Grasp · Comprehension Index Scan Report

Who still understands pallets/jinja?

Computed from git metadata only; no source code contents were read.
touch-weighted · 3-year history window · last commit 449d ago · scores are comparable only against same-mode scans

Grasp Score

touch-weighted living knowledge across the repo

Active humans

0 / 33

contributors active in last 90 days vs. all-time

AI-attributed minimum

≥ 4.2%

hard evidence only. Just 14% of commits here carry any attribution signal, so the real share is higher

Inactive share

98.1%

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

Composition

40/19/36/5%

source / tests / docs / config share of scored work

Living, source only

15%

the headline recomputed over hand-written source alone

Score stability

stable

90-day-cliff variant reads 0%–0% across 60/90/180-day activity windows; read the width before the middle value

Dormant repository: no commits in 449 days. "Active" is measured against today, not the repository's own last commit, so a project nobody has touched recently scores low by definition. That is the intended reading: the score reflects how much of this code has someone currently working on it, and here the answer is nobody. For an archived or finished project, a low score describes its status rather than a problem to fix.

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	Heat/180d
src	CRIT 85	14%	5%	95%	53
(root)	HIGH 77	14%	2%	98%	29
docs	HIGH 70	16%	0%	100%	16
tests	HIGH 68	15%	0%	100%	10
requirements	MED 64	17%	0%	100%	5

One commit touched 89% 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.

One commit accounts for 21% of the analysed lines. In a repository this size a single large change can move the score on its own, and git cannot tell a thoughtfully written thousand-line change from a thousand lines a formatter rewrote. Worth looking at what that commit actually was before reading much into the number; the touch-weighted view, which counts each file-touching commit once, is the cross-check.

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.