rapidsai/cudf

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.

32 of your 47 findings came from Repobility's proprietary detections. ✓ Repobility tags below mark them.

https://github.com/rapidsai/cudf · scanned 2026-06-05 17:17 UTC (4 days, 22 hours ago) · 10 languages

725 raw signals (45 security + 680 graph) 11/13 scanners ran 36th percentile · Cpp · medium (20-100K LoC) System graph score 85 (lower by 23)

File as issue Image

UNIFIED Repobility · multi-layer engine · AI coders

Complete repo analysis

Last scanned 4 days, 22 hours ago · v2 · 256 actionable findings from 2 signal sources. 129 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 · 243 findings

Score breakdown â 2026-05-18-v5

Component	Sub-score	Weight	Contribution
`structure_score`	60.0	0.15	9.00
`security_score`	100.0	0.25	25.00
`testing_score`	0.0	0.20	0.00
`documentation_score`	74.0	0.15	11.10
`practices_score`	60.0	0.15	9.00
`code_quality`	79.0	0.10	7.90
Overall		1.00	62.0

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

Severity distribution — click a segment to filter

Active filters: excluding tests × Reset all

Severity: Critical 0 High 19 Medium 5 Low 120 9-Layer: Software Security Quality Integrity Frontend Hardware Data Network Cicd Source: Security checks 13 System graph 243 Crowd 0 Layer: Quality 192 Security 17 Cicd 3 Software 39 Api 1 Network 1 Hardware 2 Frontend 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 4 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.

4 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 6 places repo-level
low Near-duplicate function bodies in 21 places

View all duplicates & near-duplicates findings →

Commented-out code 102 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 docs/cudf/source/conf.py:328
info Commented-code block (5 lines) in python/custreamz/custreamz/tests/test_datafra…
info Commented-code block (5 lines) in python/dask_cudf/dask_cudf/backends.py:473
info Commented-code block (5 lines) in python/dask_cudf/dask_cudf/tests/test_accesso…
info Commented-code block (5 lines) in python/dask_cudf/dask_cudf/io/tests/test_parq…
info Commented-code block (6 lines) in python/dask_cudf/dask_cudf/io/tests/test_csv.…
info Commented-code block (5 lines) in python/dask_cudf/dask_cudf/_expr/expr.py:86
info Commented-code block (10 lines) in python/dask_cudf/dask_cudf/_expr/groupby.py:…
info Commented-code block (6 lines) in python/dask_cudf/dask_cudf/_expr/collection.p…
info Commented-code block (8 lines) in python/cudf_polars/tests/conftest.py:349
info Commented-code block (6 lines) in python/cudf_polars/tests/test_cache.py:67
info Commented-code block (7 lines) in python/cudf_polars/tests/containers/test_colu…

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

low Stub function `pytest_collection_modifyitems` (body is just `pass`/`return`) — …

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/ae190262-9453-4f3c-a0c0-22f435cf5726/

To check status programmatically (no auth required):

curl -s https://repobility.com/api/v1/public/scan/ae190262-9453-4f3c-a0c0-22f435cf5726/

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.