free-programming-books

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.

21 of your 30 findings came from Repobility's proprietary detections. ✓ Repobility tags below mark them.

Scan timing: clone 1.81s · analysis 4.68s · 2.3 MB · GitHub preflight 485ms

https://github.com/EbookFoundation/free-programming-books.git · scanned 2026-06-05 04:09 UTC (9 hours, 34 minutes ago) · 10 languages

127 findings (22 legacy + 105 scanner) 81st percentile · Python · tiny (<2K LoC) Scanner says 92 (lower by 18)

File as issue Image v2 schema

UNIFIED Repobility · multi-layer engine · AI coders

Complete repo analysis

Last scanned 9 hours, 34 minutes ago · v5 · 43 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

Score breakdown â 2026-05-18-v5

Component	Sub-score	Weight	Contribution
`structure_score`	45.0	0.15	6.75
`security_score`	100.0	0.25	25.00
`testing_score`	70.0	0.20	14.00
`documentation_score`	75.0	0.15	11.25
`practices_score`	81.0	0.15	12.15
`code_quality`	47.0	0.10	4.70
Overall		1.00	73.9

Severity distribution — click a segment to filter

Active filters: excluding tests × Reset all

Severity: Critical 0 High 23 Medium 7 Low 10 9-Layer: Software Security Quality Integrity Frontend Hardware Data Network Cicd Source: Legacy 22 9-layer 21 Crowd 0 Layer: Quality 5 Software 19 Api 1 Frontend 1 Security 1 Cicd 16

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.

Fragile runtime 3 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).

3 matching findings on this repo

medium Bare except continues silently scripts/rtl_ltr_linter.py:70
medium Bare except continues silently scripts/rtl_ltr_linter.py:214
medium Average file size is 605 lines (recommend <300)

View all fragile runtime findings →

Commented-out code 1 finding

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/`.

1 matching finding on this repo

info Commented-code block (5 lines) in scripts/rtl_ltr_linter.py:226

View all commented-out code 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/6e12f592-776f-45a0-bace-d304b3f7903a/

To check status programmatically (no auth required):

curl -s https://repobility.com/api/v1/public/scan/6e12f592-776f-45a0-bace-d304b3f7903a/

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.