totosugito/fin-man

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.

Scan timing: clone 16.72s · analysis 2.4s · 0.8 MB · GitHub preflight 3582ms

https://github.com/totosugito/fin-man · scanned 2026-05-29 10:06 UTC (1 week ago) · 10 languages

196 findings (50 legacy + 146 scanner) 6th percentile · Typescript · medium (20-100K LoC) Scanner says 81 (lower by 34)

File as issue Image v2 schema

UNIFIED Repobility · multi-layer engine · AI coders

Complete repo analysis

Last scanned 1 week ago · v2 · 123 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`	85.0	0.15	12.75
`security_score`	70.3	0.25	17.57
`testing_score`	12.0	0.20	2.40
`documentation_score`	9.0	0.15	1.35
`practices_score`	40.0	0.15	6.00
`code_quality`	67.1	0.10	6.71
Overall		1.00	46.8

Severity distribution — click a segment to filter

Active filters: excluding tests × Reset all

Severity: Critical 5 High 22 Medium 6 Low 66 9-Layer: Software Security Quality Integrity Frontend Hardware Data Network Cicd Source: Legacy 50 9-layer 73 Crowd 0 Layer: Quality 49 Security 10 Software 54 Api 1 Frontend 8 Cicd 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 41 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
low Public web app has no humans.txt humans.txt
low Public web app has no sitemap sitemap.xml
low Public web app has no robots.txt robots.txt
low Duplicated implementation block across source files src/routes/__authenticated/project/list.tsx:187
low Duplicated implementation block across source files src/routes/__authenticated/project/list.tsx:44
low Duplicated implementation block across source files src/routes/__authenticated/project/$id.tsx:37
low Duplicated implementation block across source files src/components/pages/project/list/ProjectGanttVie…:27
low Duplicated implementation block across source files backend/src/routes/v1/user.hook.ts:1
low Duplicated implementation block across source files backend/src/routes/v1/project/update.ts:63
low Duplicated implementation block across source files backend/src/routes/v1/project/update.ts:36
low Duplicated implementation block across source files backend/src/routes/v1/project/update.ts:34

View all fragile runtime findings →

Commented-out code 5 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/`.

5 matching findings on this repo

info Commented-code block (7 lines) in backend/src/auth.ts:40
info Commented-code block (8 lines) in backend/src/app.ts:36
info Commented-code block (5 lines) in src/components/custom/table/TableData.tsx:173
info Commented-code block (6 lines) in src/components/custom/components/DatePickerWi…
info Commented-code block (6 lines) in src/lib/auth-context.tsx:52

View all commented-out code findings →

Config drift 6 findings

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.

6 matching findings on this repo

medium No CI/CD configuration found
low File has no detected symbols: vite.config.ts
low File has no detected symbols: tailwind.config.ts
low File has no detected symbols: backend/drizzle.config.ts
low File has no detected symbols: backend/src/config/app-constant.ts
low File has no detected symbols: backend/src/config/env.config.ts

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/ee7d3aaf-6c31-433d-b721-478c750ea54b/

To check status programmatically (no auth required):

curl -s https://repobility.com/api/v1/public/scan/ee7d3aaf-6c31-433d-b721-478c750ea54b/

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.