io.github.Lukie-81/reporelay
version 1.2.5
- scanned 2026-10-16
- source github.com/Lukie-81/RepoRelay
- transport streamable-http
- files read 1
- methodology 0.2.0
- ruleset 0.1.1
100
1 vendored or minified path was excluded before scanning; machine-generated bundles are not the server's own code
30measured on 40% of this axis
not assessed
no lockfile in the fetched source; dependency versions are unresolved, so no vulnerability can be attributed
74measured on 90% of this axis
72measured on 80% of this axis
The evidence
Every deduction below names the artefact that produced it. Nothing on this page was executed: the source was read, never run, and no running server was contacted.
Auth Posture
- authentication_model
network transport, and no authentication middleware, credential-header read, or inbound token verification appears anywhere in the source we fetched — `03` §4's "no authentication; HTTP transport" band
- transport_security
transport is streamable-http but the entry declares no endpoint URL to read a scheme from
- secret_handling
detect-secrets matched 10 credential-shaped string(s), every one from a keyword or entropy heuristic (Hex High Entropy String, Secret Keyword). Those flag placeholders, variable names and content hashes as readily as credentials, so they do not establish the committed credential `03` §4's 0 asserts, and this sub-check is not scored; Secret Keyword at dist/audit.js:159; Hex High Entropy String at dist/tunnel-client-install.js:26; Hex High Entropy String at dist/tunnel-client-install.js:32; Hex High Entropy String at dist/tunnel-client-install.js:38; Hex High Entropy String at dist/tunnel-client-install.js:44; Hex High Entropy String at dist/tunnel-client-install.js:50; Hex High Entropy String at dist/tunnel-client-install.js:56; Secret Keyword at dist/tunnel-client-install.js:203; Secret Keyword at docs/chatgpt-web.md:137; Secret Keyword at docs/chatgpt-web.md:143
- authorization_granularity
no tool registration was recognised anywhere in the source. An MCP server registers tools by definition, so this is a gap in our detection rather than a server with none, and `03` §4's threshold cannot be applied to it.
Maintenance
- recency
last commit 46 day(s) before 2026-10-16
- issue_responsiveness
median over 4 issue(s) in the last 6 months: 8.7 day(s) to first maintainer comment
- release_cadence
median release gap 0 days (by tags), last release 61 day(s) ago
- bus_factor
sole maintainer
- repository_signals
`03` §5 scores this by quartile WITHIN the server's category, which needs a distribution across every scanned server and so cannot be computed while scanning one. It is a post-pass over the crawl and that pass does not exist yet.
Transparency
- license
LICENSE present with no SPDX-License-Identifier tag; identified as 'MIT' from its text
- readme_quality
README.md: installation instructions (+25), configuration documented (+25), exposed tools or resources enumerated (+30), states what the server does in the first 200 words (+20)
- declared_scopes
specific scope or access documentation is present, but `03` §7's 100 and 60 bands both compare it against scopes INFERRED from static analysis, which is not built yet. Scoring 100 on an empty inference would be a vacuous truth — 'all ∅ inferred scopes are documented'.
- changelog
no CHANGELOG in the fetched source. `03` §7's partial credit for tagged releases carrying release notes is not applied here — that needs the forge API, which this check does not call
- security_contact
SECURITY.md present
Contest a finding
Every number here comes from a rule reading published source, and rules get things wrong. If something on this page is incorrect — or correct but mitigated by a check the rule cannot see — open an issue and we answer it in writing. A finding we got wrong is removed and the rule is fixed; one that stands is answered on the record.
Anyone can file: the maintainer, a researcher who disagrees with the classification, or a user who tested the server and could not reproduce it. Name this server and the rule or advisory ID shown beside the finding above. We aim to reply within five business days and to resolve within ten.