kukicola/ch_connect scored 31/100 on Slopicide
Human-led
Mostly human fingerprints, with the odd assist.
What stood out
How strongly each pattern showed up overall, and in how many of the files.
- Copy-paste repetition3/8 files · 31%
Near-duplicate blocks with small edits instead of a shared helper.
- Boilerplate padding6/8 files · 30%
More lines, wrappers and ceremony than the job needs.
- Inconsistent style1/8 files · 16%
Mixed conventions, as if stitched together from different sources.
Human fingerprints
- Domain-specific naming6/8 files · 50%
Names that show deep familiarity with the problem.
- Pragmatic shortcuts4/8 files · 36%
Terse idioms and deliberate omissions an experienced author takes.
- Lived-in code2/8 files · 30%
Idiosyncrasies and quirks of code that evolved over time.
- Comments explain why2/8 files · 23%
Comments about trade-offs, gotchas, bugs and workarounds.
Files we looked at
The files behind the score, sloppiest first.
- benchmark/adapters.rb52out of 100
Ruby · 3.5 KB
- Copy-paste repetition 62%
- Boilerplate padding 34%
- Inconsistent style 33%
- benchmark/run_all.rb47out of 100
Ruby · 886 B
- Boilerplate padding 46%
- lib/ch_connect/null_instrumenter.rb45out of 100
Ruby · 501 B
- Boilerplate padding 43%
- benchmark/scenarios/threaded.rb34out of 100
Ruby · 1.5 KB
- Boilerplate padding 41%
- lib/ch_connect.rb32out of 100
Ruby · 1.4 KB
- Boilerplate padding 35%
- lib/ch_connect/config.rb28out of 100
Ruby · 4.8 KB
- Boilerplate padding 33%
- ext/ch_connect_native/ch_connect_native.c0out of 100
C · 39 KB
- Copy-paste repetition 54%
- lib/ch_connect/connection.rb0out of 100
Ruby · 14 KB
- Copy-paste repetition 39%
Scanned Oct 25, 2026 from main. A playful gut check, not a verdict on the people behind the code. How scoring works. More recent reports.