TheAlgorithms/Python

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.

146 of your 209 findings came from Repobility's proprietary detections. ✓ Repobility tags below mark them.

Scan timing: clone 8.91s · analysis 20.79s · 14.6 MB · GitHub API rate-limit (preflight)

https://github.com/TheAlgorithms/Python · scanned 2026-06-05 04:29 UTC (9 hours, 10 minutes ago) · 10 languages

455 findings (193 legacy + 262 scanner) 8th percentile · Python · large (100-500K LoC) Scanner says 74 (lower by 17)

File as issue Image v2 schema

UNIFIED Repobility · multi-layer engine · AI coders

Complete repo analysis

Last scanned 9 hours, 10 minutes ago · v2 · 324 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`	60.0	0.15	9.00
`security_score`	36.1	0.25	9.03
`testing_score`	27.0	0.20	5.40
`documentation_score`	100.0	0.15	15.00
`practices_score`	75.0	0.15	11.25
`code_quality`	71.5	0.10	7.15
Overall		1.00	56.8

Severity distribution — click a segment to filter

Active filters: excluding tests × Reset all

Severity: Critical 2 High 136 Medium 20 Low 100 9-Layer: Software Security Quality Integrity Frontend Hardware Data Network Cicd Source: Legacy 193 9-layer 131 Crowd 0 Layer: Quality 196 Security 10 Software 110 Cicd 3 Api 1 Hardware 3 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.

Fragile runtime 127 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).

12 matching findings on this repo

medium Public web service has no security.txt .well-known/security.txt
medium Bare except continues silently data_structures/hashing/tests/test_hash_map.py:23
medium Bare except continues silently physics/newtons_second_law_of_motion.py:77
medium Bare except continues silently hashes/enigma_machine.py:49
low [COMP001] High cognitive complexity: Function `is_valid` has cognitive complexi… backtracking/crossword_puzzle_solver.py:4
low [COMP001] High cognitive complexity: Function `backtrack` has cognitive complex… backtracking/combination_sum.py:16
low Duplicated implementation block across source files divide_and_conquer/heaps_algorithm_iterative.py:11
low Duplicated implementation block across source files digital_image_processing/morphological_operations…:1
low Duplicated implementation block across source files data_structures/queues/queue_by_two_stacks.py:39
low Duplicated implementation block across source files data_structures/linked_list/singly_linked_list.py:341
low Duplicated implementation block across source files data_compression/lempel_ziv_decompress.py:6
low Duplicated implementation block across source files conversions/prefix_conversions_string.py:21

View all fragile runtime findings →

Legacy markers 7 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.

7 matching findings on this repo

low Legacy-named symbol `num_copy` in maths/is_int_palindrome.py:22
low Legacy-named symbol `years_old` in web_programming/get_top_billionaires.py:30
low Legacy-named symbol `b_old` in machine_learning/sequential_minimum_optimization…
low Legacy-named symbol `test_copy` in linear_algebra/src/test_linear_algebra.py:111
low Legacy-named symbol `list_copy` in project_euler/problem_054/test_poker_hand.py…
low Legacy-named symbol `graph_copy` in graphs/karger.py:47
low Legacy-named symbol `items_copy` in other/greedy.py:31

View all legacy markers findings →

Commented-out code 40 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 (7 lines) in matrix/nth_fibonacci_using_matrix_exponentiat…
info Commented-code block (5 lines) in cellular_automata/conways_game_of_life.py:55
info Commented-code block (7 lines) in genetic_algorithm/basic_string.py:149
info Commented-code block (5 lines) in divide_and_conquer/kth_order_statistic.py:48
info Commented-code block (6 lines) in divide_and_conquer/convex_hull.py:337
info Commented-code block (11 lines) in maths/entropy.py:115
info Commented-code block (5 lines) in maths/fermat_little_theorem.py:1
info Commented-code block (10 lines) in maths/pollard_rho.py:48
info Commented-code block (5 lines) in scripts/validate_solutions.py:3
info Commented-code block (5 lines) in web_programming/get_top_billionaires.py:6
info Commented-code block (5 lines) in web_programming/get_imdb_top_250_movies_csv.p…
info Commented-code block (6 lines) in web_programming/open_google_results.py:1

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 Action `actions/configure-pages` pinned to mutable ref `@v6` .github/workflows/sphinx.yml:42

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/de615caa-c97e-4a70-9ad4-c734875232af/

To check status programmatically (no auth required):

curl -s https://repobility.com/api/v1/public/scan/de615caa-c97e-4a70-9ad4-c734875232af/

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.