annotation Overuse10 hits · 15 pts
SeverityFileLineSnippetContext
LOWREADME.md66### Step 1 - nginx-proxyCOMMENT
LOWREADME.md83### Step 2 - acme-companionCOMMENT
LOWREADME.md101### Step 3 - proxied container(s)COMMENT
LOWdocs/Basic-usage.md14### Step 1 - nginx-proxyCOMMENT
LOWdocs/Basic-usage.md31### Step 2 - acme-companionCOMMENT
LOWdocs/Basic-usage.md49### Step 3 - proxied container(s)COMMENT
LOWdocs/Advanced-usage.md19### Step 1 - nginxCOMMENT
LOWdocs/Advanced-usage.md34### Step 2 - docker-genCOMMENT
LOWdocs/Advanced-usage.md51### Step 3 - acme-companionCOMMENT
LOWdocs/Advanced-usage.md66### Step 4 - proxied container(s)COMMENT
Over-Commented Block11 hits · 11 pts
SeverityFileLineSnippetContext
LOWtest/run.sh1#!/usr/bin/env bashCOMMENT
LOWtest/run.sh21#COMMENT
LOWtest/run.sh41#COMMENT
LOWtest/run.sh61# means any form of electronic, verbal, or written communication sentCOMMENT
LOWtest/run.sh81# this License, each Contributor hereby grants to You a perpetual,COMMENT
LOWtest/run.sh101# (a) You must give any other recipients of the Work orCOMMENT
LOWtest/run.sh121# within a display generated by the Derivative Works, if andCOMMENT
LOWtest/run.sh141# Notwithstanding the above, nothing herein shall supersede or modifyCOMMENT
LOWtest/run.sh161# whether in tort (including negligence), contract, or otherwise,COMMENT
LOWtest/run.sh181# of your accepting any such warranty or additional liability.COMMENT
LOWtest/tests/docker_api_tls/run.sh1#!/bin/bashCOMMENT
Self-Referential Comments3 hits · 9 pts
SeverityFileLineSnippetContext
MEDIUMapp/entrypoint.sh159 # Create a default cert and private key if:COMMENT
MEDIUMtest/run.sh4# This file is adapted from the Docker official images test suiteCOMMENT
MEDIUMtest/tests/symlinks/run.sh43# Create a fake le4.wtf custom certificate and keyCOMMENT