AI Slop Code RIsk Monitor

panjf2000/ants

🐜🐜🐜 ants is the most powerful and reliable pooling solution for Go.

6.1 Moderate pattern signal View on GitHub

Maintenance and Governance Review

This report summarizes scanner evidence for panjf2000/ants, a Go project with 14,509 GitHub stars. SynthScan examined 6,330 lines of code across 37 source files, recording 21 pattern matches distributed across 2 syntactic categories. The legacy adjusted pattern signal is 6.1 (Moderate 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.

6.1
Adjusted Signal
6.1
Raw Pattern Score
100%
Time Factor
2026-09-19
Last Push
14.5K
Stars
Go
Language
6.3K
Lines of Code
37
Files
21
Pattern Hits
2026-10-12
Scan Date
0.00
HC Hit Rate

Risk Review · v3

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

Cognitive Ownership Risk 11.9/100 · LOW

Can maintainers explain intent, assumptions, and trade-offs? 16 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 16.3/100 · LOW

Are wrappers, guards, and repeated structures necessary? 5 finding(s).

PR Review Velocity Impact 21.7/100 · LOW

Which changes need focused human review? 21 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 5LOW 16

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 21 distinct pattern matches across 2 syntactic categories. 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.

Decorative Section Separators5 hits · 22 pts
SeverityFileLineSnippetContext
MEDIUM⚡.github/workflows/codeql.yml23 # ┌───────────── minute (0 - 59)COMMENT
MEDIUM⚡.github/workflows/codeql.yml24 # │ ┌───────────── hour (0 - 23)COMMENT
MEDIUM⚡.github/workflows/codeql.yml25 # │ │ ┌───────────── day of the month (1 - 31)COMMENT
MEDIUM⚡.github/workflows/codeql.yml26 # │ │ │ ┌───────────── month (1 - 12 or JAN-DEC)COMMENT
MEDIUM⚡.github/workflows/codeql.yml27 # │ │ │ │ ┌───────────── day of the week (0 - 6 or SUN-SAT)COMMENT
Over-Commented Block16 hits · 16 pts
SeverityFileLineSnippetContext
LOWants.go1// MIT LicenseCOMMENT
LOWoptions.go41 // the scavenger scans all workers every `ExpiryDuration` and clean up those workers that haven't beenCOMMENT
LOWworker.go1// MIT LicenseCOMMENT
LOWworker_func.go1// MIT LicenseCOMMENT
LOWmultipool.go1// MIT LicenseCOMMENT
LOWmultipool_func.go1// MIT LicenseCOMMENT
LOWpool_func.go1// MIT LicenseCOMMENT
LOWworker_func_generic.go1// MIT LicenseCOMMENT
LOWpool_func_generic.go1// MIT LicenseCOMMENT
LOWants_test.go1// MIT LicenseCOMMENT
LOWpool.go1// MIT LicenseCOMMENT
LOWmultipool_func_generic.go1// MIT LicenseCOMMENT
LOWants_benchmark_test.go1// MIT LicenseCOMMENT
LOW.github/workflows/codeql.yml21 - '!.github/workflows/codeql.yml'COMMENT
LOW.github/workflows/codeql.yml61 # 📚 See https://docs.github.com/en/actions/using-workflows/workflow-syntax-for-github-actions#jobsjob_idstepsrunCOMMENT
LOW.github/workflows/release-drafter.yml21 permissions:COMMENT