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.

shosho-chang/nakama

https://github.com/shosho-chang/nakama · scanned 2026-06-16 00:11 UTC (2 months, 2 weeks ago)

333 raw signals (0 security + 333 graph)

File as issue Image

UNIFIED Repobility · multi-layer engine · AI coders

Complete repo analysis

Last scanned 2 months, 2 weeks ago · v1 · 315 actionable findings from 1 signal source. 18 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 · 315 findings

Severity distribution — click a segment to filter

Active filters: excluding tests × Reset all

Severity: Critical 0 High 33 Medium 37 Low 164 9-Layer: Software Security Quality Integrity Frontend Hardware Data Network Cicd Source: Security checks 0 System graph 315 Crowd 0 Layer: Software 27 Frontend 2 Hardware 4 Security 27 Cicd 1 Quality 189 Api 65

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 3 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.

3 matching findings on this repo

low Near-duplicate function bodies in 3 places repo-level
low Near-duplicate function bodies in 2 places repo-level
low Near-duplicate function bodies in 5 places

View all duplicates & near-duplicates findings →

Legacy markers 4 findings

What it is: TODO, FIXME, XXX, HACK comments. Often indicate a known-broken path the author meant to fix.

Why it matters: Each marker is an unfinished thought. Production code shouldn't ship with debt that's documented but not tracked.

How AI causes it: AI mirrors the style of the codebase, so existing TODOs propagate into new code.

Fix approach: Convert each into a ticket. Delete the comment when the ticket lands. Use a pre-commit hook to block new TODOs without an issue link.

4 matching findings on this repo

low Old/deprecated-named symbol `TestMigrateLegacy` in tests/test_adr041_v3.py:142
low Old/deprecated-named symbol `test_store_still_reads_legacy_v1` in tests/shared/…
low Old/deprecated-named symbol `has_legacy` in shared/weekly_writer.py:589
low Old/deprecated-named symbol `_has_legacy` in scripts/backfill_adr041_v3.py:30

View all legacy markers findings →

Commented-out code 79 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/test_bridge_router.py:623
info Commented-code block (6 lines) in tests/test_bridge_digests.py:12
info Commented-code block (5 lines) in tests/test_bridge_zoro.py:66
info Commented-code block (6 lines) in tests/shared/test_writing_assist_surface.py:2…
info Commented-code block (5 lines) in tests/shared/test_wp_post_lister.py:352
info Commented-code block (5 lines) in tests/shared/test_entity_promotion_engine.py:…
info Commented-code block (5 lines) in tests/brook/script_video/test_fcpxml_emitter.…
info Commented-code block (6 lines) in tests/thousand_sunny/test_books_annotations_a…
info Commented-code block (5 lines) in tests/e2e/test_agent_robin_e2e.py:80
info Commented-code block (5 lines) in qa/seed_ebooks.py:33
info Commented-code block (5 lines) in shared/project_reviews.py:178
info Commented-code block (5 lines) in shared/doc_index.py:46

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

high Agent instruction/config may expose a secret: .claude/skills/seo-keyword-enrich… .claude/skills/seo-keyword-enrich/SKILL.md:176

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/bbb0bba9-0828-4cdb-9dfc-d621c9b3b19a/

To check status programmatically (no auth required):

curl -s https://repobility.com/api/v1/public/scan/bbb0bba9-0828-4cdb-9dfc-d621c9b3b19a/

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.