Grasp · Comprehension Index Scan Report

Who still understands pallets/click?

Computed from git metadata only; no source code contents were read.
touch-weighted · 3-year history window · last commit 45d ago · scores are comparable only against same-mode scans

Grasp Score

touch-weighted living knowledge across the repo

Active humans

8 / 112

contributors active in last 90 days vs. all-time

AI-attributed minimum

≥ 1.3%

hard evidence only. Just 11% of commits here carry any attribution signal, so the real share is higher

Inactive share

52.4%

work by authors with no commit in the window; silence, not proof of departure

Composition

27/22/47/4%

source / tests / docs / config share of scored work

Living, source only

68%

the headline recomputed over hand-written source alone

Score stability

volatile

90-day-cliff variant reads 28%–86% across 60/90/180-day activity windows; read the width before the middle value

Dark-code ranking

Modules ranked by comprehension risk: the unknown share, amplified by ongoing change and thin ownership. The green meter is living knowledge.

Module	Risk	Living knowledge	AI-attr.	Inactive	Bus	Heat/180d
src	LOW 33	68%	2%	52%	1	140
docs	LOW 33	64%	3%	52%	2	66
(root)	LOW 32	65%	1%	49%	2	129
tests	LOW 28	69%	0%	42%	2	136
.github	LOW 26	70%	0%	73%	1	24
examples	LOW 23	70%	0%	67%	1	4
requirements	LOW 23	69%	0%	81%	1	0

One commit touched 58% of every file changed in this window. Wide, shallow commits, a formatter run or a license-header pass, add weight for their author across the whole surface while changing little. Worth looking at what that commit was before crediting the score to its author.

Public-repo caveat: "departed" includes drive-by contributors, overstating attrition relative to a company repo with a real roster. Engagement is a proxy for comprehension. Treat it as a potential indicator rather than a diagnosis.