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.

yoonhj7173/craft

https://github.com/yoonhj7173/craft · scanned 2026-06-16 01:07 UTC (2 months, 1 week ago)

116 raw signals (0 security + 116 graph)

File as issue Image

UNIFIED Repobility · multi-layer engine · AI coders

Complete repo analysis

Last scanned 2 months, 1 week ago · v1 · 104 actionable findings from 1 signal source. 12 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 · 104 findings

Severity distribution — click a segment to filter

Active filters: layer: quality × excluding tests × Reset all

Severity: Critical 0 High 20 Medium 21 Low 59 9-Layer: Software Security Quality Integrity Frontend Hardware Data Network Cicd Source: Security checks 0 System graph 104 Crowd 0 Layer: Software 6 Frontend 6 Hardware 3 Security 27 Quality 21 Api 41

Exclude dismissed / FP Exclude test files

Corpus Intelligence Cross-corpus context (cohort percentile, top patterns, fix plan) is shown only on repositories you own. Sign up and connect your repo to view it.

Scan summary Repository scanned at 52.3/100 with 100.0% coverage. It contains 1146 nodes across 30 cross-layer flows, written primarily in mixed languages. Engine surfaced 116 findings — concentrated in api (41), quality (33), security (27). Risk profile is high: 0 critical, 20 high, 21 medium. Recommended next step: open the api layer findings first — that's where the highest-impact wins live.

Showing 19 of 104 actionable findings. 116 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.

medium System graph quality Integrity conf 1.00 `fetch()` without try/.catch or AbortSignal — claude-design-handoff/marketing/support.js:968

Bare `fetch(...)` will throw an unhandled rejection on network failure. Wrap in try/catch, attach a `.catch(...)`, or pass an AbortSignal with a timeout.

runtime safetyRobustness

medium System graph quality Integrity conf 1.00 `fetch()` without try/.catch or AbortSignal — claude-design-handoff/product/support.js:968

Bare `fetch(...)` will throw an unhandled rejection on network failure. Wrap in try/catch, attach a `.catch(...)`, or pass an AbortSignal with a timeout.

runtime safetyRobustness

medium System graph quality Integrity conf 1.00 `fetch()` without try/.catch or AbortSignal — frontend/lib/api.ts:12

Bare `fetch(...)` will throw an unhandled rejection on network failure. Wrap in try/catch, attach a `.catch(...)`, or pass an AbortSignal with a timeout.

runtime safetyRobustness

medium System graph quality Agent instructions conf 1.00 Agent authority lacks a verifier contract: .claude/agents/product_manager.md

This agent instruction grants code or shell authority but does not state the verification gate that decides promotion. The recurring safe pattern is: LLM proposes; deterministic tests/build/security checks verify; only verified code promotes.

.claude/agents/product_manager.md VerificationClaude instruction

medium System graph quality Agent instructions conf 1.00 Agent authority lacks a verifier contract: .claude/commands/init.md

.claude/commands/init.md VerificationClaude instruction

medium System graph quality Agent instructions conf 1.00 Agent authority lacks a verifier contract: .claude/commands/status.md

.claude/commands/status.md VerificationClaude instruction

medium System graph quality Agent instructions conf 1.00 Agent authority lacks a verifier contract: .claude/settings.json

.claude/settings.json VerificationClaude instruction

medium System graph quality Agent instructions conf 1.00 Agent authority lacks a verifier contract: CLAUDE.md

CLAUDE.md VerificationClaude instruction

medium System graph quality Agent instructions conf 1.00 Agent instructions exist but release-hardening basics are missing

AI-coder instruction files were found, but the repo is missing license. Treat this as a contract gap: the agent is guided, but the generated output is not yet guarded by the controls that make it repeatable.

Repo hardeningGenerated repo pattern

medium System graph quality Placeholder conf 1.00 Critical user flow still appears backed by mock or placeholder data

A payment/auth/admin/order/billing-style flow contains mock, fake, TODO, dummy, or placeholder markers in runtime source. In the Fable corpus this is a high-leverage completeness smell: the app can look finished while the money, identity, or tenant flow is still scaffolded.

Mock dataCritical flowGenerated repo pattern

medium System graph quality Placeholder conf 1.00 Placeholder or mock-heavy implementation detected

Found 40 placeholder/mock markers across 7 source files. This often means the repo looks complete while core flows still use generated scaffolding or fake data.

Mock dataIncompleteGenerated repo pattern

low System graph quality Debug conf 1.00 Debug logging residue appears in source files

Found 14 console/debugger/print-style debug statements in non-test source. This is a common fast-generation residue before production cleanup.

CleanupRepo hardeningGenerated repo pattern

low System graph quality Tests conf 1.00 Low test-to-source ratio

21 tests / 90 src (ratio 0.23).

low System graph quality Integrity conf 1.00 6 occurrences Near-duplicate function bodies in 2 places

Functions with the same first-5-line body hash: backend/app/services/filestore.py:put_text, backend/app/services/filestore.py:put_text This is *the* AI-coder failure mode (4× more duplication in vibe-coded repos — see https://jw.hn/ai-code-hygiene). Consolidate or document why they're separate.

6 occurrences

repo-level (6 hits)

duplicatesduplication

low System graph quality Integrity conf 1.00 8 occurrences Near-duplicate function bodies in 3 places

Functions with the same first-5-line body hash: backend/app/services/sandbox.py:create, backend/app/services/sandbox.py:create, backend/app/services/sandbox.py:create This is *the* AI-coder failure mode (4× more duplication in vibe-coded repos — see https://jw.hn/ai-code-hygiene). Consolidate or d…

8 occurrences

repo-level (8 hits)

duplicatesduplication

low System graph quality License conf 1.00 No license file detected

No LICENSE/COPYING/NOTICE file was found. Generated repositories often omit licensing, which blocks reuse and automated intake.

Repo hardeningGenerated repo pattern

low System graph quality Provenance conf 1.00 Shallow git history limits provenance confidence

The repository is a shallow clone. Origin/evolution analysis cannot distinguish fresh generation, imported legacy code, or long-lived human code with high confidence.

Git historyGenerated repo pattern

low System graph quality Complexity conf 1.00 Very large file: claude-design-handoff/marketing/support.js (1466 lines)

Files with >800 lines often hide complexity hotspots and discourage tests.

low System graph quality Complexity conf 1.00 Very large file: claude-design-handoff/product/support.js (1466 lines)

Files with >800 lines often hide complexity hotspots and discourage tests.

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/a900528f-51df-42c9-b0cc-70805a95e978/

To check status programmatically (no auth required):

curl -s https://repobility.com/api/v1/public/scan/a900528f-51df-42c9-b0cc-70805a95e978/

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.