mozilla/pdf.js

Public scan — anyone with this URL can view this analysis. Sign up to track your own repos privately, run scheduled re-scans, and get AI fix prompts via your dashboard.

15 of your 52 findings came from Repobility's proprietary detections. ✓ Repobility tags below mark them.

https://github.com/mozilla/pdf.js · scanned 2026-06-05 11:07 UTC (1 week, 1 day ago) · 10 languages

574 raw signals (46 security + 528 graph) 11/13 scanners ran 38th percentile · Javascript · large (100-500K LoC) System graph score 83 (lower by 9)

File as issue Image

UNIFIED Repobility · multi-layer engine · AI coders

Complete repo analysis

Last scanned 1 week, 1 day ago · v2 · 275 actionable findings from 2 signal sources. 34 repeated signals grouped for readability. Security checks, system graph analysis, and verified AI-agent feedback are merged into one review queue.

JSON

100.0% cov · 258 findings

Score breakdown â 2026-05-18-v5

Component	Sub-score	Weight	Contribution
`structure_score`	100.0	0.15	15.00
`security_score`	100.0	0.25	25.00
`testing_score`	44.0	0.20	8.80
`documentation_score`	62.0	0.15	9.30
`practices_score`	69.0	0.15	10.35
`code_quality`	50.0	0.10	5.00
Overall		1.00	73.5

security_score may be inflated — optional security scanners were skipped on this fast scan

Severity distribution — click a segment to filter

Active filters: source: legacy × excluding tests × Reset all

Severity: Critical 3 High 11 Medium 34 Low 94 9-Layer: Software Security Quality Integrity Frontend Hardware Data Network Cicd Source: Security checks 17 System graph 258 Crowd 0 Layer: Quality 136 Security 14 Software 52 Cicd 3 Api 1 Frontend 69

Exclude dismissed / FP Exclude test files

Scan summary Quality grade B (74/100). Dimensions: security 100, maintainability 100. 46 findings (7 security). 155,760 lines analyzed.

Showing 9 of 275 actionable findings. 309 raw detector signals were grouped into reader-sized issues. Click TP / FP to vote on a finding's accuracy — votes adjust the confidence weighting and improve detection across the platform.

critical Security checks quality Quality conf 1.00 ✓ Repobility 3 occurrences [MINED024] Js Eval Usage: eval() executes arbitrary code. Code injection risk.

Review and fix per the pattern semantics. See CWE-95 / for context.

3 files, 3 locations

src/pdf.sandbox.js:55

src/scripting_api/initialization.js:50

src/shared/internal_evt.js:22

low Security checks cicd CI/CD security conf 0.35 ✓ Repobility 4 occurrences Workflow references repository secrets in a pull_request workflow

Fork pull_request runs do not receive normal repository secrets on GitHub Actions. Review this as a reliability/intent signal, not as direct fork-secret exfiltration. Raise severity only for pull_request_target or another trusted-context path that runs untrusted PR code with secrets.

4 files, 4 locations

.github/workflows/coverage_browser_tests.yml:92

.github/workflows/font_tests.yml:76

.github/workflows/integration_tests.yml:99

.github/workflows/unit_tests.yml:86

CI/CD securityworkflow secretsGitHub Actions

medium Security checks quality Practices conf 1.00 [CFG006] Missing .gitignore: No .gitignore file. Risk of committing secrets and build artifacts.

Add a .gitignore appropriate for your language/framework.

medium Security checks quality Error handling conf 1.00 [ERR002] Empty Catch Block: Empty catch blocks hide errors.

Log the error or rethrow it. Use console.error() at minimum.

src/core/editor/pdf_images.js:114

medium Security checks quality Error handling conf 1.00 [ERR002] Empty Catch Block: Empty catch blocks hide errors.

Log the error or rethrow it. Use console.error() at minimum.

src/core/decode_stream.js:142

medium Security checks quality Quality Average file size is 504 lines (recommend <300)

Refactor large files by extracting related functions into separate modules. Target files with 300+ lines first. Use the Single Responsibility Principle — each module should have one clear purpose.

medium Security checks quality Quality conf 0.78 Suspicious implementation file appears unreferenced

Confirm whether this file is reachable. If not, delete it; if yes, wire it through explicit imports, routes, or entry points and add a test that proves the path executes.

extensions/chromium/suppress-update.js:1

low Security checks quality Quality conf 0.60 14 occurrences Duplicated implementation block across source files

Duplicate implementation blocks are maintenance debt. Keep them visible, but they are not a high-severity defect unless the duplicated logic is security-sensitive or drifting.

11 files, 14 locations

src/display/editor/ink.js:111, 243 (2 hits)

src/display/editor/stamp.js:495, 743 (2 hits)

test/font/font_post_spec.js:25, 46 (2 hits)

src/core/flate_stream.js:120

src/core/to_unicode_map.js:19

src/display/network.js:2

src/display/node_stream.js:55

src/display/transport_stream.js:129

duplicationquality

high Security checks quality Quality conf 0.62 Source file name looks like an AI patch artifact

Rename it to the domain concept it implements or merge it into the existing module it was meant to change.

extensions/chromium/suppress-update.js:1

For AI agents: Voting guide (TP/FP) MCP manifest Stdio wrapper SARIF Integrate Findings queue Vote TP/FP on findings to calibrate the engine.

For AI agents + API integrations

Email me when this repo regresses

Free. We re-scan periodically; new criticals → your inbox. No signup required for the scan itself.

API access

This page is publicly accessible at: https://repobility.com/scan/2f74ab68-f443-492b-a9d6-3f4280151f6a/

To check status programmatically (no auth required):

curl -s https://repobility.com/api/v1/public/scan/2f74ab68-f443-492b-a9d6-3f4280151f6a/

Important — please don't re-submit the same URL repeatedly. The submission endpoint is idempotent: re-submitting the same git URL returns this same scan_token, not a new one. To re-scan this repo, sign up free and use the dashboard.