browser-use/browser-use

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.

191 of your 294 findings came from Repobility's proprietary detections. ✓ Repobility tags below mark them.

Scan timing: clone 3.68s · analysis 17.0s · 8.0 MB · GitHub preflight 454ms

https://github.com/browser-use/browser-use · scanned 2026-06-05 06:49 UTC (6 days, 1 hour ago) · 10 languages

549 raw signals (273 security + 276 graph) 54th percentile · Python · medium (20-100K LoC)

File as issue Image

UNIFIED Repobility · multi-layer engine · AI coders

Complete repo analysis

Last scanned 6 days, 1 hour ago · v2 · 205 actionable findings from 2 signal sources. 206 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 · 101 findings

Score breakdown â 2026-05-18-v5

Component	Sub-score	Weight	Contribution
`structure_score`	60.0	0.15	9.00
`security_score`	35.5	0.25	8.88
`testing_score`	100.0	0.20	20.00
`documentation_score`	85.0	0.15	12.75
`practices_score`	89.0	0.15	13.35
`code_quality`	24.5	0.10	2.46
Overall		1.00	66.4

Severity distribution — click a segment to filter

Active filters: excluding tests × Reset all

Severity: Critical 4 High 25 Medium 19 Low 74 9-Layer: Software Security Quality Integrity Frontend Hardware Data Network Cicd Source: Security checks 104 System graph 101 Crowd 0 Layer: Quality 121 Security 13 Cicd 8 Software 52 Network 1 Hardware 8 Frontend 1 Api 1

Exclude dismissed / FP Exclude test files

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.

Duplicates & near-duplicates 5 findings

What it is: Same function copy-pasted into multiple modules with minor variations.

Why it matters: Each copy drifts independently — bug fixes apply to one, miss the others.

How AI causes it: AI completes the same pattern in each file rather than refactoring to a shared helper.

Fix approach: Extract the duplicated logic into the most general module both call sites already import. Add tests at the helper level.

5 matching findings on this repo

low Near-duplicate function bodies in 2 places repo-level
low Near-duplicate function bodies in 3 places repo-level
low Near-duplicate function bodies in 4 places repo-level
low Near-duplicate function bodies in 10 places
low Near-duplicate function bodies in 6 places

View all duplicates & near-duplicates findings →

Commented-out code 26 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/`.

12 matching findings on this repo

info Commented-code block (5 lines) in tests/ci/security/test_upload_file_containmen…
info Commented-code block (6 lines) in tests/ci/infrastructure/test_registry_action_…
info Commented-code block (6 lines) in tests/ci/browser/test_dom_serializer.py:181
info Commented-code block (8 lines) in tests/ci/browser/test_session_start.py:354
info Commented-code block (6 lines) in examples/models/cerebras_example.py:45
info Commented-code block (8 lines) in examples/apps/ad-use/ad_generator.py:227
info Commented-code block (6 lines) in examples/features/rerun_history.py:64
info Commented-code block (5 lines) in examples/features/blocked_domains.py:29
info Commented-code block (6 lines) in browser_use/sync/service.py:118
info Commented-code block (6 lines) in browser_use/mcp/server.py:376
info Commented-code block (19 lines) in browser_use/agent/views.py:637
info Commented-code block (5 lines) in browser_use/agent/service.py:1985

View all commented-out code findings →

Config drift 1 finding

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.

1 matching finding on this repo

critical Possible secret in browser_use/config.py browser_use/config.py:306

View all config drift findings →

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/54316748-e993-41aa-8fc3-f9d476bab5d1/

To check status programmatically (no auth required):

curl -s https://repobility.com/api/v1/public/scan/54316748-e993-41aa-8fc3-f9d476bab5d1/

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.