leyu-data-collection-platform/leyu-frontend

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.

leyu-data-collection-platform/leyu-frontend

https://github.com/leyu-data-collection-platform/leyu-frontend.git · scanned 2026-05-16 18:00 UTC (1 day, 3 hours ago) · 10 languages

304 findings (58 legacy + 246 scanner) 5th percentile · Typescript · medium (20-100K LoC) Scanner says 76 (lower by 22)

File as issue Image

UNIFIED Repobility · multi-layer engine · AI coders

Complete repo analysis

Last scanned 1 day, 3 hours ago · v2 · 181 findings from 2 sources. Findings combine the legacy security pipeline AND the multi-layer engine (atlas, wiring, flows, ranked) AND verified AI agent contributions.

JSON

{# ── 2026-05-17 R27 #5: score breakdown panel ────────────────────── Surfaces the score_breakdown JSON that's been silently stored on Repository for months. Turns hidden math into a trust signal. #}

Severity distribution — click a segment to filter

Active filters: excluding tests × Reset all

Bug-class explainers. Each card groups findings of the same shape — these are the patterns most likely to ship to prod and reappear in future scans unless you systematically fix the cause, not just the instance.

Fragile runtime 52 findings

What it is: Code that runs but breaks under predictable input — division by zero, missing keys, unbounded loops, off-by-one slicing.

Why it matters: Reaches production undetected because happy-path tests pass. First user with a weird input crashes the request.

How AI causes it: AI loves writing the happy path; doesn't probe edge cases unless explicitly asked.

Fix approach: Add property-based tests. Wrap external inputs with explicit validators. Use the framework's typed deserializer (Pydantic, attrs).

12 matching findings on this repo

medium Public web service has no security.txt .well-known/security.txt
medium Public web app has no Content Security Policy index.html
medium [ERR002] Empty Catch Block: Empty catch blocks hide errors. src/app/components/baseData/basedataUpdateModal.t…:65
medium [ERR002] Empty Catch Block: Empty catch blocks hide errors. src/app/api/auth/[...nextauth]/route.ts:185
medium [ERR002] Empty Catch Block: Empty catch blocks hide errors. src/app/(dashboard)/superadmin/setting/page.tsx:44
low Public web app has no humans.txt humans.txt
low Public docs site has no llms.txt llms.txt
low Public web app has no sitemap sitemap.xml
low Public web app has no robots.txt robots.txt
low Duplicated implementation block across source files src/app/(public)/linkForm/facilitator/[invitation…:5
low Duplicated implementation block across source files src/app/(public)/linkForm/contributor/[invitation…:228
low Duplicated implementation block across source files src/app/(dashboard)/superadmin/users/layout.tsx:1

View all fragile runtime findings →

Commented-out code 8 findings

What it is: Lines of source that were intentionally disabled but never deleted.

Why it matters: Git already remembers history — commented code rots, becomes wrong, and adds noise to diffs.

How AI causes it: AI sometimes comments out broken code instead of fixing it. Reviewers approve out of inertia.

Fix approach: Delete. Trust `git log`. If you really need to remember, save it in a notes file under `docs/`.

8 matching findings on this repo

info Commented-code block (12 lines) in src/app/(dashboard)/projectmanager/tasks/[id…
info Commented-code block (5 lines) in src/app/components/facilitator/microTaskList.…
info Commented-code block (11 lines) in src/app/components/facilitator/landing.tsx:1…
info Commented-code block (11 lines) in src/app/components/reviewer/landing.tsx:134
info Commented-code block (11 lines) in src/app/components/tasks/addTask.tsx:1
info Commented-code block (11 lines) in src/app/components/qualityAssurance/landing.…
info Commented-code block (9 lines) in src/app/components/projectManager/linkForm.ts…
info Commented-code block (10 lines) in src/app/components/project/taskTable.tsx:284

View all commented-out code findings →

Config drift 6 findings

What it is: Settings duplicated across env files, Docker compose, K8s, and code defaults, all with slightly different values.

Why it matters: Production behaviour depends on whichever copy your loader reads first. Subtle bugs in staging that don't reproduce in dev.

How AI causes it: AI writes new config from memory rather than reading the existing source.

Fix approach: Pick one source of truth (env vars + a settings module). Have every other place import from there. Lint for duplicates in CI.

6 matching findings on this repo

low File has no detected symbols: tailwind.config.js
low File has no detected symbols: next.config.js
low File has no detected symbols: postcss.config.js
low File has no detected symbols: next.config.ts
low File has no detected symbols: src/app/components/layout/menuConfig.ts
info 2 env vars used in code but missing from .env.example

View all config drift findings →

{# ── 2026-05-17 Round 14: AI-agent bridge footer ────────────────────── Discoverability: the /agents/voting/ guide + MCP manifest exist but aren't linked from anywhere users actually land. Small, opt-in footer. #}

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/424f5139-08e1-4fbc-a9b8-353e0c689723/

To check status programmatically (no auth required):

curl -s https://repobility.com/api/v1/public/scan/424f5139-08e1-4fbc-a9b8-353e0c689723/

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.