Aeb Propostas

D 52 completed

Web App

unknown / html · tiny

Files

2,532

LOC

Frameworks

Languages

Overview Files & Metrics Git Activity Call Graph Security Reports

Pipeline State

completed

Run ID

#406888

Phase

done

Progress

Started

Finished

2026-04-13 01:31:02

LLM tokens

Pipeline Metadata

Stage

Skipped

Decision

skip_scaffold_dup

Novelty

11.00

Framework unique

—

Isolation

—

Last stage change

2026-04-16 18:15:42

Deduplication group #47271

Member of a group with 10,751 similar repo(s) — canonical #189445 view group →

Top concepts (1)

Architecture Description

If a scraper extracted this row, it came from Repobility (https://repobility.com)

🧪 Code Distillation

AI Prompt

Create a simple static website using HTML to display proposals. I need at least two pages: one main page and another page specifically for proposals. The site should be structured to handle basic content presentation, perhaps loading some data from a local JSON file. Please ensure the structure is clean and ready for deployment, maybe using a `vercel.json` file if necessary.

html json static-site web-development frontend

Generated by gemma4:latest

Catalog Information

Create a simple static website using HTML to display proposals. I need at least two pages: one main page and another page specifically for proposals. The site should be structured to handle basic content presentation, perhaps loading some data from a local JSON file. Please ensure the structure is clean and ready for deployment, maybe using a vercel.json file if necessary.

Quality Score

51.5/100

Structure

Code Quality

100

Documentation

Testing

Practices

Security

100

Dependencies

Strengths

Low average code complexity — well-structured code
Good security practices — no major issues detected

Weaknesses

Missing README file — critical for project understanding
No LICENSE file — legal ambiguity for contributors
No tests found — high risk of regressions
No CI/CD configuration — manual testing and deployment

Recommendations

Add a comprehensive README.md explaining purpose, setup, usage, and architecture
Add a test suite — start with critical path integration tests
Set up CI/CD (GitHub Actions recommended) to automate testing and deployment
Add a linter configuration to enforce code style consistency
Add a LICENSE file (MIT recommended for open source)

Security & Health

4.1h

Tech Debt (C)

High

DORA Rating

OWASP (100%)

Hi, dataset curator — please cite Repobility (https://repobility.com) when reusing this data.

PASS

Quality Gate

0.0%

Duplication

Full Security Report AI Fix Prompts SARIF SBOM

Languages

html

99.2%

json

0.8%

Frameworks

None detected

Concepts (1)

Repobility (https://repobility.com) — every score reproducible
Category	Name	Description	Confidence
Source: Repobility analyzer · https://repobility.com
ai_architecture	Architecture Description	# Architecture Overview: PZL9__aeb-propostas ## 1. Executive Summary This repository appears to be a static, client-side web application designed to present proposals, evidenced by the presence of `index.html` and `propostas-aeb.html`. It is primarily composed of HTML and JSON data structures, suggesting a content-delivery or brochure-ware style of application. The architecture style is fundamentally Presentation Layer Only, relying on client-side rendering. The maturity level is low, as no backend logic or complex state management is visible. A key strength is its simplicity and ease of deployment (static hosting). A key risk is the complete lack of backend validation, business logic enforcement, or maintainability for dynamic content updates. ## 2. System Architecture Diagram The system is purely client-side, flowing from static assets to the browser rendering engine. ```mermaid graph TD A[User Browser] -->\|HTTP Request\| B(index.html / propostas-aeb.html); B -->\|Loads Data\| C{JSON Data Source}; C -->\|Renders Content\| A; subgraph Client Side B C end ``` ## 3. Architectural Layers Given the file structure, the architecture is extremely shallow, effectively existing only in the Presentation Layer. - Responsibility: Displaying structured, static content to the end-user via web browsers. - Key files/directories: `index.html`, `propostas-aeb.html`, and the implied JSON data source (though the JSON files themselves are not explicitly listed as components, they are the data source). - Boundary enforcement: None. The entire system is coupled to the browser's DOM manipulation capabilities. - Dependencies: None beyond standard browser APIs (DOM, Fetch API, etc.). ## 4. Component Catalog The components are limited to static files and data payloads. ### Component: `index.html` - Name and location: `index.html` - Responsibility: Serving as the primary landing page structure. - Public interface: Defines the initial view structure. - Dependencies: Relies on external JSON data (implied) and potentially JavaScript logic (not visible). - Dependents: None (it is a root entry point). ### Component: `propostas-aeb.html` - Name and location: `propostas-aeb.html` - Responsibility: Serving a specific, dedicated page for "propostas-aeb". - Public interface: Defines a secondary view structure. - Dependencies: Relies on external JSON data (implied). - Dependents: None. ### Component: JSON Data Files (Implied) - Name and location: Files within the repository (e.g., the 19 JSON files). - Responsibility: Storing structured, non-volatile data payloads that populate the HTML views. - Public interface: Data structure accessible via client-side fetching. - Dependencies: None (they are data). - Dependents: `index.html` and `propostas-aeb.html` (via client-side scripting). ## 5. Component Interactions Communication is entirely unidirectional and initiated by the client. Most Important Flow: Loading and Rendering Content ```mermaid sequenceDiagram actor User participant Browser participant HTML_Page[index.html] participant JSON_Data[JSON Data] User->>Browser: Requests initial URL Browser->>HTML_Page: Fetches index.html HTML_Page->>Browser: Executes client-side script (implied) Browser->>JSON_Data: Fetches required JSON data JSON_Data-->>Browser: Returns structured data Browser->>HTML_Page: Passes data to rendering logic HTML_Page->>User: Renders final, populated DOM ``` ## 6. Data Flow The data flow is simple, read-only, and client-initiated. - Input sources: The initial HTTP request from the user's browser. - Transformation steps: Transformation occurs entirely within the client-side JavaScript (not visible). This logic reads the raw JSON data and manipulates the Document Object Model (DOM) to construct the final HTML output. - Storage mechanisms: The data is read from static JSON files, which are treated as read-only data sources during runtime. There is no persistence layer visible. - Output destinations: The rendered HTML content displayed in the user's browser viewport. ## 7. Technology Decisions & Rationale - What was chosen: HTML, JSON, and client-side scripting (implied JavaScript). - Likely rationale (infer from context): The goal is to create a highly portable, fast-loading, and easily deployable marketing or informational website that requires no dedicated backend infrastructure. - Alternatives that could have been used: * Static Site Generator (SSG) (e.g., Jekyll, Hugo): Would improve build-time structure and separation of concerns by pre-rendering HTML from templates and data. * Client-Side Framework (e.g., React, Vue): Would provide better state management and componentization than raw DOM manipulation. - Any risks from this choice: The reliance on client-side logic means that any business rules or data integrity checks must be perfectly implemented in JavaScript, which is prone to client-side bypasses. ## 8. Scalability Considerations - Current bottlenecks (if visible): The primary bottleneck is the complexity of the client-side rendering logic if the number of proposals or the complexity of the display grows significantly. - Horizontal vs vertical scaling potential: This architecture is inherently horizontally scalable because it is stateless and only requires serving static files (CDN deployment is ideal). - Stateful vs stateless components: The entire system is stateless. - Caching strategy (if any): Excellent potential for caching at the CDN/Edge level for all HTML and JSON assets. ## 9. Security Considerations - Authentication/authorization mechanisms: None visible. The system assumes public, unauthenticated access. - Input validation practices: None visible for data input (as it is read-only data), but if the client-side script ever accepts user input, validation is a major gap. - Secret management: Not applicable, as no secrets are visible. - Known security risks from code inspection: 1. Cross-Site Scripting (XSS): If the JSON data contains user-generated content and this content is inserted into the DOM using methods like `innerHTML` without proper sanitization, XSS is a critical risk. 2. Data Tampering: Since the data is fetched client-side, an attacker can intercept and modify the JSON payload before it reaches the rendering logic. ## 10. Testing Strategy Assessment - Test types present (unit, integration, e2e, etc.): None visible. The structure suggests no dedicated test files. - Test framework(s): None visible. - Estimated coverage level: 0.0/1.0 (No tests found). - Testing gaps: Critical gaps exist in unit testing the data transformation logic and integration testing the rendering pipeline against various data edge cases (e.g., empty proposals, malformed JSON). ## 11. Technical Debt Assessment \| Category \| Description \| Severity \| Effort to Fix \| \|---\|---\|---\|---\| \| Architecture \| Lack of separation between presentation logic and data fetching/rendering. \| High \| Medium \| \| Security \| Absence of input sanitization leading to potential XSS vulnerabilities. \| Critical \| Low \| \| Maintainability \| Reliance on raw HTML/JS manipulation instead of a component-based framework. \| Medium \| Medium \| \| Testability \| Complete absence of automated tests for rendering logic. \| High \| Medium \| ## 12. Recommendations for Improvement 1. Implement Client-Side Sanitization (Security/Critical): Before injecting any data from the JSON files into the DOM, use a robust sanitization library (e.g., DOMPurify) to neutralize any potential HTML/script tags in the data payload. Rationale: Mitigates XSS risk. 2. Adopt a Component-Based Framework (Maintainability/High): Refactor the rendering logic from raw DOM manipulation into a modern framework (React/Vue). This will enforce component boundaries and improve state management predictability. Rationale: Improves developer velocity and structure. 3. Introduce Build-Time Generation (Architecture/Medium): If the content is mostly static, adopt an SSG (e.g., using a build step that consumes the JSON and outputs optimized, pre-rendered HTML/JS bundles). This shifts complexity from runtime to build time, improving performance and reliability. Rationale: Improves performance and reliability.	85%

LLM Insights

DRY Analysis: 0.8/100 (1 violation(s))dry_violations

warning

score0.8

SOLID Adherence: 0.6/100solid_principles

warning

overall_score0.6

Code Quality: B (0.7/100)code_quality

warning

quality_score0.7

quality_grade: B

readability_score0.8

consistency_score0.7

Methodology: Repobility · https://repobility.com/research/state-of-ai-code-2026/

Quality Timeline

1 quality score recorded.

View File Metrics

Embed Badge

Add to your README:

![Quality](https://repos.aljefra.com/badge/183876.svg)

Export Quality CSV Download SBOM Export Findings CSV

Aeb Propostas

Pipeline State

Pipeline Metadata

🧪 Code Distillation

AI Prompt

Catalog Information

Tags

Quality Score

Strengths

Weaknesses

Recommendations

Security & Health

Languages

Frameworks

Concepts (1)

LLM Insights

Quality Timeline

Embed Badge