| 0 |
| 0 |
| Match Graph | 0 | 0 |
| Pricing | Free | Free |
| Capabilities | 9 decomposed | 10 decomposed |
| Times Matched | 0 | 0 |
Analyzes code changes in pull requests using static analysis to identify issues including code duplication, style violations, and structural problems. Operates via Git webhook integration that triggers automated analysis on each PR, comparing changed files against configurable rule sets and surfacing results directly in the Git platform UI without requiring local installation or manual invocation.
Unique: Integrates directly into Git platform workflows via webhook without requiring local installation or CLI tooling, providing real-time feedback within the native PR interface rather than as a separate tool or external report.
vs alternatives: Faster time-to-value than self-hosted linters because it requires only OAuth authorization and no repository configuration, though lacks the customization depth and offline capability of locally-installed tools like ESLint or Pylint.
Identifies duplicated code blocks across pull requests and tracks duplication metrics over time, storing historical data to show duplication trends per commit. Uses pattern matching or AST-based comparison (implementation approach unspecified) to find structurally similar code segments and aggregates duplication statistics in a historical dashboard.
Unique: Provides historical trend tracking of duplication metrics across commits rather than one-time detection, enabling teams to measure whether refactoring efforts are reducing duplication over time.
vs alternatives: Simpler to adopt than standalone duplication tools like Sonarqube because it requires no additional configuration and integrates directly into existing PR workflows, though likely with less sophisticated analysis than dedicated tools.
Measures cyclomatic complexity (code branching/control flow complexity) for each commit and tracks how complexity evolves over time, surfacing complexity metrics in historical dashboards. Calculates complexity scores per function or file and compares against previous versions to flag complexity increases, enabling teams to identify when code is becoming harder to maintain.
Unique: Tracks complexity evolution across commits with historical trending rather than static per-PR analysis, enabling teams to measure whether code is becoming more or less maintainable over project lifetime.
vs alternatives: More accessible than setting up complexity analysis in CI/CD pipelines because it requires no build configuration, though likely less customizable than tools like Radon or Pylint that offer fine-grained complexity rule configuration.
Aggregates code quality metrics across the entire project and surfaces them in a centralized dashboard, including cumulative statistics like total issues found, duplication percentages, and complexity distributions. Collects data from all analyzed pull requests and commits to provide project-wide visibility into code health without requiring manual metric compilation.
Unique: Provides project-wide aggregated metrics in a single dashboard rather than requiring manual compilation or separate reporting tools, with cumulative statistics (32M+ issues found across all users) demonstrating scale of analysis.
vs alternatives: Simpler to set up than custom dashboards built on top of SonarQube or other analysis tools because metrics are pre-aggregated and visualized, though less customizable than building dashboards from raw metric exports.
Integrates analysis results directly into GitHub, Bitbucket, and GitLab native interfaces via webhook-triggered automation, displaying issues as PR checks, comments, or merge request widgets without requiring developers to visit external tools. Uses OAuth authentication to authorize access and webhook callbacks to trigger analysis on each commit or PR event, with results rendered in the platform's native UI components.
Unique: Renders analysis results directly in Git platform native UI (GitHub checks, GitLab widgets, Bitbucket comments) rather than requiring developers to visit external dashboards, reducing context-switching and integrating feedback into existing code review workflows.
vs alternatives: More seamless developer experience than external code review tools because feedback appears where developers already work, though less flexible than self-hosted solutions that can be customized for specific organizational workflows.
Allows teams to configure analysis rules to match their code standards, with the website claiming 'fully configurable' rules but providing no documentation of what can be configured, how configuration works, or what rule types are supported. The actual scope of customization — whether it includes rule severity levels, exception lists, custom rule creation, or only preset rule selection — is completely unspecified.
Unique: unknown — insufficient data. Website claims 'fully configurable' but provides zero documentation of configuration mechanism, scope, or available options.
vs alternatives: unknown — insufficient data to compare customization capabilities against alternatives like ESLint, Pylint, or Sonarqube.
Allows teams to define custom analysis rules and issue categories through configuration files or UI, enabling organization-specific standards beyond built-in checks. Rules can be enabled/disabled, severity adjusted, and custom patterns defined using language-specific rule syntax. Configuration is stored in the repository (e.g., .codeflow.yml) enabling version control and team consensus on standards. Supports rule inheritance and overrides for different code paths (e.g., stricter rules for critical services, relaxed rules for test code).
Unique: Enables organization-specific rule definition and configuration stored in the repository, allowing teams to version control their standards and evolve them over time rather than being locked into built-in rules
vs alternatives: More flexible than tools with fixed rule sets, but requires more setup and maintenance than using default configurations
Classifies detected issues by severity (critical, high, medium, low) and priority based on impact, frequency, and business context. Uses machine learning to score actionability (how likely a developer is to fix the issue) based on issue type, codebase patterns, and team history. Enables teams to focus on high-impact issues first and deprioritize low-confidence findings. Severity can be customized per organization and adjusted based on code path (e.g., critical for production code, medium for tests).
Unique: Combines severity classification with actionability scoring to help teams focus on high-impact, fixable issues rather than overwhelming developers with all findings regardless of importance
vs alternatives: More intelligent than simple severity levels because it considers likelihood of developer action, but less accurate than manual expert review for understanding true business impact
+1 more capabilities
Aggregates 67 TB of source code from the Software Heritage archive, filtering for permissively licensed repositories (MIT, Apache 2.0, BSD, etc.) across 600+ programming languages. Uses automated license detection and validation to ensure legal compliance for model training. Implements a rigorous deduplication pipeline at file and repository levels to eliminate redundant training data and reduce dataset bloat.
Unique: Largest open-source code dataset at 67 TB with automated opt-out governance allowing repository owners to request removal, combined with rigorous deduplication and PII removal pipeline — no other public dataset offers this scale with legal compliance and community control mechanisms
vs alternatives: Larger and more legally compliant than GitHub's CodeSearchNet (14M files) or Google's BigQuery public datasets, with explicit opt-out governance vs. implicit inclusion, and covers 600+ languages vs. Codex training data's undisclosed language distribution
Implements a community-driven opt-out system where repository owners can request removal of their code from the dataset without legal takedown notices. Maintains a registry of excluded repositories and re-applies exclusions during dataset updates. Provides transparent governance documentation and a clear submission process for removal requests, balancing open access with creator rights.
Unique: First large-scale code dataset to implement opt-out governance at dataset level rather than relying solely on license compliance, with transparent registry and community submission process — shifts power from dataset creators to code contributors
vs alternatives: More respectful of creator autonomy than GitHub Copilot's training approach (no opt-out) or academic datasets (one-time snapshot), and more scalable than individual DMCA takedowns
The Stack v2 scores higher at 61/100 vs Codeflow at 55/100.
Need something different?
Search the match graph →© 2026 Unfragile. Stronger through disorder.
Automated pipeline that scans source code for personally identifiable information (email addresses, API keys, SSH keys, credit card patterns, phone numbers) and removes or redacts them before dataset release. Uses regex patterns, entropy-based detection for secrets, and heuristic rules to identify sensitive data. Operates at file level with configurable sensitivity thresholds to balance data utility against privacy risk.
Unique: Combines regex pattern matching, entropy-based secret detection, and heuristic rules in a unified pipeline with configurable sensitivity — more comprehensive than simple regex-only approaches, but trades off false positive rate against security coverage
vs alternatives: More thorough than GitHub's secret scanning (which only flags known patterns) because it includes entropy-based detection for unknown secret formats, but less accurate than specialized tools like TruffleHog due to language-agnostic approach
Indexes 67 TB of source code across 600+ programming languages with language-aware metadata (syntax, file extension, language family). Enables retrieval by language, license, repository, or code patterns. Uses Software Heritage's existing indexing infrastructure as foundation, augmented with language detection and classification. Supports both bulk download and filtered queries for specific language subsets.
Unique: Leverages Software Heritage's existing language detection and indexing infrastructure, then augments with BigCode-specific language classification and filtering — avoids reinventing language detection while providing dataset-specific query capabilities
vs alternatives: More comprehensive language coverage (600+ languages) than GitHub's Linguist (500+ languages) and more accessible than Software Heritage's raw API because it's pre-filtered for permissive licenses and deduplicated
Removes duplicate code files and repositories using content hashing (SHA-256 or similar) and fuzzy matching for near-duplicates. Operates in two stages: exact deduplication via hash matching, then fuzzy matching (e.g., Jaccard similarity or MinHash) to catch semantically identical code with minor formatting differences. Preserves one canonical copy of each unique code pattern while removing redundant training examples.
Unique: Two-stage deduplication combining exact hash matching with fuzzy similarity matching (likely MinHash or Jaccard) to catch both identical and near-identical code — more thorough than single-stage approaches but computationally expensive
vs alternatives: More aggressive deduplication than CodeSearchNet (which uses simple hash matching) because it catches near-duplicates, but less semantic than clone detection tools (which understand code structure) because it's content-based
Integrates with Software Heritage's comprehensive archive of 200+ million repositories and their full version control history. Extracts source code snapshots from Software Heritage's Git/Mercurial/SVN repositories, preserving repository metadata (commit history, author info, timestamps). Provides access to code at specific points in time, enabling historical analysis or training on code evolution patterns.
Unique: Leverages Software Heritage's universal code archive (200M+ repositories) as data source, providing access to code that would be impossible to collect via GitHub API alone — enables training on archived/deleted repositories and non-GitHub platforms (GitLab, Gitea, etc.)
vs alternatives: More comprehensive than GitHub-only datasets because it includes code from GitLab, Gitea, SourceForge, and other platforms archived by Software Heritage; more legally defensible than web scraping because it uses an established, community-maintained archive
Tracks and validates SPDX license identifiers for each repository, ensuring only permissively licensed code (MIT, Apache 2.0, BSD, etc.) is included. Maintains license metadata alongside code files, enabling downstream users to verify legal compliance. Implements license hierarchy and compatibility checking to handle dual-licensed or complex licensing scenarios.
Unique: Combines automated SPDX detection with manual review and maintains license metadata alongside code, enabling downstream users to verify compliance — more transparent than datasets that simply claim 'permissive licenses' without proof
vs alternatives: More legally rigorous than GitHub's CodeSearchNet (which doesn't validate licenses) and more transparent than Codex training data (which doesn't disclose license filtering at all)
Maintains versioned snapshots of the dataset (e.g., v2.0, v2.1) with documented changes between versions (new repositories added, deduplication improvements, PII removal updates). Provides checksums and manifests for reproducibility, enabling researchers to cite specific dataset versions and reproduce results. Tracks dataset lineage and transformation history.
Unique: Maintains semantic versioning and detailed changelogs for dataset releases, enabling researchers to cite specific versions and understand dataset evolution — more rigorous than one-off dataset releases without versioning
vs alternatives: More reproducible than academic datasets that are released once without versioning, and more transparent than commercial datasets (Codex) that don't disclose version history or changes
+2 more capabilities