🗑️ Garbage Code Hunter

A humorous Rust code quality detector that roasts your garbage code with style! 🔥

Inspiration from https://github.com/Done-0/fuck-u-code.git

Unlike traditional linters that give you dry, boring warnings, Garbage Code Hunter delivers sarcastic, witty, and brutally honest feedback about your code quality. It's like having a sassy code reviewer who isn't afraid to hurt your feelings (in a good way).

✨ Features

🎭 Humorous Code Analysis: Get roasted with style while learning better coding practices
🌍 Multi-language Support: Available in English and Chinese (more languages coming soon!)
🎯 Smart Detection: Identifies common code smells and anti-patterns
📊 Professional Reports: Generate detailed analysis reports in multiple formats
🔧 Highly Configurable: Customize output, filtering, and analysis depth
📝 Markdown Export: Perfect for documentation and CI/CD integration
🚀 Fast & Lightweight: Built with Rust for maximum performance

🎯 Scoring System

Garbage Code Hunter includes a comprehensive scientific scoring system that evaluates your Rust code quality on a scale of 0-100, where:

Lower scores = Better code quality 🏆
Higher scores = More problematic code 💀

📊 Score Ranges & Quality Levels

Score Range	Quality Level	Emoji	Description
0-20	Excellent	🏆	Outstanding code quality with minimal issues
21-40	Good	👍	Good code quality with minor improvements needed
41-60	Average	😐	Average code quality with room for improvement
61-80	Poor	😟	Poor code quality, refactoring recommended
81-100	Terrible	💀	Critical code quality issues, rewrite urgently needed

🧮 Scoring Algorithm

The scoring system uses a multi-factor algorithm that considers:

1. Base Score Calculation

Each detected issue contributes to the base score using:

Issue Score = Rule Weight × Severity Weight

2. Rule Weights (Impact Factor)

Different types of issues have different weights based on their impact:

Category	Rule	Weight	Rationale
Safety Critical	`unsafe-abuse`	5.0	Memory safety violations
FFI Critical	`ffi-abuse`	4.5	Foreign function interface risks
Runtime Critical	`unwrap-abuse`	4.0	Potential panic sources
Architecture	`lifetime-abuse`	3.5	Complex lifetime management
Async/Concurrency	`async-abuse`	3.5	Async pattern misuse
Complexity	`deep-nesting`	3.0	Code maintainability
Performance	`unnecessary-clone`	2.0	Runtime efficiency
Readability	`terrible-naming`	2.0	Code comprehension

3. Severity Weights

Issues are classified by severity with corresponding multipliers:

Nuclear (💥): 10.0× - Critical issues that can cause crashes or security vulnerabilities
Spicy (🌶️): 5.0× - Serious issues affecting maintainability or performance
Mild (😐): 2.0× - Minor issues with style or best practices

4. Density Penalties

Additional penalties based on issue concentration:

Issue Density: Problems per 1000 lines of code
- >50 issues/1000 lines: +25 penalty
- >30 issues/1000 lines: +15 penalty
- >20 issues/1000 lines: +10 penalty
- >10 issues/1000 lines: +5 penalty
File Complexity: Average issues per file
- >20 issues/file: +15 penalty
- >10 issues/file: +10 penalty
- >5 issues/file: +5 penalty

5. Severity Distribution Penalties

Extra penalties for problematic patterns:

Nuclear Issues: First nuclear issue +20, each additional +5
Spicy Issues: After 5 spicy issues, each additional +2
Mild Issues: After 20 mild issues, each additional +0.5

📈 Metrics Included

The scoring system provides detailed metrics:

Total Score: Overall code quality score (0-100)
Category Scores: Breakdown by issue categories
Issue Density: Problems per 1000 lines of code
Severity Distribution: Count of nuclear/spicy/mild issues
File Count: Number of analyzed Rust files
Total Lines: Total lines of code analyzed

🎯 Interpretation Guide

For Excellent Code (0-20):

Minimal issues detected
Strong adherence to Rust best practices
Good architecture and safety patterns

For Good Code (21-40):

Few minor issues
Generally well-structured
Minor optimizations possible

For Average Code (41-60):

Moderate number of issues
Some refactoring beneficial
Focus on complexity reduction

For Poor Code (61-80):

Significant issues present
Refactoring strongly recommended
Address safety and complexity concerns

For Terrible Code (81-100):

Critical issues requiring immediate attention
Consider rewriting problematic sections
Focus on safety, correctness, and maintainability

🔬 Scientific Approach

The scoring system is designed to be:

Objective: Based on measurable code metrics
Weighted: Critical issues have higher impact
Contextual: Considers code size and complexity
Actionable: Provides specific improvement areas
Consistent: Reproducible results across runs

🎪 What It Detects

Naming Disasters

Terrible variable names (data, temp, info, obj)
Single-letter variables (except common loop counters)
Generic meaningless identifiers

Code Structure Issues

Deep nesting (Russian doll syndrome)
Overly long functions
Complex conditional logic

Rust-Specific Anti-patterns

unwrap() abuse (panic bombs 💣)
Unnecessary clone() calls (memory waste)
Poor error handling patterns

🚀 Installation

From Source

git clone https://github.com/yourusername/garbage-code-hunter.git
cd garbage-code-hunter
make install

Using Cargo

cargo install garbage-code-hunter

📖 Usage

Basic Usage

# Analyze current directory
cargo run

# Analyze specific file or directory
cargo run -- src/main.rs
cargo run -- src/

# Use make targets for convenience
make run ARGS="src/ --verbose"
make demo

Language Options

# Chinese output (default)
garbage-code-hunter --lang zh-CN src/

# English output
garbage-code-hunter --lang en-US src/

Advanced Options

# Verbose analysis with top 3 problematic files
garbage-code-hunter --verbose --top 3 --issues 5 src/

# Only show summary
garbage-code-hunter --summary src/

# Generate Markdown report
garbage-code-hunter --markdown src/ > code-quality-report.md

# Exclude files/directories
garbage-code-hunter --exclude "test_*" --exclude "target/*" src/

# Show only serious issues
garbage-code-hunter --harsh src/

🎨 Sample Output

English Mode

🗑️  Garbage Code Hunter 🗑️
Preparing to roast your code...

📊 Code Quality Report
──────────────────────────────────────────────────
Found some areas for improvement:

📈 Issue Statistics:
   1 🔥 Nuclear Issues (fix immediately)
   138 🌶️  Spicy Issues (should fix)
   34 😐 Mild Issues (can ignore)
   173 📝 Total

🏆 Code Quality Score
──────────────────────────────────────────────────
   📊 Score: 60.9/100 😐
   🎯 Level: Average
   📏 Lines of Code: 260
   📁 Files: 1
   🔍 Issue Density: 66 issues/1k lines

   🎭 Issue Distribution:
      💥 Nuclear: 1
      🌶️  Spicy: 138
      😐 Mild: 34

🏆 Files with Most Issues
──────────────────────────────────────────────────
   1. func.rs (173 issues)

📁 func.rs
  📦 Nesting depth issues: 20 (depth 4-9)
  🔄 Code duplication issues: 9 (6 instances)
  🏷️ Variable naming issues: 128 (a, b, c, d, e, ...)
  🏷️ Variable naming issues: 13 (a, b, c, d, e, ...)
  ⚠️ long function: 1


📊 Scoring Details
──────────────────────────────────────────────────
📋 Category Scores:
  ⚠ 🏷️ Naming 90     Terrible, urgent fixes needed
    💬 Congrats! Variables harder to understand than comments 🏆
  ⚠ 🧩 Complexity 90     Terrible, urgent fixes needed
    💬 Complexity off the charts! Even AI gave up 🤖
  ⚠ 🔄 Duplication 90     Terrible, urgent fixes needed
    💬 Suggest renaming to ctrl-c-ctrl-v.rs 📋
  ✓✓ 🦀 Rust Basics 0     Excellent, keep it up
  ✓✓ ⚡ Advanced Rust 0     Excellent, keep it up
  • 🚀 Rust Features 69     Poor, refactoring recommended
    💬 More macros than my excuses 🎭
  ✓✓ 🏗️ Code Structure 0     Excellent, keep it up

🧮 Weighted Calculation:
  Score calculation: (90.0×0.25 + 90.0×0.20 + 90.0×0.15 + 0.0×0.15 + 0.0×0.10 + 69.4×0.10 + 0.0×0.05) ÷ 1.00 = 60.9

📏 Scoring Scale (higher score = worse code):
  💀 81-100: Terrible    🔥 61-80: Poor    ⚠️ 41-60: Average
  ✅ 21-40: Good         🌟 0-20: Excellent
📋 Summary
──────────────────────────────────────────────────
😐 Average code quality, Score: 60.9/100, room for improvement

Found some serious issues, suggest fixing nuclear problems first 🔥

💡 Suggestions
──────────────────────────────────────────────────
   💡 Use meaningful variable names that make code self-documenting (e.g., user_count instead of data)
   🎯 Variable names should describe what they store, not the data type
   🔧 Reduce nesting levels, consider extracting functions or using early returns (guard clauses)
   🏗️ Complex conditional logic can be split into multiple small functions
   ✂️ Split long functions into smaller ones, follow the single responsibility principle
   📏 A function should ideally not exceed 20-30 lines for better understanding and testing
   🔄 Extract common code into functions to follow the DRY principle
   🏗️ Consider creating utility functions or modules for repeated logic

Keep working hard to make your code better! 🚀

Chinese Mode

🗑️  垃圾代码猎人 🗑️
正在准备吐槽你的代码...

📊 垃圾代码检测报告
──────────────────────────────────────────────────
发现了一些需要改进的地方：

📈 问题统计:
   1 🔥 核弹级问题 (需要立即修复)
   138 🌶️  辣眼睛问题 (建议修复)
   34 😐 轻微问题 (可以忽略)
   173 📝 总计

🏆 代码质量评分
──────────────────────────────────────────────────
   📊 总分: 60.9/100 😐
   🎯 等级: 一般
   📏 代码行数: 260
   📁 文件数量: 1
   🔍 问题密度: 66 问题/千行

   🎭 问题分布:
      💥 核弹级: 1
      🌶️  严重: 138
      😐 轻微: 34

🏆 问题最多的文件
──────────────────────────────────────────────────
   1. func.rs (173 issues)

📁 func.rs
  📦 嵌套深度问题: 20 (deep nesting)
  🔄 代码重复问题: 9 (20 instances)
  🏷️ 变量命名问题: 128 (a, b, c, d, e, ...)
  🏷️ 变量命名问题: 13 (a, b, c, d, e, ...)
  ⚠️ long function: 1


📊 评分详情
──────────────────────────────────────────────────
📋 分类评分详情:
  ⚠ 🏷️ 命名规范 90分     糟糕，急需修复
    💬 恭喜！你成功让变量名比注释还难懂 🏆
  ⚠ 🧩 复杂度 90分     糟糕，急需修复
    💬 复杂度爆表！连AI都看不懂了 🤖
  ⚠ 🔄 代码重复 90分     糟糕，急需修复
    💬 建议改名为copy-paste.rs 📋
  ✓✓ 🦀 Rust基础 0分     优秀，继续保持
  ✓✓ ⚡ 高级特性 0分     优秀，继续保持
  • 🚀 Rust功能 69分     较差，建议重构
    💬 宏定义比我的借口还多 🎭
  ✓✓ 🏗️ 代码结构 0分     优秀，继续保持

🧮 加权计算:
  评分计算: (90.0×0.25 + 90.0×0.20 + 90.0×0.15 + 0.0×0.15 + 0.0×0.10 + 69.4×0.10 + 0.0×0.05) ÷ 1.00 = 60.9

📏 评分标准 (分数越高代码越烂):
  💀 81-100: 糟糕    🔥 61-80: 较差    ⚠️ 41-60: 一般
  ✅ 21-40: 良好     🌟 0-20: 优秀
📋 总结
──────────────────────────────────────────────────
😐 代码质量一般，评分: 60.9/100，还有改进空间

发现了一些严重问题，建议优先修复核弹级问题 🔥

💡 改进建议
──────────────────────────────────────────────────
   💡 使用有意义的变量名，让代码自解释（比如用 user_count 而不是 data）
   🎯 变量名应该描述它存储的内容，而不是数据类型
   🔧 减少嵌套层数，考虑提取函数或使用早期返回（guard clauses）
   🏗️ 复杂的条件逻辑可以拆分成多个小函数
   ✂️ 将长函数拆分成多个小函数，遵循单一职责原则
   📏 一个函数最好不超过 20-30 行，这样更容易理解和测试

继续努力，让代码变得更好！🚀

🛠️ Command Line Options

Option	Short	Description
`--help`	`-h`	Show help message
`--verbose`	`-v`	Show detailed analysis report
`--top N`	`-t N`	Show top N files with most issues (default: 5)
`--issues N`	`-i N`	Show N issues per file (default: 5)
`--summary`	`-s`	Only show summary conclusion
`--markdown`	`-m`	Output Markdown format report
`--lang LANG`	`-l LANG`	Output language (zh-CN, en-US)
`--exclude PATTERN`	`-e PATTERN`	Exclude file/directory patterns
`--harsh`		Show only the worst offenders

🔧 Development

Prerequisites

Rust 1.70 or later
Cargo

Building

# Debug build
make build

# Release build
make release

# Run tests
make test

# Format code
make fmt

# Run linter
make clippy

Running Demo

make demo

This creates a sample file with intentionally bad code and runs the analyzer on it.

🎯 Examples

CI/CD Integration

# GitHub Actions example
- name: Code Quality Check
  run: |
    cargo install garbage-code-hunter
    garbage-code-hunter --markdown --lang en-US src/ > quality-report.md
    # Upload report as artifact or comment on PR

Pre-commit Hook

#!/bin/bash
# .git/hooks/pre-commit
garbage-code-hunter --harsh --summary src/
if [ $? -ne 0 ]; then
    echo "Code quality issues detected. Please fix before committing."
    exit 1
fi

🤝 Contributing

We welcome contributions! Here's how you can help:

Add New Rules: Implement additional code smell detection
Language Support: Add translations for more languages
Improve Messages: Make the roasts even funnier (but still helpful)
Documentation: Help improve docs and examples
Bug Reports: Found a bug? Let us know!

Adding New Detection Rules

Create a new rule in src/rules/
Implement the Rule trait
Add humorous messages in src/i18n.rs
Add tests
Submit a PR!

📝 License

This project is licensed under the MIT License - see the LICENSE file for details.

🙏 Acknowledgments

Inspired by the need for more entertaining code reviews
Built with ❤️ and a lot of ☕
Thanks to all the developers who write garbage code (we've all been there!)

🔗 Links

Remember: The goal isn't to shame developers, but to make code quality improvement fun and memorable. Happy coding! 🚀

garbage-code-hunter 0.1.1