Kipo — Watchdog Audit

Executive summary

The system holds an adequate standing with a health score of 59%, indicating a workable asset that carries real operational risk. While the architecture is robust and the domain logic is well-defined, the overall maturity and production readiness are insufficient for confident, long-term delivery. This gap creates a fragile foundation where daily changes incur hidden costs and potential delays.

The value at stake is moderate, with a rebuild effort estimated at roughly 0.2 person-years and a cost of approximately €33,000. This is not a massive legacy monolith, but it is significant enough that inefficiencies compound quickly. The codebase is small enough to manage but large enough that poor practices in key areas will slow down every release cycle, turning minor updates into major engineering events.

The primary risk is low organizational maturity, which undermines the system’s reliability and security posture. With maturity and readiness scores both at 52%, the team lacks the documented processes and operational safeguards needed to prevent outages or security slips. This means that even if the code works, the team may struggle to maintain it safely under pressure, leading to increased defect rates and slower incident response times.

A secondary issue is the velocity tax imposed by mediocre code quality. Although the architecture is sound, the average code quality score of 6.8 out of 10 acts as a drag on every change. This inefficiency likely adds 3–7% extra effort to modifications, meaning the team spends more time fixing and understanding code than delivering new features. Over time, this compounds, making the system progressively harder and more expensive to evolve.

On the positive side, the architecture is excellent, and the domain modeling is perfect, providing a solid structural backbone. The security posture is also adequate, with no critical exposures identified. These strengths mean the core logic is sound and the system is not fundamentally broken, offering a stable base for improvement.

Focus first on recording significant decisions in a centralized, dated format. This single action has the highest leverage, as it addresses the maturity gap directly and prevents future confusion. It is a low-effort, high-impact step that pays for itself by reducing the velocity tax and improving team alignment. Other improvements can wait until this foundation is set.

Code Health 72% Strong Architecture 99% ★ Exemplary Maturity 52% Adequate · gated by M4 Readiness 52% Adequate · gated by P3 Security 68% Adequate · gated by D36 Domain Modelling 100% ★ Exemplary

How the score is built — each lens's share of the headline Width is the lens's weight in the worst-heaviest fold (the weakest area pulls hardest); colour is that lens's own band. A lens fixes the score in proportion to its width.

Maturity 52% · 46% weightReadiness 52% · 25% weightSecurity 68% · 14% weightCode Health 72% · 8% weightArchitecture 99% · 4% weightDomain Modelling 100% · 2% weight

Raise Maturity 52 → 70 (the Healthy floor) ⇒ headline 59 → ~63.

Code composition — where the lines go

Tests 100%

New since the last scan (2+)

2 finding(s) are new versus the previous scan (2026-09-18) — surfaced by this scheduled scan itself, no pull request required.

D4 · Near-duplicate member pair (294 shared lines) Pomo.Core/Scenes/BlockMapScene.fs
D4 · Edited copy of a member (50 corresponding lines) Pomo.Core/Domain/Core.fs

A full-fidelity diff against the previous run's complete recorded findings — line-move tolerant: a finding that only shifted line counts as unchanged, only genuinely new titles/files surface here.

Rebuild cost & value ~ Modeled — €11,000–€55,000

Cost to rebuild	€11,000–€55,000 (0.1–0.3 person-years (182–576 h), ~1 engineer)
Domain complexity	Standard — harder problems cost more per line
Quality factor	0.8× (at 59% quality) — the last 20% of quality is most of the work
Size & shape	Medium · effort split not classified (source measured from disk; the effort-tier breakdown is a C#-only syntax walk)

This codebase represents roughly ~0.2 person-years of build effort (about ~€33,000 to rebuild). Its weakest lens is Maturity at 52% — the part of that asset most exposed by the findings below.

How we model this: boilerplate at a scaffolding rate + logic × domain Standard (×1.2) — domain model × a 0.8× quality factor, at €60–95/h; indicative, ±~30% · size measured directly from source · effort from total production LoC as straight-line logic (the tier split is a C#-only syntax walk), a conservative lower bound. Indicative only — most sensitive to the hourly rate and the domain tier (both tunable in config).

Top priorities

The highest-leverage moves; the full ranked list is in the Roadmap below.

Resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality.

+5.8 pts · Low effort · ADR Quality

Record significant decisions one document per decision — dated, stating the context, the decision and its consequences — and keep them together wherever your design docs already live (a conventional `docs/adr/` tree, with each file named `NNNN-title` in whatever markup those docs already use, is the most discoverable form).

+6.9 pts · Medium effort · Architecture documentation

Reconcile the README with reality: MonoGame dependency not present; Android runner Pomo.Android/ exists but no Android project is shown in the evidence.

+6.9 pts · Medium effort · Documentation accuracy

Diagnosis — what's actually going on

Value concentrated against a weak lens · Medium · Value at risk

This is a Medium asset (~0.2 person-years to rebuild), and its weakest lens is Maturity at 52%. The operational and business risk on an asset this size concentrates there — that's where remediation buys the most protection.

Evidence: valuation: Medium, ~0.2 person-years rebuild (24,921 LoC) · weakest lens: Maturity 52%

→ Direct remediation budget at Maturity first — highest risk-reduction per euro on an asset this size.

Highest-leverage move · Medium · Leverage

Of everything flagged, the best return on effort is: Record significant decisions one document per decision — dated, stating the context, the decision and its consequences — and keep them together wherever your design docs already live (a conventional `docs/adr/` tree, with each file named `NNNN-title` in whatever markup those docs already use, is the most discoverable form). The rest can wait behind it.

Evidence: priority ranking: top of 5 ranked by impact/effort

→ Record significant decisions one document per decision — dated, stating the context, the decision and its consequences — and keep them together wherever your design docs already live (a conventional `docs/adr/` tree, with each file named `NNNN-title` in whatever markup those docs already use, is the most discoverable form).

A velocity tax on every change · Medium · Economics

The code-quality signals (complexity, duplication, cohesion) average 6.8/10, which acts as a tax on every change in the weaker areas: modifications there plausibly cost on the order of 3–7% more than in clean code, and the tax compounds as the codebase grows. (A modelled estimate, not a measured fact.)

Evidence: D1/D2/D4 code quality: averaging 6.8/10 across the code-quality signals actually measured

→ Pay it down where churn is highest — the hotspots — not everywhere; that's where the tax is actually paid.

The top fix pays for itself · Medium · Economics

The top-ranked fix costs roughly 1–3 engineer-days once. Not doing it costs about 0.1–0.5 engineer-days every year, paid as drag on the ~1,058 lines this team changes annually — a bill that arrives whether or not anyone books it. On those figures the fix breaks even in roughly 25–450 months and is free after that. Method, stated so this is not read as a quotation: debt from the ranked task's effort band; interest = annual changed lines (measured, annualised from the 90-day window) ÷ an ASSUMED 150–400 lines per engineer-day × the 3–7% drag implied by the code-quality signals; breaking point = debt ÷ annual interest. A modelled planning range built from measured inputs and one named assumption — not a quotation, a valuation, or a certified figure.

Evidence: D15 churn: 261 line(s) changed over a 90-day window ⇒ ~1,058/year · D1/D2/D4 code quality: averaging 6.8/10 ⇒ a 3–7% drag on each change · top-ranked remediation: Low effort ⇒ about 1–3 engineer-day(s)

→ Do the top-ranked fix now if this code will still be yours in 450 months.

Architecture — module dependency graph

Project dependencies, layered top-to-bottom; arrows show direction. Any dashed red edge points upward or sideways — a layering smell or cycle. A clean layered graph has none.

Architecture — module dependency matrix

Rows and columns are the same modules, ordered so that a module only depends on ones above it. A cell means the row depends on the column, and its number is how many type pairs create that dependency. Read one thing: is anything above the diagonal? A mark there is a dependency cycle. (A cycle is all this shows — an unusual but cycle-free dependency sits below the diagonal like any other.)

331 modules, 614 dependencies. 2 dependency cycles across 4 modules, marked above the diagonal.

Showing the 40 most-connected modules; 291 more are not drawn.

Module dependency matrix. The row depends on the column; the number is how many type pairs create the dependency. A cell above the diagonal is part of a dependency cycle.
depends on →	1 Pomo.Core.Domain.Action	2 Pomo.Core.Domain.Animation	3 Pomo.Core.Domain.Core	4 Pomo.Core.Domain.Formula	5 Pomo.Core.Systems.Systems	6 Pomo.Core.Domain.Camera	7 Pomo.Core.Domain.Entity	8 Pomo.Core.Domain.Orbital	9 Pomo.Core.Domain.Projectile	10 Pomo.Core.Domain.Spatial	11 Pomo.Core.Domain.Skill	12 Pomo.Core.Domain.UI	13 Pomo.Core.Domain.AI	14 Pomo.Core.Domain.BlockMap	15 Pomo.Core.Domain.Item	16 Pomo.Core.Domain.Particles	17 Pomo.Core.Domain.Scenes	21 Pomo.Core.Stores	22 Pomo.Core.Domain.Events.SystemCommunications	24 Pomo.Core.Domain.Events	26 Pomo.Core.Domain.World	27 Pomo.Core.EventBus	28 Pomo.Core.Projections	29 Pomo.Core.UI	31 Pomo.Core.Environment
1 Pomo.Core.Domain.Action
2 Pomo.Core.Domain.Animation
3 Pomo.Core.Domain.Core
4 Pomo.Core.Domain.Formula
5 Pomo.Core.Systems.Systems
6 Pomo.Core.Domain.Camera			1
7 Pomo.Core.Domain.Entity			2
8 Pomo.Core.Domain.Orbital			1
9 Pomo.Core.Domain.Projectile			1
10 Pomo.Core.Domain.Spatial			4
11 Pomo.Core.Domain.Skill			7	3			2	1	1
12 Pomo.Core.Domain.UI							1
13 Pomo.Core.Domain.AI							4				2
14 Pomo.Core.Domain.BlockMap			1				1			2	1
15 Pomo.Core.Domain.Item			1								1
16 Pomo.Core.Domain.Particles											1
17 Pomo.Core.Domain.Scenes														1
18 Pomo.Core.Editor										2				2
19 Pomo.Core.Graphics																1
20 Pomo.Core.JsonFileLoader		2									1		5		1	1
21 Pomo.Core.Stores		2									1		5		1	1
22 Pomo.Core.Domain.Events.SystemCommunications	1		2				2				3		1		3		1			1
23 Pomo.Core.Rendering			1						1					1				1
24 Pomo.Core.Domain.Events	2		2				4						1		1				24
25 Pomo.Core.Systems.AIContext			1				2			1			4					1	2
26 Pomo.Core.Domain.World	3	1	3				4	1	1		1		1	1	2	1			2	1
27 Pomo.Core.EventBus																				1
28 Pomo.Core.Projections	2		7				4			2	1				5			1			2
29 Pomo.Core.UI			1				1				1										5
30 ProjectionsTests			1				1				2				2			1			1
31 Pomo.Core.Environment	2	1	4			1	1	1	1		2	1	1		2			9	1	2	3	1	1
32 Pomo.Core.Systems.HUDComponents	2		2			1	4				1	1			2			2			2		1	2
33 Pomo.Core.Systems.AbilityActivation			2		1		1				2							2	2			1			2
34 Pomo.Core.Systems.Combat			1		2		2	1								1		2			1	1			2
35 Pomo.Core.Systems.EntitySpawnerLogic	1		2		1		1						1		1			3	3						2
36 Pomo.Core.Systems.HoverFeedback						1	1				1			1							2		1		1
37 Pomo.Core.Systems.Navigation3D			3											2					1			1	2		1
38 Pomo.Core.Systems.Projectile		1	4		1				2		1			1		2		3	1						2
39 Pomo.Core.Systems.StateWrite	2	1	2				1	1	1		1		1		2				1	2	4				1
40 Pomo.Core.Systems.Targeting	1		1								2							1				2	1		3

Dependency, pointing down the layeringAbove the diagonal — part of a cycleThe module itself

At a glance — Code Health · 72% · Strong ·

The Good

D1 · .NET / C# Cyclomatic Complexity 7.0 D3 · .NET / C# God Classes 8.5 D4 · .NET / C# Code Duplication 9.1 X28 · Repo Index access outside its own emptiness guard 10.0

The Ugly

D2 · .NET / C# Cognitive Complexity 4.2

At a glance — Architecture · 99% · Exemplary ·

The Good

D5 · .NET / C# Coupling 10.0 D27 · .NET / C# Navigability 9.5 D35 · .NET / C# Change Coupling 9.4 AX10 · Repo Code composition 10.0 AX3 · Repo Project dependency cycles 10.0 AX4 · Repo Dependency direction 10.0 AX8 · Repo Test isolation 10.0

At a glance — Maturity · 52% · Adequate · gated by M4 ·

The Good

D15 · .NET / C# Churn × Complexity Hotspots 10.0 D19 · .NET / C# Documentation Quality 9.0 D21 · .NET / C# Naming Consistency 10.0 D34 · .NET / C# Knowledge Freshness 10.0 M1 · Repo Documentation (README) 8.0 M3 · Repo Folder & project structure 8.0

The Bad

M2 · Repo Architecture documentation 5.0

The Ugly

D20 · .NET / C# ADR Quality 0.0 M4 · Repo Documentation accuracy 1.0

At a glance — Readiness · 52% · Adequate · gated by P3 ·

The Good

D11 · .NET / C# Test Reliability 10.0 D13 · .NET / C# Secret Scanning 10.0 D14 · .NET / C# License Compliance 10.0 P1 · Repo CI/CD gates 8.5

The Bad

P4 · Repo Deployment & Rollback 5.0

The Ugly

P3 · Repo Security & performance tooling 0.0

At a glance — Security · 68% · Adequate · gated by D36 ·

The Good

D28 · .NET / C# Secrets (history) 10.0 D29 · .NET / C# Static Analysis (SAST) 7.1 D44 · .NET / C# Platform End-of-Life 10.0

The Ugly

D36 · .NET / C# Supply-chain Provenance & Signing 0.0

At a glance — Domain Modelling · 100% · Exemplary ·

The Good

DM12 · Repo Ambient inputs in the domain 10.0 DM6 · Repo Domain ↔ infrastructure boundary 10.0 DM8 · Repo Value-object opportunities 10.0

Security & Compliance — OWASP Top-10 mapping

Findings mapped to OWASP categories; the specific CVEs/secrets are in the Security dimension cards below and findings.md (redacted only on the public version of this report).

OWASP category	Findings	Severity
A03:2021 — Injection	8	High / Critical

Roadmap

First, document significant architectural decisions in a dedicated, discoverable location and ensure the README accurately reflects the current codebase, including MonoGame dependencies and Android project structure. Next, organize the repository by grouping production code under a src/ directory to separate it from tooling and tests. Finally, implement a draft release or manual gate to prevent bad builds from reaching users, ensuring a safe rollback path is available.

Ranked by impact ÷ effort. "Helps" is the estimated gain on the 0–100 health score.

Do this	Helps	Effort	Dimension
Resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality.	+5.8 pts	Low	ADR Quality
Record significant decisions one document per decision — dated, stating the context, the decision and its consequences — and keep them together wherever your design docs already live (a conventional `docs/adr/` tree, with each file named `NNNN-title` in whatever markup those docs already use, is the most discoverable form).	+6.9 pts	Medium	Architecture documentation
Reconcile the README with reality: MonoGame dependency not present; Android runner Pomo.Android/ exists but no Android project is shown in the evidence.	+6.9 pts	Medium	Documentation accuracy
Nothing pauses a release for a human: publish as a draft release (or gate the release job on a protected tag/manual dispatch) so a bad build can be stopped before users can download it.	+6.7 pts	Medium	Deployment & Rollback
Group production code under src/ (or split deliberately, e.g. backend/ + frontend/) so production and tooling code aren't mixed at the root.	+4.7 pts	Medium	Folder & project structure
Run the test suite in CI via an explicit runner step (`dotnet test` for the toolchain this pipeline already uses) and gate merges on it.	+3.8 pts	Medium	CI/CD gates
Resolve the 2 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED, REDACTED.	+0.9 pts	Low	Static Analysis (SAST)
Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing.	+0.6 pts	Low	Supply-chain Provenance & Signing

File quality

Per-file score 0–10 — a quality signature. Of 41 files carrying findings, judged against the Production bar: 0% slop · 66% mixed · 34% near-clean.

File	Score	Band	Worst signal
REDACTED	4.8	Mixed	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED	4.8	Mixed	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
Pomo.Core/Systems/Combat.fs	7.0	Mixed	Cyclomatic Complexity: Handlers.handleChargeCompleted (cyclomatic 29)
Pomo.Core/Systems/AISystem.fs	7.0	Mixed	Cyclomatic Complexity: BehaviorTreeExecution.evaluateCondition (cyclomatic 28)
Pomo.Core/Scenes/BlockMapScene.fs	7.0	Mixed	Code Duplication: Near-duplicate member pair (294 shared lines)
Pomo.Core/UI/Widgets.fs	7.0	Mixed	Cyclomatic Complexity: MiniMap.InternalRender (cyclomatic 18)
Pomo.Core/Projections.fs	7.0	Mixed	Cognitive Complexity: Projections.create (cognitive 45)
Pomo.Core/Domain/Skill.fs	7.1	Mixed	Cyclomatic Complexity: FormulaParser.classifyVar (cyclomatic 31)
Pomo.Core/Systems/ParticleSystem.fs	7.1	Mixed	Cyclomatic Complexity: ParticleSystem.updateEmitter (cyclomatic 19)
Pomo.Core/Editor/Input.fs	7.2	Mixed	Cyclomatic Complexity: EditorInput.handleEditorInput (cyclomatic 47)
Pomo.Core/Stores.fs	7.2	Mixed	Code Duplication: Duplicated block (14 lines × 2)
Pomo.Core/Systems/AbilityActivation.fs	7.4	Mixed	Cyclomatic Complexity: AbilityActivationSystem.Update (cyclomatic 24)
Pomo.Core/Editor/UI.fs	7.4	Mixed	Cyclomatic Complexity: EditorUI.build (cyclomatic 22)
Pomo.Core/Systems/EffectApplication.fs	7.4	Mixed	Cognitive Complexity: EffectApplication.applyEffect (cognitive 21)
Pomo.Core/Domain/Spatial.fs	7.4	Mixed	Cognitive Complexity: Spatial.circleChainMTV (cognitive 20)
Pomo.Core/Systems/Targeting.fs	7.4	Mixed	Cognitive Complexity: Targeting.handleTargetSelected (cognitive 16)
Pomo.Core/Systems/HUDComponents.fs	7.4	Mixed	God Classes: FileTooLong: Systems/HUDComponents.fs
Pomo.Core/UI/MyraExtensions.fs	7.4	Mixed	God Classes: FileTooLong: UI/MyraExtensions.fs
Pomo.Core/Domain/Core.fs	7.4	Mixed	Code Duplication: Edited copy of a member (50 corresponding lines)
Pomo.Core/Systems/State.fs	7.8	Mixed	Cyclomatic Complexity: StateWrite.applyAdaptiveCommand (cyclomatic 38)

How the grades work

Every finding carries one of four grades. Three say how serious it is. The fourth says this survey could not settle it — and it is a grade, not a gap.

Critical — 8

A definite problem that already costs you something and drags the score down: a missing authorisation check, a dependency with a known exploit, a build that does not reproduce. Failure here tends to cause failures elsewhere.

Serious — 127

Likely wrong, but not failing yet. It degrades the codebase over a longer horizon and can cause failures elsewhere — not urgent this week, not something to carry for two years either.

Minor — 12

Recorded, with no effect on how the codebase functions. Present so the survey is complete, not because it needs doing.

Could not be resolved — 50

Something this survey could not settle from the outside, and which could be critical or serious. Either a control was required and no positive evidence of it exists in the repository — a backup job that nothing shows was ever restored from proves nothing about restores — or our own analysis could not run over that part of the tree. This is not a clean result. These are excluded from the score rather than awarded a pass, so the number on the cover neither rewards nor penalises them: if you act on this survey without resolving them, you carry that risk yourself. Each one is named under Limitations.

Methodology & how to trust this report

Watchdog is a deep, periodic assessment — run each sprint, monthly, or quarterly, taking the time to go wider and deeper than a quick check and surfacing in one coherent report what you'd otherwise piece together from a dozen separate tools. It scores deterministically: the same commit yields the same score, every run. 31 of 34 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); 3 documentation/naming judgement(s) are LLM-assisted and labelled advisory. Overall confidence is 0.9 — the weighted average across measured dimensions; it falls as more of the score leans on LLM-assisted judgement and rises when it's fully tool-backed.

Every figure here is one of three kinds, and we label which: ✓ Measured — a deterministic fact (LoC, complexity, coverage); ~ Modeled — an estimate from a stated model (cost, effort, value-at-risk), always a range with its assumptions, never a precise fact; ◐ Advisory — an LLM prose judgement. We never present a modelled estimate as if it were measured. Perfect or absent scores carry their provenance too (ADR-0011): ✓ Tool-verified means the property itself was measured across the surface; ○ Nothing flagged means the probes came back clean — a claim bounded by what a repository can show; ⊘ Not evidenced means a working control (a tested restore, an automated rollback) showed no positive evidence — absence of evidence is not evidence of a control, so it's excluded from the score rather than awarded a spurious 10; ◐ Sampled · advisory marks an LLM verdict over a bounded sample — advisory, never a deterministic measurement.

What we checked — 34 dimensions across the health lenses

D1D2D3D4D5D11D13D14D15D19D20D21D27D28D29D34D35D36D44AX10AX3AX4AX8DM12DM6DM8M1M2M3M4P1P3P4X28

Each chip is a dimension scored from real signals across architecture, testing, dependencies, security & compliance, documentation, git-history and code quality — in one coherent pass. A surface report typically covers a handful.

How to trust any code-health report — three questions

Can you open the finding? Real findings cite a repo-relative file and line you can open at the cited line — never an absolute scratch path. Here, 132 of 147 do; the remainder are repo-wide signals — a dimension-level measurement, not a single line. (Every path in this report is repo-relative by construction: paths are normalized at the producer and the report is rejected if any rooted path leaks through.)
Is there a tool behind the number? Every score below names the method that produced it — Roslyn, git, a scanner, or (for a handful of documentation/naming dimensions) an LLM labelled sampled · advisory — not a narrative.
Does re-running give the same result? Run it again on the same commit and the score — and this report, byte for byte — is identical. A report whose numbers move between runs is describing the run, not the code.

This report answers yes to all three. That's the bar to hold any assessment to.

Tools & methods

The actual versions used this run (captured at analysis time) — re-run on the same commit for the identical score.

Method	Backs	Version	Evaluator
Roslyn static analysis	Complexity, cohesion, coupling, dead code, API surface, layering	5.3.0	✓ deterministic
Native secret scanner	Hardcoded secrets / credentials	1.0.0	✓ deterministic
Watchdog duplication detector (in-process)	Code duplication	1.0.0	✓ deterministic
Coverage (coverlet / dotnet-coverage)	Line & branch coverage	10.0.400	✓ deterministic
NuGet / dotnet	Outdated, vulnerable & deprecated dependencies	10.0.400	✓ deterministic
git / LibGit2Sharp	Churn hotspots, knowledge concentration, history	2.43.0 · 0.31.0	✓ deterministic
gitleaks · semgrep · trivy	Secrets in history, SAST, CVEs, IaC & container, PII / GDPR	1.86.0 · 0.69.3	✓ deterministic
LLM (sampled · advisory)	Documentation quality, ADR conformance, naming — sampled over a bounded sample; advisory, never a deterministic measurement	Local LLM	◐ LLM · sampled · advisory

Every finding is locatable in findings.md. Run 01a100c9-4a29-7bab-8350-cce15ff6ccca.

The exact command behind every deep-scan dimension — tool, version, invocation and retained raw output — is in Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail.

Run transparency — what happened this run

What ran differently this time — a tool absent, degraded, or that fell back to an estimate. Named openly, not folded silently into the scores. A degraded run also records its exact cause in diagnostics.md.

D6 Cohesion (LCOM4) — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check's reader does not cover the language this repository's product is written in, so it had nothing of the product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding about this repository.
D12 Dependency Hygiene — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This repository's projects (.fs) are MSBuild/NuGet projects and their `<PackageReference>` dependencies are exactly what this dimension assesses — but `dotnet list package` returned no packages for them, so there was nothing to assess. Zero packages read is NOT a clean dependency tree, so this is NOT SCORED. This is a gap in the analysis run (restore or project-load failed for these projects), not a verdict about this repository.
D16 Bus Factor — not measured this run — This is a true statement about the repository that carries nothing for its owner to act on, so it is reported here rather than as a defect in their code. Single-maintainer repository — bus factor is not applicable (2 contributor(s) across 157 commit(s) sampled, automation and bot accounts excluded). One of them holds 99% of the history; the other 1 hold 1% each on average, below the 5% at which there is somebody to hand the work to. That is a single maintainer with drive-by contributors, not a team whose knowledge has concentrated — so the bus factor is not applicable and there is nothing here for the owner to act on.
D22 Internal API Consistency — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. D22 identifies the intentionally-exposed surface from `IsPackable` and `.Contracts` project names, MSBuild conventions read off the loaded project set. This target exposed no such projects, so the probe never ran; this says nothing about whether the repository has a public API. This repository commits no C#/VB source at all, so there was never an MSBuild project set to read these conventions off. That is OUR side and it is a COLLECTOR gap, not an environment fault: no published-package marker D22 reads admitted any project here, so this ecosystem's public API has no collector, and the remedy is to write one — no change to the scan image can close it.
D26 Project Cohesion — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Project size and spread are measured over build units (a .NET project, a Maven or Gradle module, an npm, Deno or JSR package, a Go module, a Cargo crate, a Python, Composer, Bundler, Mix, rebar3, sbt, SwiftPM or pub package, an OTP application, an Xcode project or XcodeGen spec) whose source a code model reads. This repository's production source is in a language no model reads, or in units whose build tool D26 does not recognise. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository's projects are cohesive.
D39 IL Efficiency — not measured this run — This is a true statement about the repository that carries nothing for its owner to act on, so it is reported here rather than as a defect in their code. `dotnet build` exited 1 with a compiler/MSBuild diagnostic, so there were no assemblies to read IL from. The build itself is D18's row, with the ask; nothing further is charged here.
AX1 Captive dependencies — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads Microsoft.Extensions.DependencyInjection registrations in C# and Spring beans in Java/Kotlin only, and no container it models, or knows cannot hold a captive, was found in this repository's source, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
AX2 Stateful singletons — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
AX6 Interface segregation — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is computed over the public interfaces this run's compilations declare, and none was loaded, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
AXB1 Runtime evidence locked — no reproducible boot — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Subject: a native UI project (Pomo.Android/AndroidManifest.xml). The Runtime Evidence tier boots an app only via docker-compose, an Aspire AppHost, a Dockerfile, an npm dev script, a web service's own toolchain entry point (cargo, go, dotnet, Python, Spring Boot), or an Android app's own Gradle wrapper (run on an emulator); an Apple or Flutter app needs a host it lacks. None applied, so no live runtime a11y/egress/header evidence was collected. You can widen what we reach: add a docker-compose.yml (or an Aspire AppHost) that brings the app up with its dependencies. Watchdog then boots it in an isolated sandbox and gathers real runtime evidence — you change nothing in your pipeline (no CI step, no SDK).
C1 Data Protection — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These personal data controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks personal data controls.
C2 Access Controls — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These authorization controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks authorization controls.
C3 Audit Trail — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These audit controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks audit controls.
C4 Data Retention — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These retention controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks retention controls.
C5 Data-Subject Rights — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These data-subject rights controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks data-subject rights controls.
DM9 Scattered domain decisions — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Not measured — scattered-decision detection needs expression-level symbol resolution: a comparison operand bound to the member it judges (arm one) and a construction bound to the type it produces (arm two). A Roslyn compilation carries both; arm two alone also runs on any frontend that declares whether a construction is produced or passed, and this target loaded neither.
GD1 Unfinished & placeholder code — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
IC1 Incompleteness & stubs — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
P1 CI/CD gates — measured, with a gap in what it reached — Watchdog measured this, but not all of it. What it did not reach is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — so the numbers on that dimension cover less than the repository, and the part left out is not evidence that it would have passed. A CI pipeline exists and the word "test" appears, but no explicit test-runner invocation (your stack's test command, or a test job) was matched — so either the gate runs tests through a step this pass could not recognise, or "test" is incidental here (a path, "latest", a reporter). Which of the two it is cannot be settled from this dimension's evidence; the coverage dimensions report whether a suite exists at all. You can widen what we reach: name the test runner explicitly in the pipeline step (your stack's test command, or a job named for the suite) so the gate is unambiguous to a reader and to this pass.
P2 Observability — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Observability was not assessed: this check recognises the logging, tracing/metrics and health-check idioms of .NET, the JVM, Go, Python, JavaScript/TypeScript, Rust, Ruby, PHP, Swift, Dart, Elixir and Erlang, and most of this repository's production source is in none of them. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repo lacks structured logging. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository.
P5 DR & Backup — not measured this run — This is a true statement about the repository that carries nothing for its owner to act on, so it is reported here rather than as a defect in their code. No backup/snapshot/replication config, RTO/RPO or restore-procedure documentation was found — and no production persistence was detected either (no data-access packages, no data-store services, no database resources), so there is nothing in this repository whose loss a DR control would recover. If this system's data lives in a platform or ops repo we can't see, that's where the DR evidence belongs.
P8 Schema migrations — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads EF Core usage in C# and the schema tooling its file scan recognises only, and no .NET project was loaded, and this repository's language is not one the scan models, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
PF2 Allocation hygiene — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Those languages have allocation-aware idioms of their own, but this check does not read them yet. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the code is careless with allocations.
PF3 Async & latency hygiene — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. No function of a language this check models was read, so there was no async code to examine. That is a limit of the analyzer on this repository, not a finding about it.
S1 Web-Security Posture — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These web-security controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks web-security controls.
X1 Async correctness — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X12 Unreachable branch — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X13 Undrained process stream — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X14 Bypassable address classification — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X15 Unvalidated length from an untrusted reader — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X16 Unfloored truncation loop — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X17 Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X18 Disposal-pattern correctness — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X19 Unrestored process-global state — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X2 Cancellation propagation — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X20 Mistyped argument guard — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X21 Side-effecting pattern guard — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X22 Contradicted release guard — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X23 Unguarded diagnostic materialisation — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X24 Document value interpolated into markup unescaped — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X25 Inert configuration knob — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X26 Unsynchronised callback handoff — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X27 Collection changed while being enumerated — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X29 Per-element action decided by a fixed element — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X3 Exception handling — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X30 Support guard that admits what it rejects — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X32 Type resolved by simple name across every loaded assembly — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X4 Structured logging — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X5 Nullable reference types — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X6 Hand-rolled structured-format parsing — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and Python, JavaScript/TypeScript, Go, Java/Kotlin/Scala, Ruby, PHP, Rust and Swift source only, and no C# was loaded and none of those languages was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X7 Silent fallback defaults — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C#, Python, TypeScript/JavaScript, Rust, Go, Java, Kotlin and PHP syntax only, and no C#, Python, TypeScript/JavaScript, Rust, Go, Java, Kotlin or PHP was loaded for this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.

Repo exclusion declarations (.gitattributes linguist-generated/vendored, .editorconfig generated_code): none declared — every source file was scored.

Limitations & what we did not check

Watchdog assesses the repository exactly as committed, and only the repository. By design it does not reach outside the source tree: the live cloud account, the running CI/CD pipeline, the host's branch-protection and approval rules, the production configuration, or a restore actually exercised against a backup are all out of scope. That boundary is a feature, not a gap — a repo-relative, deterministic scan re-runs identically on any commit and every finding opens at a real file and line, where a live audit can neither be reproduced nor traced. The visible consequence is that controls which leave no in-repo evidence are reported as "not evidenced" and excluded from the score rather than awarded a number a static scan cannot justify.

Per-dimension blind spots

For each dimension that was measured, what a static, repo-only scan structurally cannot see — the honest edge of the measurement, not a failure of it.

D1 Cyclomatic Complexity: Cyclomatic complexity counts branches statically — it cannot tell an essential decision tree from accidental tangle, nor see complexity that lives in data or configuration (large switch-case token tables, DSL lexers/parsers, data-as-code rule tables) rather than control flow: a tokenizer's many single-character cases read as high complexity though each branch is trivial.
D2 Cognitive Complexity: Cognitive-complexity heuristics approximate how hard code is to follow; genuine domain difficulty and well-named intent that eases reading are not captured.
D3 God Classes: "God class" is sized by members and responsibilities visible in the type — a deliberately broad facade over a coherent subsystem can read the same as an accidental grab-bag. For front-end JS the file-length check is cohesion-aware (a single-responsibility module — one class/IIFE — earns a 3× threshold), but cohesion is approximated from top-level declarations, not true dependency structure.
D4 Code Duplication: Duplication is token-similarity — an in-process token-stream comparison over sliding windows, with type-aware normalization — so it finds copy-paste, not semantic duplication expressed differently. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, protobuf/OpenAPI stubs, model snapshots) is EXCLUDED — its repetition is the tool's, not the team's — so the score reflects hand-written duplication only.
D5 Coupling: Coupling is measured between projects/assemblies — runtime coupling through DI, reflection, messaging or shared databases is invisible to a static reference graph.
D11 Test Reliability: Flakiness is inferred from history/markers — Watchdog runs the suite once (for coverage), not the repeated runs under varied conditions that reveal nondeterminism, so a flaky test never recorded as failing is invisible here.
D13 Secret Scanning: Secret detection is signature- and entropy-based on the current tree — a secret that does not match a known pattern, or one already rotated, will not be flagged (a clean scan is "nothing matched", not "no secrets exist").
D14 License Compliance: License compatibility is checked against declared package metadata and a policy — mislabelled or missing license metadata, and obligations that depend on how you distribute, are not resolved here.
D15 Churn × Complexity Hotspots: Churn hotspots come from git history — a freshly imported or squashed repository has no churn signal, and recent rewrites can mask a historically risky file.
D19 Documentation Quality: Documentation quality is judged by an LLM over a bounded sample of docs — it reads what is written, not whether the docs match the running system, and it is advisory, not a measurement. Its critique rows are drawn from a closed category vocabulary and each row means the same thing in every run, so two scans can be compared row by row; the SET that fires is still a sample, and does not repeat exactly. Measured on one frozen input, six scans at one engine SHA: 2-5 critique rows per scan, 8 distinct rows across the six, 3 of those 8 seen in only one scan. So a D19 row is evidence about the documentation, but a COUNT of D19 rows is not a quantity — never read a change in it as an improvement or a regression.
D20 ADR Quality: ADR quality is an LLM read of the decision records present — it cannot know about decisions made and never recorded, and its verdict is sampled and advisory.
D21 Naming Consistency: Naming quality is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it assesses clarity/consistency of the names it sees, not domain-correctness, and is advisory.
D27 Navigability: Indirection/navigability is structural — it measures hops to follow a call, not whether that indirection buys real flexibility or just ceremony.
D28 Secrets (history): Secret-history scanning sweeps the git log for known patterns — a secret that predates the available history, or never matched a signature, is not found (clean means "nothing matched in the history we can see").
D29 Static Analysis (SAST): SAST findings are pattern-based (semgrep) — it finds classes of bug it has rules for; logic flaws, auth/authorization gaps and issues needing runtime context are out of reach (and clean means "no rule matched").
D34 Knowledge Freshness: Freshness is decayed commit RECENCY, not comprehension — code read often but rarely committed reads as orphaned, and stable code that genuinely needs no changes is penalised the same as forgotten code; bot/squash commits distort it like the bus factor.
D35 Change Coupling: Change coupling is co-change in COMMITS — files split across separate commits, or coupled only through a shared config/build step, read as uncoupled, and a sweeping commit (rename/format) is excluded so it doesn't couple everything. It shows that files change together, not WHY: a high coupling can be a healthy cohesive pair as readily as a hidden leak.
D44 Platform End-of-Life: The support table is FROZEN, so it goes out of date by losing RECALL: a release that ended support after the table was written is missed until the table is refreshed, and this dimension reading 10 is not evidence that a platform is current. Only platforms the repository DECLARES in a place this pass reads are seen — a runtime named only in a Dockerfile (D31's subject), in a CI workflow (D29's), or in a file this pass does not parse (go.mod, a Gemfile ruby directive) is invisible here, which is why a repository declaring none of them abstains rather than scoring. Only frameworks with a PUBLISHED support policy are tracked: React, Flask and Express publish none, so their age cannot be judged and their absence from a report is not a statement that they are supported.
AX10 Code composition: Role is inferred from namespace/folder convention, not semantics — a domain concept living in a folder named "Services" reads as application, and the split is lines-of-code, not business value. The business-logic-share score is a SOFT, FLOORED signal: it contributes to the Architecture lens but is floored at the Critical gate, so an infrastructure-heavy design (a gateway, an ETL, a driver) is legitimately low without being nuked to zero.
DM6 Domain ↔ infrastructure boundary: Infrastructure reached through a hand-rolled wrapper, a domain-named facade, reflection, or a string-keyed service locator resolves to a non-infra type and isn't seen; the body scan is symbol resolution over syntax, not full dataflow. A clean result means "no resolved infra reference in a domain body", not a proof of purity.
M4 Documentation accuracy: Onboarding quality is an LLM read of the docs/setup present — it cannot run the onboarding or measure how long a real new joiner takes; the verdict is sampled and advisory.
P4 Deployment & Rollback: Approval/branch-protection rules live in repository settings the scan cannot see — only their in-repo evidence (config files, workflows) is checked, so a control enforced purely in the host's settings reads as "not evidenced".

The LLM boundary

LLM-set scores this run (3): D19, D21, M4 (model: Local LLM). For these, a model reads a bounded sample and sets the numeric score; each names its own sample and method on its card. They are sampled and advisory by design: they vary at the margins between runs and are never a deterministic measurement. Every other score in this report is tool-computed at confidence 1.0.

Dimensions

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity7.0 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: How tangled the control flow is — methods with many branches are hard to test and change.

Method: Cyclomatic complexity per method (1 + decision points), computed exhaustively across production source; test projects separated by convention. Deterministic.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 7.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

22 method(s) exceeded the cyclomatic complexity threshold of 15; the worst was EditorInput.handleEditorInput at 47. A further 9 method(s) were over the threshold but excluded as flat dispatchers (a long switch/match over independent cases: many branches, almost no nesting), the largest being Effect.formulaEncoder at 38 — they are counted neither in the figure above nor in this dimension's score. 6 files carry no cyclomatic complexity row at all for this reason — every one of their over-threshold methods was excluded, so the exclusion is disclosed nowhere in the file itself: Pomo.Core/Domain/Core.fs (Stat.decoder at 32), Pomo.Core/Systems/FormulaEvaluator.fs (FormulaEvaluator.getValue at 22), Pomo.Core/Projections.fs (DerivedStatsCalculator.updateStat at 18), Pomo.Core/Systems/HUDService.fs (HUDService.create at 17), Pomo.Core/Domain/Entity.fs (Faction.decoder at 16), and 1 more not listed here. They are named here because the per-file figures other dimensions report are taken BEFORE this exclusion, so such a file can show a high maximum complexity elsewhere in this report and nothing here, with nothing to reconcile the two.

EditorInput.handleEditorInput (cyclomatic 47)Pomo.Core/Editor/Input.fs:110

StateWrite.applyAdaptiveCommand (cyclomatic 38)Pomo.Core/Systems/State.fs:506

OrbitalSystem.Update (cyclomatic 35)Pomo.Core/Systems/OrbitalSystem.fs:100

EmitterConfigCodec.decoder (cyclomatic 32)Pomo.Core/Domain/Particles.fs:465

FormulaParser.classifyVar (cyclomatic 31)Pomo.Core/Domain/Skill.fs:233

+ 17 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

What to do

Bring the 22 bodies over 15 down to 15 or less in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with EditorInput.handleEditorInput (cyclomatic 47), StateWrite.applyAdaptiveCommand (cyclomatic 38), OrbitalSystem.Update (cyclomatic 35). — This score is capped by its worst body, so a finding fixed alone moves it by almost nothing — the next one down takes its place. Refactoring these 22 together lifts Cyclomatic Complexity from 7.0 to about 10.0/10, projected with the scoring formula itself and assuming each lands exactly at 15.
Enforce Cyclomatic Complexity in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

Detailed fixes: d1_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D2 · Cognitive Complexity4.2 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: How hard the code is for a person to follow, beyond raw branching.

Method: Cognitive complexity per method (Sonar-style nesting-penalized score), computed exhaustively over production code, excluding test projects. Deterministic.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 4.2 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

45 method(s) exceeded the cognitive complexity threshold of 15; the worst was OrbitalSystem.Update at 92.

OrbitalSystem.Update (cognitive 92)Pomo.Core/Systems/OrbitalSystem.fs:100

EditorInput.handleEditorInput (cognitive 57)Pomo.Core/Editor/Input.fs:110

UnitMovementSystem.Update (cognitive 54)Pomo.Core/Systems/UnitMovement.fs:40

Camera.tryGetViewBoundsFromMatrices (cognitive 50)Pomo.Core/Graphics/RenderMath.fs:90

Projections.create (cognitive 45)Pomo.Core/Projections.fs:621

+ 40 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

What to do

Bring the 1 body over 60 down to 60 or less in Cognitive Complexity — start with OrbitalSystem.Update (cognitive 92). — Refactoring it lifts Cognitive Complexity from 4.2 to about 5.1/10.
Enforce Cognitive Complexity in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

Detailed fixes: d2_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D3 · God Classes8.5 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Over-large classes that try to do too much ("god classes").

Method: God-class detection by line and method-count thresholds per logical type (partial classes unified), filtered for generated code and registration/contract false positives. Deterministic.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 8.5 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

8 over-large unit(s) detected — types, modules or files that carry too much.

FileTooLong: Systems/AISystem.fs · ×8Pomo.Core/Systems/AISystem.fs

What to do

Resolve the 8 FileTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with AISystem.fs, Skill.fs, HUDComponents.fs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (8 warning-level).
Enforce God Classes in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

Detailed fixes: d3_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D4 · Code Duplication9.1 / 10Stronggated by 48 serious findings✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Copy-pasted code that should be shared instead.

Method: Code duplication via token-stream sliding windows with type-aware normalization (locals masked, type names preserved), density-scored per KLoC of production code. Deterministic.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 9.1 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

46 duplicated block group(s) detected. A further 2 rows report members as variants of one another; they aggregate block groups already counted above and are not themselves counted.

Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) · ×6Pomo.Core/Extensions.fs:126

Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) · ×3Pomo.Core/Domain/BlockMap.fs:409

Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) · ×2Pomo.Core/Systems/Combat.fs:970

Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) · ×2Pomo.Core/Systems/ParticleSystem.fs:285

Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) · ×2Pomo.Core/Stores.fs:83

+ 31 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

What to do

Resolve the 6 Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with Extensions.fs, BlockMapScene.fs, Stores.fs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (6 warning-level).
Resolve the 3 Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with BlockMap.fs, Spatial.fs, BlockMapScene.fs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 warning-level).
Resolve the 2 Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with Combat.fs, EffectApplication.fs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
Enforce Code Duplication in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.

Detailed fixes: d4_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D5 · Coupling10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether volatile projects sit underneath others that depend on them (so their churn ripples upward), and whether project dependencies form cycles. A widely-depended-on but stable shared/kernel project is healthy, not penalised.

Method: Dependency cycles via elementary-DFS over real .csproj references, plus Martin instability (afferent/efferent) per project. Exhaustive over the reference graph, deterministic.

Coverage: Exhaustive · type-level: afferent/efferent coupling + cycles computed over every production type — the population is all types, not a name convention.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

7 projects, 0 dependency cycle(s), 0 unstable depended-on project(s).

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d5_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D11 · Test Reliability10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether the tests pass reliably, with no flakiness.

Method: Suite re-run N times within tiered wall-clock budgets (unit to e2e); tests failing non-deterministically across runs flagged; guarded tests retried when #if guards detected.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

0 flaky across 1 measured tier(s). unit: measured (0 flaky).

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d11_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D13 · Secret Scanning10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

What it measures: Whether any secrets (keys, tokens, passwords) have leaked into the code.

Method: In-process native secret scanner (entropy plus signature patterns) across all tracked files; no external tool. A clean result is a measured 10, not no-data zero. Deterministic.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

Secret scan ran and found no leaked secrets.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d13_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D14 · License Compliance10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

What it measures: Whether the licenses of third-party packages are compatible with your policy.

Method: Third-party package licenses resolved from declared package metadata and checked against the configured policy (allow/deny/copyleft). Deterministic; clean = no incompatible license found at metadata depth.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

0 of 231 packages use a banned license. ★ DEPTH: this repository's MSBuild projects declare 18 direct `PackageReference`(s), and 207 further package(s) were reached beyond them by closing the graph over nuget.org's own nuspec dependency graph — so a banned licence pulled in only by a dependency's OWN dependencies is inside this verdict. A package whose licence nuget.org could not be asked for is not graded, and version ranges are taken at their lower bound, so this is the closure as that graph states it rather than a restored consumer's exact resolution.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d14_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Files that change often and are also complex — the riskiest hotspots.

Method: Per production file churn times cyclomatic complexity over a rolling window, computed from git and Roslyn/JS/Razor analysis. Exhaustive, deterministic per commit date.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

No churn × complexity hotspots in the window.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d15_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D19 · Documentation QualityExemplary◐ Sampled · advisory

What it measures: Whether the project's documentation is clear, complete, and useful.

Method: Judged by language model at low temperature (0.0-0.1) on a deterministic doc sample (READMEs plus first 25 architecture docs), with two-pass stability filtering. Advisory, sampled.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective Exemplary / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

Kipo's root README is a clear project overview with an excellent What-is-This? section and a full Technical Highlights outline. The .agents/README.md directory documents agent-specific guidance (F# conventions, LLM agents) in a focused way that complements the repository-level AGENTS.md. A dedicated AI Archetypes Configuration Guide, Animations, Decision Trees, Content Creation, Items, Models, and Orbitals guides each of the nine architecture/design docs, covering the project's core systems with depth. Both README files are focused on configuration reference for their respective JSON schemas: ParticleConfigReference.md explains how to configure Particles.json to create visual effects with an isometric rendering note and a complete emitter-property hierarchy (Name, Texture, RenderMode, Model, BlendMode, SimulationSpace, Rate, Shape, LocalOffset, InheritVelocity, EmissionRotation, EmissionMode, FloorHeight, Mesh properties), while SkillsConfigReference.md guides creating skills in Skills.json covering what a skill is, basic setup, casting costs, targeting modes, and an outline that includes the full list of sections. Both are well-structured references with clear headings and cross-references.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d19_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D20 · ADR Quality0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether architecture decisions are recorded well (context, decision, consequences).

Method: Per-ADR judgment by language model at low temperature with two-pass stability; confidence is share of ADRs evaluated; enforcement-field presence detected deterministically. Advisory.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 0.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

No architecture decision records were found.

No ADRs found

What to do

Resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

Detailed fixes: d20_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D21 · Naming ConsistencyExemplary◐ Sampled · advisory

What it measures: Whether names — types, methods, variables — are clear and consistent.

Method: Judged by language model at low temperature (0.0-0.1) on a deterministic random symbol sample (fixed size, not exhaustive), with disclosed confidence band. Advisory, sampled.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective Exemplary / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

0 naming inconsistencies across 0 sampled symbols.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d21_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D27 · Navigability9.5 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: How far you must trace to follow a call — low indirection and co-located slices read easier.

Method: Call indirection (interface hops, cross-namespace calls, slice-locality scaled) over a sampled set of method invocations, size-aware baseline. Sampled; confidence discounted by symbol-resolution gaps.

Coverage: Slice locality from the first namespace segments, SAMPLED (≤400 methods) — not exhaustive.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 9.5 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

93 % of calls cross a namespace and 6 % go through an interface, but 96 % of collaborators are co-located — so a call's collaborators sit together and tracing stays easy. Baseline: small — navigation cost is tolerated.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d27_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D28 · Secrets (history)10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

What it measures: Whether any secrets were ever committed — scanned across the full git history, not just now.

Method: Secret scan via TWO gitleaks detect passes in an isolated checkout — the full git history, then a second --no-git pass over the working tree as it stands — merged and de-duplicated by (rule, file, line); each match flagged High. Both invocations are recorded in the audit trail. Exhaustive; when the tool is absent, or when its output cannot be parsed into the expected shape, the dimension is WITHHELD as an explicit measurement gap on our side — unscored and excluded from the lens, never a hedged middling score.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

gitleaks scanned the full history AND the current working tree and found no secrets.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d28_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)7.1 / 10Adequategated by 8 critical findings✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Real static-analysis (SAST) findings — likely security bugs in the code, any language.

Method: Polyglot static analysis via semgrep across the repo using the pinned, image-baked p/security-audit + p/owasp-top-ten rulesets (no scan-time registry fetch); severity rules (ERROR/WARNING/INFO) map to a full-band severity-weighted score. Exhaustive, deterministic; degrades on parse failure.

Coverage: semgrep pattern rules over all files — exhaustive for the rule set, blind to classes of bug without a rule (clean = no rule matched).

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 7.1 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

8 finding(s): 0 critical, 8 high, 0 medium, 0 low. 6 unpinned-GitHub-Actions row(s) are reported here but scored by D36 (supply-chain provenance), which measures that posture as `pinned_actions` — one pinning decision is charged once, not once per lens. Separately, one or more rules could not re-parse an embedded snippet in 1 file(s) (e.g. a workflow `run:` block read as shell). Those files WERE scanned and their other rows are unaffected; only those rules' view of those snippets is missing.

REDACTED

What to do

Resolve the 2 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED, REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 issue-level).
No action in Static Analysis (SAST) — all 6 REDACTED finding(s) are reported here at file:line but scored by D36 (supply-chain provenance), so none is charged to this dimension. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (6 issue-level, 0 of them charged here).

Detailed fixes: d29_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D34 · Knowledge Freshness10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether anyone still has living knowledge of each file, or it has been orphaned — last understood long ago by someone now gone quiet. The sibling of the bus factor: D16 asks who owns it, D34 asks whether anyone still knows it.

Method: File orphaning as total living-knowledge decay below one focused-commit's worth within a year, computed per-file from the D16 decay model. Exhaustive, deterministic over fixed history.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

Every significant source file has living knowledge — recently and meaningfully worked. Counted over 90 of the 117 production source files in this repository: the rest are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d34_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D35 · Change Coupling9.4 / 10Stronggated by 1 serious finding✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether files that change together actually belong together — pairs that repeatedly co-change in git history despite having no explicit code dependency, surfacing the hidden/logical coupling (and boundaries in the wrong place) a static scan can't see.

Method: Pairwise co-occurrence over the per-commit file sets in git history (production source only — tests and generated dropped): Degree-of-Coupling = shared ÷ min individual revisions, reported above noise floors (each file ≥10 revisions, ≥5 shared commits, ≥50% strength); sweeping commits excluded. Deterministic over fixed history.

Coverage: Population: PRODUCTION source files only — test and generated files are dropped before pairing, so a class co-changing with its own test (trivially ~100%) can't drown the real production↔production coupling. Pairs ranked by Degree-of-Coupling. A non-source file is never a coupling PARTICIPANT either: documentation, schemas, config and data files are dropped with the rest, so a code↔docs pair — a command and the reference page that restates it — is not reported however strongly the two co-change; nor is coupling that runs THROUGH a build step or config file.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 9.4 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

Strongest change-coupling: World.fs↔PomoGame.fs 82%; Events.fs↔PomoGame.fs 70%; PomoGame.fs↔State.fs 69%

Change-coupling hub: PomoGame.fs → Events.fs, World.fs, AbilityActivation.fs, State.fsPomo.Core/PomoGame.fs

What to do

Resolve the 1 Change-coupling hub finding(s) in Change Coupling — start with PomoGame.fs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).

Detailed fixes: d35_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether the build pipeline provides supply-chain integrity — generated provenance/attestation, signed artifacts (cosign/sigstore), an SBOM, and pinned build actions. Presence of the configuration, not a runtime guarantee.

Method: Supply-chain provenance/signing read deterministically from CI/build config (.github/workflows, .gitlab-ci.yml, azure-pipelines, Jenkinsfile, .circleci) + the release surface: four signals — generated provenance/attestation (SLSA/in-toto/actions-attest), artifact signing (cosign/sigstore/gitsign), an SBOM (syft/sbom-action/*.spdx.json/*.cdx.json), and SHA-pinned build actions — scored 10·present/denom. NotApplicable without a build pipeline. Detects configuration presence, not runtime enforcement.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 0.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

0/4 supply-chain integrity signals present (provenance, signing, SBOM, pinned actions).

REDACTED

+ 1 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

What to do

Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

Detailed fixes: d36_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D44 · Platform End-of-Life10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether anyone still ships security patches for the platform this repository RUNS ON — the runtime it pins and the framework majors its own constraints hold it to. Separate from D12 because the question differs: a current Django on an end-of-life Python is perfectly up to date and completely unsupported, and the fix is a migration rather than a version bump. What the repository says it merely SUPPORTS is never charged.

Method: End-of-life PLATFORM read from the repository's own declarations and graded against a FROZEN, dated table of vendor support dates — no network, no feed, no API, so this dimension answers identically inside a closed scan fence. Two subjects: a RUNTIME the project pins (a single or all-end-of-life TargetFramework, a .nvmrc or .python-version, a requires-python CAP) and a FRAMEWORK major a dependency constraint cannot move off (a caret, tilde or exact version; `vue@^2.7.16` pins Vue 2). A FLOOR is deliberately never charged — `requires-python = ">=3.8"` states what a package SUPPORTS, not what it runs on — and a multi-target project is charged only when EVERY target is out of support. Runtime 4.0/product capped 8.0, framework 1.5 capped 4.5. The table is safe to freeze because a statement about support that ended in the past cannot become false: it loses recall as it ages, never precision, and a test asserts every entry predates the freeze date. Disjoint from D31 (a container image's OS layer) and D29 (the toolchain a CI workflow installs). Abstains when the repository declares no platform this pass reads — never scores it clean.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

0 end-of-life runtime(s) and 0 end-of-life framework(s), read from 7 platform declaration(s) and 0 dependency declaration(s). This dimension reads what the repository says about ITSELF — a pinned target framework, a version file, a capped requires-python, a Rust toolchain pin, a framework major a constraint cannot move off. A FLOOR is deliberately never charged: `requires-python = ">=3.8"` states what the package SUPPORTS, not what it runs on, and a well-maintained library declares exactly that while running its own CI on a current release. The end-of-life facts are FROZEN and dated, so this dimension needs no network and answers identically inside a closed scan fence; as the table ages it loses recall and never precision, because a statement about support that ended in the past cannot become false. The OS layer of a container image is D31's question and the toolchain a CI workflow installs is D29's; this row is neither.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d44_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions

R = React/JS · M = Maturity · P = Readiness.

AX10 · Code composition10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Architecture — How the codebase splits by code ROLE — domain, application, infrastructure, test, generated. The significance map behind the knowledge/coupling weighting, and a DDD signal in its own right: a thin domain core under fat infrastructure is the anemic-domain smell, quantified. How each file's role is decided, because the split is only as good as that: a generated name or a build-output tree makes it Generated, a test project makes it Test, and otherwise the file's NAMESPACE and PATH words are matched against fixed vocabularies in a fixed ORDER — domain, then infrastructure, then application — so a file whose words hit two layers is counted under the earlier one. A production file matching none of them counts as application, so that share reads 'application or unclassified' rather than a measured application layer. Roles come from naming convention, never from what the code does. On this repository the split was taken from the source tree on disk rather than from a loaded .NET workspace, so a file's role is decided by its PATH segments alone — no declared namespace was available to add to the evidence — and generated output is excluded from the census entirely rather than counted as a generated share.

Method: Roslyn line-count by code ROLE: every source file classified Domain/Application/Infrastructure/Test/Generated by namespace + path convention (the shared CodeRoleClassifier), then significant lines summed per role. Deterministic; the advisory score is the business-logic (domain+application) share of production code.

Coverage: Population: ALL source files, each bucketed into ONE of five roles (Domain/Application/Infrastructure/Test/Generated) by namespace + path convention — a file whose layer isn't named in the convention falls to Application (the neutral default), and the split is line-count, not semantic depth or business value.

Do you agree with this assessment?

AX3 · Project dependency cycles10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Architecture — Whether the project-reference graph is acyclic (cycles block independent build/deploy and signal eroding boundaries).

Method: Project reference cycles via elementary-DFS over real .csproj references, using the engine shared with D5/D7; cyclic versus acyclic. Exhaustive, deterministic.

Do you agree with this assessment?

AX4 · Dependency direction10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Architecture — Whether dependencies point inward (Domain ← Application ← Infrastructure/Web) — the clean-architecture dependency rule, checked across the project graph.

Method: Layer violations by name-segment inference (Domain/Core to Application to Infrastructure/Web) over the project-reference graph. Exhaustive over all projects, deterministic.

Do you agree with this assessment?

AX8 · Test isolation10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Architecture — Whether production projects stay free of references to test projects — tests may depend on production, never the reverse.

Method: Csproj graph: each production project checked for references to test projects (identified by test-framework presence, not name). Zero violations is clean. Deterministic.

Do you agree with this assessment?

DM12 · Ambient inputs in the domain10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Domain Modelling — Whether domain types receive the time and randomness their rules depend on, rather than reading the process clock or a global random source directly — an ambient read makes the rule it feeds untestable at the instant that matters and lets two reads inside one operation disagree.

Method: Roslyn (DDD-gated, C#/VB only): domain-layer types scanned for ambient reads — DateTime/DateTimeOffset.Now/UtcNow/Today, Random.Shared, new Random(), Stopwatch.GetTimestamp — resolved against the semantic model, with a comment/string-stripped token fallback only where resolution fails. Body reads are scored; field/property initialisers are surfaced unscored. Apply/When folds excluded (ES1 owns them). Deterministic, symbol-resolved.

Do you agree with this assessment?

DM6 · Domain ↔ infrastructure boundary10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Domain Modelling — Whether the domain layer stays free of infrastructure dependencies (EF/Marten/HTTP/ASP.NET) — the clean-architecture dependency rule.

Method: Roslyn (DDD-gated): domain-layer types scanned for infrastructure usage in member SIGNATURES and inside method/accessor BODIES — resolved calls and object-creations into EF/Marten/HTTP/Mongo/Redis/message-bus types (not just a namespace allowlist). Deterministic, symbol-resolved, exhaustive over domain-layer bodies, DDD-native.

Coverage: Domain layer identified by NAMESPACE heuristic; infrastructure then resolved by symbol in member SIGNATURES and method/accessor BODIES — rename the layer and the check evaporates.

Do you agree with this assessment?

DM8 · Value-object opportunities10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Domain Modelling — Whether clusters of primitives that travel together (a missing value object) are extracted — a low-weight suggestion, LLM-confirmed when configured.

Method: Roslyn (DDD-gated): primitive parameter clusters recurring three or more times across signatures extracted, then confirmed by language model when configured. Advisory, low-weight.

Do you agree with this assessment?

M1 · Documentation (README)8.0 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

Maturity · Maturity — Whether the repo and its projects have a README, and whether it's substantive and current.

Method: Filesystem scan: README presence, word count, and headings for depth; git history for staleness. Exhaustive across root and project dirs, deterministic.

Do you agree with this assessment?

M2 · Architecture documentation5.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

Maturity · Maturity — Whether key decisions (ADRs) and the high-level shape (C4/diagrams) are written down.

Method: Filesystem scan: ADR folder/naming conventions or content, plus Mermaid/PlantUML/C4/architecture.md discovery. Exhaustive, deterministic.

No Architecture Decision Records found — no conventional ADR directory, no numbered `NNNN-title` documents in any markup this check reads, and nothing ADR-shaped by content. Design rationale recorded elsewhere (a design-notes tree, a mailing list, pull-request discussion) is not visible to this check and is not re-findable per decision, so a future maintainer cannot ask why one choice was made and get an answer.

What to do

Record significant decisions one document per decision — dated, stating the context, the decision and its consequences — and keep them together wherever your design docs already live (a conventional `docs/adr/` tree, with each file named `NNNN-title` in whatever markup those docs already use, is the most discoverable form).

Do you agree with this assessment?

M3 · Folder & project structure8.0 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

Maturity · Maturity — Whether the repo is organised deliberately — src/test separation and consistent project naming.

Method: Filesystem scan: src/test folder separation and namespace-prefix consistency (majority RootNamespace agreement). Exhaustive across projects, deterministic.

Production code isn't grouped under a src/ folder — it's spread across several top-level directories, so there's no one place that says 'this is the product'.

What to do

Group production code under src/ (or split deliberately, e.g. backend/ + frontend/) so production and tooling code aren't mixed at the root.

Do you agree with this assessment?

M4 · Documentation accuracy1.0 / 10Critical◐ Sampled · advisory

Maturity · Maturity — Whether the README actually describes the code that exists (LLM-judged, advisory).

Method: Judged by language model at low temperature: README accuracy versus actual projects, within a disclosed tolerance. Advisory, not a measured number.

MonoGame dependency not present — searched for: `MonoGame`. Each was matched case- and separator-insensitively against file and directory NAMES anywhere in the tree, and against the CONTENTS of manifest files (package.json, *.csproj, *.props, *.slnx, *.yml, Dockerfile); the README's own prose never counts, so a claim is never refuted by merely being made. Nothing outside that search was read — a footprint living only in a submodule, in a file type not listed here, or under a name none of those terms matches is not seen, and this row is then wrong.
Android runner Pomo.Android/ exists but no Android project is shown in the evidence — reported by the model that read the README against this repository; no term search was run for this one, so nothing here has been checked against the tree. Treat it as a reading to confirm, not as a measured contradiction: verify it against the code before acting on it, and if the footprint it describes does exist, this row is wrong.

What to do

Reconcile the README with reality: MonoGame dependency not present; Android runner Pomo.Android/ exists but no Android project is shown in the evidence.

Do you agree with this assessment?

P1 · CI/CD gates8.5 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

Readiness · Readiness — Whether an automated pipeline builds and tests every change.

Method: Filesystem scan: CI workflow files (.github/workflows, .gitlab-ci.yml, etc.) for build and test stages. Exhaustive, deterministic.

What to do

Run the test suite in CI via an explicit runner step (`dotnet test` for the toolchain this pipeline already uses) and gate merges on it.

Do you agree with this assessment?

P3 · Security & performance tooling0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

Readiness · Readiness — Whether SAST, secret/dependency scanning and performance benchmarking are wired in (presence, not runtime).

Method: Filesystem scan: SAST configuration, dependency-update automation, secret scanning, and a benchmark harness or benchmark step — in this repository's own ecosystem. Exhaustive, deterministic.

No static application security testing detected. For this repository's stack, add `semgrep --config=auto` plus gitleaks for committed secrets (F# is not a CodeQL language and has no language-specific SAST engine) as a CI step. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: the 8555 CI workflow file(s) in this repository, and the scanner and linter configuration checked in beside them. A scan that runs outside CI, one configured in your forge's web UI rather than in a committed file, or a tool whose name is none of those this check carries, is not seen — if that is your case the row is wrong, and saying so is more useful than adding a second scanner.

What to do

Add a SAST step to CI running what this repository's stack ships: `semgrep --config=auto` plus gitleaks for committed secrets (F# is not a CodeQL language and has no language-specific SAST engine) — so a security regression fails the build instead of landing.
Enable Dependabot/Renovate or a dependency-review gate.
Add gitleaks/trufflehog in CI to block PRs that introduce committed secrets.

Do you agree with this assessment?

P4 · Deployment & Rollback5.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

Readiness · Readiness — Whether releases are automated and safely reversible (probes, rolling updates, approval gates) — from manifests/pipeline files, not the live environment.

Method: Filesystem scan: deployment manifests/IaC (K8s YAML, Helm, Terraform) for rolling updates, probes, approval gates, migration hooks. Exhaustive, deterministic.

The release is automated and no gate that pauses it for a human is DECLARED IN THIS REPOSITORY'S PIPELINE FILES. What was read: every file under `.github/workflows/`, `.forgejo/workflows/`, `.gitea/workflows/`, `.azuredevops/` and `.azure-pipelines/`, plus `.gitlab-ci*` and `azure-pipelines*` — with comment text stripped, so documenting a gate is not declaring one. What would have counted: GitLab's `when: manual`, CircleCI's `type: approval`, an Azure `ManualValidation@` task or an `approvals:` block, a Jenkins `input` step, a `uses:` step naming an approval action, an `environment:` paired with `reviewers` / `required_reviewers` / `protection` / `wait-timer` / `deployment_branch_policy`, a draft-release step, a `workflow_dispatch` promotion, or a release-event gate. ★ What this cannot see, because none of it is a file: a GitHub environment whose required reviewers are configured in repo SETTINGS, a branch protection rule, or an organisation deployment policy — all of them real, enforced gates that live outside the repository. If yours is one of those, this row is wrong and nothing in the tree could have told us. Otherwise: whatever the release trigger points at is published to users unreviewed, so a mistagged or unverified commit ships and the only remedy is a follow-up release.

What to do

Nothing pauses a release for a human: publish as a draft release (or gate the release job on a protected tag/manual dispatch) so a bad build can be stopped before users can download it.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X28 · Index access outside its own emptiness guard10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a condition that tests a value for emptiness indexes that same value only where the test holds — an `||` written one parenthesis too far to the left leaves an index access outside the guard beside it, so the empty case the guard exists to anticipate reaches the index and throws.

Method: Roslyn syntax only, no semantic model: the OUTERMOST `&&`/`||` of every boolean condition, read for a symbol the condition tests for emptiness (`string.IsNullOrEmpty`/`IsNullOrWhiteSpace`, a `Length`/`Count` comparison against a literal, `Any()`, a `Length`/`Count` pattern, or a comparison against `""`) and ALSO indexes. Each `symbol[...]` access is placed by a boolean-reachability walk from the access up to the outermost connective: an access is COVERED when some enclosing step has it in the right operand and the left operand, under the truth value that step forces, proves the symbol non-empty — a recursion over `&&`/`||` whose true- and false-directions are asymmetric. A finding needs BOTH an uncovered access and a covered one on the same symbol in the same condition, which is the agreeing twin that separates a misplaced parenthesis from an unrelated length test. Bare index accesses with no emptiness test in the condition are neither counted nor reported; a non-identifier receiver and a lambda nested inside the condition are outside the population. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

Reference — by lens

The score is the rank-weighted fold of these lenses (worst-heaviest), each including its meta-dimensions; a lens with a Critical contributor is capped at Fair (its band reads "gated by …") and is never the strongest area however high its average.

Lens	Score	Rating	Impact
Code Health	72%	Strong	Solid.
Architecture	99%	Exemplary	Solid.
Maturity	52%	Adequate — gated by M4	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Readiness	52%	Adequate — gated by P3	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Security	68%	Adequate — gated by D36	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Domain Modelling	100%	Exemplary	Strongest area.

Unscored — 1 check(s) recorded observations but carry no score

These checks ran and found something, but they do not carry a score — either by design (an advisory check reports evidence rather than grading it) or because they could not be scored here. They are excluded from the score for that reason, not because there was nothing to see.

SC1 Supply-chain hygiene — 1 observation(s) recorded · Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.

Not evidenced — 5 control(s) we could not find positive evidence for

These checks grade a working control, and the repository shows no evidence of one. That is deliberately not scored as a zero: a repository cannot show an ops runbook, a database TTL or an infrastructure-side audit log, so absence of evidence here is not evidence the control is missing. It is also not a statement that the check is irrelevant to this codebase — the thing it grades applies; we just could not see it. Excluded from the score either way.

C3 Audit Trail — Not assessed: these audit controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks audit controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
C4 Data Retention — Not assessed: these retention controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks retention controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
C5 Data-Subject Rights — Not assessed: these data-subject rights controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks data-subject rights controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
P5 DR & Backup — not evidenced — repo shows no backup/RTO/RPO controls; absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control
P6 Release Hygiene — not evidenced — no changelog, version stamp or semver release tag in the repo

Not included — 91 check(s) not relevant to this codebase

These checks had nothing to measure here (no tests, no git history, the codebase is small, or the architecture style doesn't apply), so they're omitted above rather than scored low.

AC1 Text alternatives — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC2 Forms & labels — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC3 Page structure — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC4 Keyboard semantics — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC5 ARIA correctness — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC6 Visual & motion safety — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC7 A11y enforcement — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AX1 Captive dependencies — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
AX2 Stateful singletons — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
AX5 Architecture & structure — not assessed — architecture style/structure is computed from a project graph (projects, types, module namespaces) that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
AX6 Interface segregation — not assessed — interface segregation is computed over a type surface that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
AX7 Slice cohesion — not applicable — not a vertical-slice architecture
AX9 CQS / query purity — no CQRS query handlers detected — query purity is not applicable to this codebase
AXB1 Runtime evidence locked — no reproducible boot — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
AXB2 Runtime readiness — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
C1 Data Protection — Not assessed: these personal data controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks personal data controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
C2 Access Controls — Not assessed: these authorization controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks authorization controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
D10 Test Quality — ~2121 lines of test source are present (.fs) but no test cases reached the test census for this repository — no test root we could resolve declared them, or the files we read declare no cases in a test framework we recognise — so skipped/assertion-free tests couldn't be counted. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository.
D12 Dependency Hygiene — Dependency hygiene not measured — no packages were read
D16 Bus Factor — single-maintainer repository — bus factor is not applicable
D17 Explicit Debt — the C# workspace loaded 0 projects, so explicit-debt density could not be measured
D18 Solution Shape — D18 scores the shape of a C#/VB .NET solution; this repository's .NET projects are all F# (.fsproj), which the C#/VB workspace does not load, so the dimension does not apply.
D22 Internal API Consistency — The exposed public-API surface could not be collected — no C#/VB projects loaded.
D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — No bounded-context organisation was detected either — neither a context-shaped layout nor 2+ sibling source directories each declaring an aggregate root. Declaring this codebase's bounded contexts (≥2) would let cross-boundary type coupling be assessed. Declare them in `.codehealth/config.yaml` at the repository root (create it if absent), mapping each context name to the module-path or namespace prefixes that belong to it — e.g. `architecture:` → `contexts:` → `Billing: ["src/billing", "Acme.Billing"]`, `Catalog: ["src/catalog", "Acme.Catalog"]`.
D24 Comment Value — No inline comments to assess — comment value is not applicable here.
D25 ADR Conformance — no ADRs to check
D26 Project Cohesion — D26 measured no build unit over this repository's .fs source. Not scored: this is a gap in the analyzer, not a verdict about this repository.
D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities — nuget: the solution did not restore on the analyzer's .NET SDK (an SDK/target-framework/restore mismatch, common for an older codebase), so there was no restored dependency graph to scan
D31 IaC & Container Security — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Docker Compose, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation, ARM, Bicep, Ansible); nothing to scan.
D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — No personal data was found crossing a boundary the PII/GDPR ruleset checks — nothing written to a log or console sink, placed in a URL or query string, or persisted to browser storage. That is a clean result for the LEAK surface only: this ruleset detects personal data escaping, it does not inventory the personal data a repository holds, so it is not evidence that this repository has no personal-data surface. The personal-data map (Appendix C) and the C1-C5 compliance cards are what speak to that.
D37 Vulnerability-disclosure Policy — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.
D39 IL Efficiency — IL not measured — the target did not build
D40 Network Egress Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.
D41 Kernel & Syscall Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.
D42 Runtime Threat Enforcement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.
D43 Malicious Dependencies — Not scored — no dependency manifest in a supported ecosystem was read for this repository. A gap in the analyzer's language coverage, NOT a finding that the repository is free of vulnerable dependencies (a Python pyproject.toml/requirements.txt (pip/uv/Poetry), a Swift Package.swift/Package.resolved, a Cargo manifest, a Go module (go.mod/go.sum), a Gradle version catalogue, a Maven POM, an sbt build (build.sbt), composer.json, package.json, a Dart pubspec.yaml, an Elixir mix.exs/mix.lock (Hex), a rebar.config / erlang.mk DEPS (Hex), a Ruby Gemfile/Gemfile.lock or .gemspec (Bundler/RubyGems) — not scanned yet).
D6 Cohesion (LCOM4) — D6 reads a CS/VB/GO/SCALA/SWIFT/DART/JAVA/PY/KT/TS/TSX/MTS/CTS/JS/JSX/MJS/CJS/PHP/RB/RS/ERL/EX/EXS class graph only — this repository's production source is .fs, which was left unread. Not scored: this is a gap in the analyzer, not a verdict about this repository.
D7 Architectural Integrity — no checkable ADRs and no dependency cycles — architectural integrity not assessed
D8 Code Coverage — Coverage NOT MEASURED: `--collect:"XPlat Code Coverage"` names a data collector that ships in the `coverlet.collector` package, and this repository wires up none — no test project references it and no runsettings declares one. The absence of coverage here is therefore not evidence about the suite or about our analyzer environment: without a collector, `--collect` produces nothing even from a suite that builds and passes. Add a `coverlet.collector` PackageReference to the test project(s) (or commit the Cobertura/OpenCover/lcov report your CI produces) and real coverage will be measured. It is excluded from the score rather than counted as a near-zero defect.
D9 Test Distribution — Test source is present (.fs) but no test cases reached the test census for this repository — no test root we could resolve declared them, or the files we read declare no cases in a test framework we recognise — so its unit/integration/BDD/E2E split couldn't be counted. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository.
DM1 Aggregate boundaries — no aggregates detected — aggregate-boundary check not applicable
DM10 One transaction, one aggregate — no repository writes detected — no operation to judge against the one-aggregate rule
DM11 Constructible invalid state — no entities detected — construction-time invariants not assessable
DM2 Strongly-typed ids — no id-bearing domain types detected — strongly-typed-id adoption not assessable
DM3 Integration-event coupling — no integration events detected — coupling check not applicable
DM4 Rich vs anemic model — no data-bearing entities detected — rich-vs-anemic model not assessable
DM5 Encapsulated state — no domain entities found — DM5 grades how entities protect their state, and this repository declares none
DM7 Repository granularity — no repository abstraction detected (e.g. uses a document session)
DM9 Scattered domain decisions — not measured — scattered-decision detection needs expression-level symbol resolution: a comparison operand bound to the member it judges (arm one) and a construction bound to the type it produces (arm two). A Roslyn compilation carries both; arm two alone also runs on any frontend that declares whether a construction is produced or passed, and this target loaded neither
ED1 Event-Driven — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this lens looks for
ED5 Idempotency — no mutating command handlers or message consumers detected — idempotency check not applicable
ES1 Event Sourcing — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this lens looks for
GD1 Unfinished & placeholder code — no source files were read — this check reads C# and JavaScript/TypeScript, and neither was read for this repository's product. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
IC1 Incompleteness & stubs — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
P12 CI test-gate honesty — Reported, not scored — and nothing was matched here. The coverage check applies to any stack, and the automatic-re-run check to any GitHub-Actions workflow, but the checks for excluded tests, skipped tests and sleep-based synchronisation currently recognise only some ecosystems' test-runner idioms, so on a repository built with another stack the zeros below mean 'not checked', not 'clean'.
P2 Observability — Observability was not assessed: this check recognises the logging, tracing/metrics and health-check idioms of .NET, the JVM, Go, Python, JavaScript/TypeScript, Rust, Ruby, PHP, Swift, Dart, Elixir and Erlang, and most of this repository's production source is in none of them. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repo lacks structured logging. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository.
P7 Outbound HTTP resilience — not measured — the application kind could not be determined for this repo
P8 Schema migrations — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
P9 Domain vs controller coverage — no coverage report found on disk — produce a coverage report in a standard format (Cobertura — `dotnet test --collect:"XPlat Code Coverage"` with a `coverlet.collector` PackageReference) and commit it — a hosted scan measures a clone of the repository, so a report that exists only in a working tree, a CI runner's or your own, never reaches it; the artefact is commonly gitignored, so `git add -f` that one file (or un-ignore its path) and commit it alongside the code it measures, or wire coverage collection into CI, to enable this cross-layer check
PF1 Benchmark discipline — Not applicable: no benchmark suite was found. This check searched for a BenchmarkDotNet reference in an .fsproj or .vbproj, and for a `*benchmark*` script that this repository's CI runs. Benchmarks are credited as a bonus, so their absence is neither scored nor deducted.
PF2 Allocation hygiene — Allocation awareness was not assessed: this repository holds F#, whose allocation-aware idioms this check does not model yet. That is a gap in the analyzer's language reach, not a finding about your code.
PF3 Async & latency hygiene — Performance was not assessed: this lens reads a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this lens does not yet model or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository — in particular it is NOT a statement that this repo is unpackaged or performance-careless.
S1 Web-Security Posture — Not assessed: these web-security controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks web-security controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
X1 Async correctness — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X10 Duplicated predicate — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
X12 Unreachable branch — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X13 Undrained process stream — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X14 Bypassable address classification — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X15 Unvalidated length from an untrusted reader — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X16 Unfloored truncation loop — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X17 Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X18 Disposal-pattern correctness — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X19 Unrestored process-global state — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X2 Cancellation propagation — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X20 Mistyped argument guard — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X21 Side-effecting pattern guard — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X22 Contradicted release guard — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X23 Unguarded diagnostic materialisation — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X24 Document value interpolated into markup unescaped — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X25 Inert configuration knob — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X26 Unsynchronised callback handoff — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X27 Collection changed while being enumerated — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X29 Per-element action decided by a fixed element — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X3 Exception handling — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X30 Support guard that admits what it rejects — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X32 Type resolved by simple name across every loaded assembly — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X4 Structured logging — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X5 Nullable reference types — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X6 Hand-rolled structured-format parsing — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X7 Silent fallback defaults — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X9 Subsumed condition operand — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.

Appendix A — Findings (grouped)

The findings behind the scores, grouped by severity, then by dimension and kind. The high-severity issues are enumerated in full below; items per group are capped at 25 with any overflow stated explicitly per group, never silently truncated. The complete machine-readable list of every finding (all severities) is the companion findings.md in this report's bundle.

Critical — 8 finding(s)

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED

REDACTED
REDACTED

Serious — 127 finding(s)

D3 · God Classes · FileTooLong · ×8

FileTooLong: Systems/AISystem.fs Pomo.Core/Systems/AISystem.fs — FileTooLong — 1088 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 588 over it, 2.18× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
FileTooLong: Domain/Skill.fs Pomo.Core/Domain/Skill.fs — FileTooLong — 1071 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 571 over it, 2.14× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
FileTooLong: Systems/HUDComponents.fs Pomo.Core/Systems/HUDComponents.fs — FileTooLong — 980 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 480 over it, 1.96× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
FileTooLong: Systems/Combat.fs Pomo.Core/Systems/Combat.fs — FileTooLong — 928 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 428 over it, 1.86× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
FileTooLong: Systems/ParticleSystem.fs Pomo.Core/Systems/ParticleSystem.fs — FileTooLong — 673 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 173 over it, 1.35× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
FileTooLong: Systems/State.fs Pomo.Core/Systems/State.fs — FileTooLong — 632 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 132 over it, 1.26× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
FileTooLong: UI/MyraExtensions.fs Pomo.Core/UI/MyraExtensions.fs — FileTooLong — 566 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), declaring 60 functions. The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 66 over it, 1.13× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
FileTooLong: Pomo.Core/Projections.fs Pomo.Core/Projections.fs — FileTooLong — 553 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 53 over it, 1.11× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) · ×6

Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) Pomo.Core/Extensions.fs:126 — Pomo.Core/Extensions.fs:126-139 | Pomo.Core/Extensions.fs:143-156 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) Pomo.Core/Scenes/BlockMapScene.fs:190 — Pomo.Core/Scenes/BlockMapScene.fs:190-203 | Pomo.Core/Scenes/GameplayScene.fs:190-203 — before extracting anything, compare `Pomo.Core/Scenes/BlockMapScene.fs` and `Pomo.Core/Scenes/GameplayScene.fs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 11 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 299 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) Pomo.Core/Stores.fs:136 — Pomo.Core/Stores.fs:136-149 | Pomo.Core/Stores.fs:176-189 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) Pomo.Core/Systems/Combat.fs:75 — Pomo.Core/Systems/Combat.fs:75-90 | Pomo.Core/Systems/Combat.fs:122-135 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.
Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) Pomo.Core/Systems/Equipment.fs:1 — Pomo.Core/Systems/Equipment.fs:1-14 | Pomo.Core/Systems/Inventory.fs:1-14 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once.
Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) Pomo.Core/Systems/Targeting.fs:150 — Pomo.Core/Systems/Targeting.fs:150-163 | Pomo.Core/Systems/Targeting.fs:180-193 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) · ×3

Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) Pomo.Core/Domain/BlockMap.fs:409 — Pomo.Core/Domain/BlockMap.fs:409-418 | Pomo.Core/Domain/BlockMap.fs:475-484 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Pomo.Core/Domain/BlockMap.fs:409` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) Pomo.Core/Domain/Spatial.fs:141 — Pomo.Core/Domain/Spatial.fs:141-150 | Pomo.Core/Domain/Spatial.fs:167-176 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) Pomo.Core/Scenes/BlockMapScene.fs:387 — Pomo.Core/Scenes/BlockMapScene.fs:387-396 | Pomo.Core/Scenes/GameplayScene.fs:392-401 — before extracting anything, compare `Pomo.Core/Scenes/BlockMapScene.fs` and `Pomo.Core/Scenes/GameplayScene.fs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 11 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 299 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) · ×2

Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) Pomo.Core/Systems/Combat.fs:970 — Pomo.Core/Systems/Combat.fs:970-984 | Pomo.Core/Systems/Combat.fs:991-1005 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Pomo.Core/Systems/Combat.fs:970` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) Pomo.Core/Systems/EffectApplication.fs:309 — Pomo.Core/Systems/EffectApplication.fs:309-323 | Pomo.Core/Systems/EffectApplication.fs:343-357 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Pomo.Core/Systems/EffectApplication.fs:309` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) · ×2

Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) Pomo.Core/Systems/ParticleSystem.fs:285 — Pomo.Core/Systems/ParticleSystem.fs:285-297 | Pomo.Core/Systems/ParticleSystem.fs:472-484 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) Pomo.Core/UI/Widgets.fs:116 — Pomo.Core/UI/Widgets.fs:116-128 | Pomo.Core/UI/Widgets.fs:268-280 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just before the matched lines, `Pomo.Core/UI/Widgets.fs:266` calls `fun` and `Pomo.Core/UI/Widgets.fs:114` does not — after which the two agree again for 2 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) · ×2

Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) Pomo.Core/Stores.fs:83 — Pomo.Core/Stores.fs:83-93 | Pomo.Core/Stores.fs:119-129 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) Pomo.Core/Editor/UI.fs:94 — Pomo.Core/Editor/UI.fs:94-104 | Pomo.Core/Editor/UI.fs:116-126 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Pomo.Core/Editor/UI.fs:94` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (10 lines × 3) · ×2

Duplicated block (10 lines × 3) Pomo.Core/Stores.fs:84 — Pomo.Core/Stores.fs:84-93 | Pomo.Core/Stores.fs:103-112 | Pomo.Core/Stores.fs:120-129 — all 3 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 3) Pomo.Core/UI/Widgets.fs:116 — Pomo.Core/UI/Widgets.fs:116-125 | Pomo.Core/UI/Widgets.fs:170-179 | Pomo.Core/UI/Widgets.fs:268-277 — all 3 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just before the matched lines, `Pomo.Core/UI/Widgets.fs:266` calls `fun` and `Pomo.Core/UI/Widgets.fs:114` does not — after which the two agree again for 2 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) · ×2

Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) Pomo.Core/Domain/Skill.fs:1223 — Pomo.Core/Domain/Skill.fs:1223-1230 | Pomo.Core/Domain/Skill.fs:1267-1274 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Pomo.Core/Domain/Skill.fs:1223` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) Pomo.Core/UI/MyraExtensions.fs:283 — Pomo.Core/UI/MyraExtensions.fs:283-290 | Pomo.Core/UI/MyraExtensions.fs:571-578 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · EditorInput.handleEditorInput (cyclomatic 47) · ×1

EditorInput.handleEditorInput (cyclomatic 47) Pomo.Core/Editor/Input.fs:110 — EditorInput.handleEditorInput has cyclomatic complexity 47 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · StateWrite.applyAdaptiveCommand (cyclomatic 38) · ×1

StateWrite.applyAdaptiveCommand (cyclomatic 38) Pomo.Core/Systems/State.fs:506 — StateWrite.applyAdaptiveCommand has cyclomatic complexity 38 (threshold 15). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Where every arm is uniform — the same kind of value, with no behaviour of its own — a table keyed by the case is the shorter form; wherever the arms carry different data or different behaviour, keep them as cases, because collapsing those trades an explicit, reviewable set of cases for nothing.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · OrbitalSystem.Update (cyclomatic 35) · ×1

OrbitalSystem.Update (cyclomatic 35) Pomo.Core/Systems/OrbitalSystem.fs:100 — OrbitalSystem.Update has cyclomatic complexity 35 (threshold 15). To reduce it, break up the iteration: give each loop body a named function, and split a multi-phase loop into one function per phase so no single body carries the whole pipeline.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · EmitterConfigCodec.decoder (cyclomatic 32) · ×1

EmitterConfigCodec.decoder (cyclomatic 32) Pomo.Core/Domain/Particles.fs:465 — EmitterConfigCodec.decoder has cyclomatic complexity 32 (threshold 15). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Where every arm is uniform — the same kind of value, with no behaviour of its own — a table keyed by the case is the shorter form; wherever the arms carry different data or different behaviour, keep them as cases, because collapsing those trades an explicit, reviewable set of cases for nothing.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · FormulaParser.classifyVar (cyclomatic 31) · ×1

FormulaParser.classifyVar (cyclomatic 31) Pomo.Core/Domain/Skill.fs:233 — FormulaParser.classifyVar has cyclomatic complexity 31 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages. This is NOT this file's highest cyclomatic complexity: Effect.formulaEncoder (cyclomatic 38) is higher and carries no row of its own — it was excluded as a flat dispatcher (a long switch/match over independent cases: many branches, almost no nesting), which this dimension does not treat as a refactor obligation. It is named here so the ranking you see in this file is not mistaken for the whole of it; the excluded method is counted neither in this dimension's figures nor in its score.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Handlers.handleChargeCompleted (cyclomatic 29) · ×1

Handlers.handleChargeCompleted (cyclomatic 29) Pomo.Core/Systems/Combat.fs:914 — Handlers.handleChargeCompleted has cyclomatic complexity 29 (threshold 15). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Where every arm is uniform — the same kind of value, with no behaviour of its own — a table keyed by the case is the shorter form; wherever the arms carry different data or different behaviour, keep them as cases, because collapsing those trades an explicit, reviewable set of cases for nothing.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · BehaviorTreeExecution.evaluateCondition (cyclomatic 28) · ×1

BehaviorTreeExecution.evaluateCondition (cyclomatic 28) Pomo.Core/Systems/AISystem.fs:455 — BehaviorTreeExecution.evaluateCondition has cyclomatic complexity 28 (threshold 15). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Where every arm is uniform — the same kind of value, with no behaviour of its own — a table keyed by the case is the shorter form; wherever the arms carry different data or different behaviour, keep them as cases, because collapsing those trades an explicit, reviewable set of cases for nothing.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Handlers.handleInstantDelivery (cyclomatic 25) · ×1

Handlers.handleInstantDelivery (cyclomatic 25) Pomo.Core/Systems/Combat.fs:575 — Handlers.handleInstantDelivery has cyclomatic complexity 25 (threshold 15). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Where every arm is uniform — the same kind of value, with no behaviour of its own — a table keyed by the case is the shorter form; wherever the arms carry different data or different behaviour, keep them as cases, because collapsing those trades an explicit, reviewable set of cases for nothing.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · AbilityActivationSystem.Update (cyclomatic 24) · ×1

AbilityActivationSystem.Update (cyclomatic 24) Pomo.Core/Systems/AbilityActivation.fs:465 — AbilityActivationSystem.Update has cyclomatic complexity 24 (threshold 15). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Where every arm is uniform — the same kind of value, with no behaviour of its own — a table keyed by the case is the shorter form; wherever the arms carry different data or different behaviour, keep them as cases, because collapsing those trades an explicit, reviewable set of cases for nothing.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · UnitMovementSystem.Update (cyclomatic 23) · ×1

UnitMovementSystem.Update (cyclomatic 23) Pomo.Core/Systems/UnitMovement.fs:40 — UnitMovementSystem.Update has cyclomatic complexity 23 (threshold 15). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Where every arm is uniform — the same kind of value, with no behaviour of its own — a table keyed by the case is the shorter form; wherever the arms carry different data or different behaviour, keep them as cases, because collapsing those trades an explicit, reviewable set of cases for nothing.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · EditorUI.build (cyclomatic 22) · ×1

EditorUI.build (cyclomatic 22) Pomo.Core/Editor/UI.fs:15 — EditorUI.build has cyclomatic complexity 22 (threshold 15). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Where every arm is uniform — the same kind of value, with no behaviour of its own — a table keyed by the case is the shorter form; wherever the arms carry different data or different behaviour, keep them as cases, because collapsing those trades an explicit, reviewable set of cases for nothing.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · AISystem.Update (cyclomatic 20) · ×1

AISystem.Update (cyclomatic 20) Pomo.Core/Systems/AISystem.fs:1265 — AISystem.Update has cyclomatic complexity 20 (threshold 15). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Where every arm is uniform — the same kind of value, with no behaviour of its own — a table keyed by the case is the shorter form; wherever the arms carry different data or different behaviour, keep them as cases, because collapsing those trades an explicit, reviewable set of cases for nothing.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Handlers.handleProjectileImpact (cyclomatic 20) · ×1

Handlers.handleProjectileImpact (cyclomatic 20) Pomo.Core/Systems/Combat.fs:781 — Handlers.handleProjectileImpact has cyclomatic complexity 20 (threshold 15). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Where every arm is uniform — the same kind of value, with no behaviour of its own — a table keyed by the case is the shorter form; wherever the arms carry different data or different behaviour, keep them as cases, because collapsing those trades an explicit, reviewable set of cases for nothing.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · ParticleSystem.updateEmitter (cyclomatic 19) · ×1

ParticleSystem.updateEmitter (cyclomatic 19) Pomo.Core/Systems/ParticleSystem.fs:427 — ParticleSystem.updateEmitter has cyclomatic complexity 19 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function so the top-level body reads as a short sequence of named decisions.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · ParticleSystem.updateSingleEffect (cyclomatic 18) · ×1

ParticleSystem.updateSingleEffect (cyclomatic 18) Pomo.Core/Systems/ParticleSystem.fs:830 — ParticleSystem.updateSingleEffect has cyclomatic complexity 18 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function so the top-level body reads as a short sequence of named decisions.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · CombatSystem.Initialize (cyclomatic 18) · ×1

CombatSystem.Initialize (cyclomatic 18) Pomo.Core/Systems/Combat.fs:1127 — CombatSystem.Initialize has cyclomatic complexity 18 (threshold 15). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Where every arm is uniform — the same kind of value, with no behaviour of its own — a table keyed by the case is the shorter form; wherever the arms carry different data or different behaviour, keep them as cases, because collapsing those trades an explicit, reviewable set of cases for nothing.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · MiniMap.InternalRender (cyclomatic 18) · ×1

MiniMap.InternalRender (cyclomatic 18) Pomo.Core/UI/Widgets.fs:421 — MiniMap.InternalRender has cyclomatic complexity 18 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Camera.tryGetViewBoundsFromMatrices (cyclomatic 18) · ×1

Camera.tryGetViewBoundsFromMatrices (cyclomatic 18) Pomo.Core/Graphics/RenderMath.fs:90 — Camera.tryGetViewBoundsFromMatrices has cyclomatic complexity 18 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · BehaviorTreeExecution.executeAction (cyclomatic 17) · ×1

BehaviorTreeExecution.executeAction (cyclomatic 17) Pomo.Core/Systems/AISystem.fs:514 — BehaviorTreeExecution.executeAction has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Where every arm is uniform — the same kind of value, with no behaviour of its own — a table keyed by the case is the shorter form; wherever the arms carry different data or different behaviour, keep them as cases, because collapsing those trades an explicit, reviewable set of cases for nothing.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · TextEmitter.emit (cyclomatic 17) · ×1

TextEmitter.emit (cyclomatic 17) Pomo.Core/Rendering/TextEmitter.fs:19 — TextEmitter.emit has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function so the top-level body reads as a short sequence of named decisions.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · EditorInput.handleCameraInput (cyclomatic 16) · ×1

EditorInput.handleCameraInput (cyclomatic 16) Pomo.Core/Editor/Input.fs:42 — EditorInput.handleCameraInput has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Perception.gatherCues (cyclomatic 16) · ×1

Perception.gatherCues (cyclomatic 16) Pomo.Core/Systems/AISystem.fs:322 — Perception.gatherCues has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Where every arm is uniform — the same kind of value, with no behaviour of its own — a table keyed by the case is the shorter form; wherever the arms carry different data or different behaviour, keep them as cases, because collapsing those trades an explicit, reviewable set of cases for nothing.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · OrbitalSystem.Update (cognitive 92) · ×1

OrbitalSystem.Update (cognitive 92) Pomo.Core/Systems/OrbitalSystem.fs:100 — OrbitalSystem.Update has cognitive complexity 92 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: loops 14 (46 pts), match/switch 7 (24 pts), if/else 7 (22 pts) (nesting depth added 64). To reduce it, break up the iteration: give each loop body a named function, and split a multi-phase loop into one function per phase so no single body carries the whole pipeline.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · EditorInput.handleEditorInput (cognitive 57) · ×1

EditorInput.handleEditorInput (cognitive 57) Pomo.Core/Editor/Input.fs:110 — EditorInput.handleEditorInput has cognitive complexity 57 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 29 (41 pts), match/switch 3 (9 pts), boolean chains 7 (nesting depth added 18). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · UnitMovementSystem.Update (cognitive 54) · ×1

UnitMovementSystem.Update (cognitive 54) Pomo.Core/Systems/UnitMovement.fs:40 — UnitMovementSystem.Update has cognitive complexity 54 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: match/switch 7 (40 pts), if/else 2 (9 pts), loops 2 (3 pts), boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 41). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Camera.tryGetViewBoundsFromMatrices (cognitive 50) · ×1

Camera.tryGetViewBoundsFromMatrices (cognitive 50) Pomo.Core/Graphics/RenderMath.fs:90 — Camera.tryGetViewBoundsFromMatrices has cognitive complexity 50 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (36 pts), loops 2 (5 pts), match/switch 2 (5 pts), boolean chains 4 (nesting depth added 32). The drivers above price the dispatch low by construction — a dispatch is charged once however many cases it lists, while each branch inside an arm is charged in full — so most of this count is what the case bodies hold, and the arms are where it can be reduced. To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Projections.create (cognitive 45) · ×1

Projections.create (cognitive 45) Pomo.Core/Projections.fs:621 — Projections.create has cognitive complexity 45 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 6 (20 pts), match/switch 4 (14 pts), loops 4 (11 pts) (nesting depth added 31). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · AbilityActivationSystem.Update (cognitive 42) · ×1

AbilityActivationSystem.Update (cognitive 42) Pomo.Core/Systems/AbilityActivation.fs:465 — AbilityActivationSystem.Update has cognitive complexity 42 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: match/switch 9 (35 pts), if/else 1 (6 pts), loops 1 (nesting depth added 31). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · MiniMap.InternalRender (cognitive 42) · ×1

MiniMap.InternalRender (cognitive 42) Pomo.Core/UI/Widgets.fs:421 — MiniMap.InternalRender has cognitive complexity 42 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (29 pts), match/switch 3 (10 pts), loops 1 (2 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 27). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: this score is depth rather than breadth — most of its points come from checks stacked inside one another, so the work sits several levels in. Invert each enclosing check into an early exit (a return, or the language's equivalent) so the happy path stays at one level, and where a level cannot be exited early, lift the block it encloses into its own named function.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · BehaviorTreeExecution.evaluateCondition (cognitive 36) · ×1

BehaviorTreeExecution.evaluateCondition (cognitive 36) Pomo.Core/Systems/AISystem.fs:455 — BehaviorTreeExecution.evaluateCondition has cognitive complexity 36 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 14 (25 pts), match/switch 6 (11 pts) (nesting depth added 16). The drivers above price the dispatch low by construction — a dispatch is charged once however many cases it lists, while each branch inside an arm is charged in full — so most of this count is what the case bodies hold, and the arms are where it can be reduced. To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · FormulaParser.classifyVar (cognitive 35) · ×1

FormulaParser.classifyVar (cognitive 35) Pomo.Core/Domain/Skill.fs:233 — FormulaParser.classifyVar has cognitive complexity 35 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 30 (34 pts), match/switch 1 (nesting depth added 4). The drivers above price the dispatch low by construction — a dispatch is charged once however many cases it lists, while each branch inside an arm is charged in full — so most of this count is what the case bodies hold, and the arms are where it can be reduced. To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · AISystem.Update (cognitive 33) · ×1

AISystem.Update (cognitive 33) Pomo.Core/Systems/AISystem.fs:1265 — AISystem.Update has cognitive complexity 33 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: match/switch 8 (22 pts), if/else 2 (8 pts), loops 2 (3 pts) (nesting depth added 21). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Handlers.handleChargeCompleted (cognitive 33) · ×1

Handlers.handleChargeCompleted (cognitive 33) Pomo.Core/Systems/Combat.fs:914 — Handlers.handleChargeCompleted has cognitive complexity 33 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: match/switch 9 (25 pts), if/else 2 (5 pts), loops 1 (3 pts) (nesting depth added 21). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Perception.gatherVisualCues (cognitive 31) · ×1

Perception.gatherVisualCues (cognitive 31) Pomo.Core/Systems/AISystem.fs:233 — Perception.gatherVisualCues has cognitive complexity 31 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (25 pts), match/switch 2 (5 pts), loops 1 (nesting depth added 21). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: this score is depth rather than breadth — most of its points come from checks stacked inside one another, so the work sits several levels in. Invert each enclosing check into an early exit (a return, or the language's equivalent) so the happy path stays at one level, and where a level cannot be exited early, lift the block it encloses into its own named function.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Handlers.handleProjectileImpact (cognitive 31) · ×1

Handlers.handleProjectileImpact (cognitive 31) Pomo.Core/Systems/Combat.fs:781 — Handlers.handleProjectileImpact has cognitive complexity 31 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: match/switch 6 (16 pts), if/else 4 (9 pts), loops 2 (6 pts) (nesting depth added 19). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Evaluator.backtrackToNextChild (cognitive 30) · ×1

Evaluator.backtrackToNextChild (cognitive 30) Pomo.Core/Systems/AISystem.fs:757 — Evaluator.backtrackToNextChild has cognitive complexity 30 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (23 pts), boolean chains 3, match/switch 1 (3 pts), loops 1 (nesting depth added 17). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · ParticleEmitter.loadAssets (cognitive 29) · ×1

ParticleEmitter.loadAssets (cognitive 29) Pomo.Core/Rendering/ParticleEmitter.fs:70 — ParticleEmitter.loadAssets has cognitive complexity 29 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 3 (13 pts), error handling 2 (10 pts), loops 2 (3 pts), match/switch 1 (3 pts) (nesting depth added 21). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · AStar.findPathWithHeight (cognitive 29) · ×1

AStar.findPathWithHeight (cognitive 29) Pomo.Core/Algorithms/Pathfinding3D.fs:184 — AStar.findPathWithHeight has cognitive complexity 29 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (18 pts), loops 3 (9 pts), boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 15). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · ParticleSystem.updateEmitter (cognitive 26) · ×1

ParticleSystem.updateEmitter (cognitive 26) Pomo.Core/Systems/ParticleSystem.fs:427 — ParticleSystem.updateEmitter has cognitive complexity 26 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (14 pts), loops 3 (7 pts), match/switch 4, boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 11). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · EditorInput.handleCameraInput (cognitive 25) · ×1

EditorInput.handleCameraInput (cognitive 25) Pomo.Core/Editor/Input.fs:42 — EditorInput.handleCameraInput has cognitive complexity 25 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 12 (23 pts), boolean chains 1, match/switch 1 (nesting depth added 11). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Navigation3D.trySnapToNearestWalkable (cognitive 23) · ×1

Navigation3D.trySnapToNearestWalkable (cognitive 23) Pomo.Core/Systems/Navigation3D.fs:57 — Navigation3D.trySnapToNearestWalkable has cognitive complexity 23 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (16 pts), boolean chains 4, loops 2 (3 pts) (nesting depth added 8). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · EditorUI.build (cognitive 22) · ×1

EditorUI.build (cognitive 22) Pomo.Core/Editor/UI.fs:15 — EditorUI.build has cognitive complexity 22 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: match/switch 10 (16 pts), if/else 4 (5 pts), loops 1 (nesting depth added 7). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · BehaviorTreeExecution.evaluate (cognitive 21) · ×1

BehaviorTreeExecution.evaluate (cognitive 21) Pomo.Core/Systems/AISystem.fs:798 — BehaviorTreeExecution.evaluate has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 6 (15 pts), loops 2 (3 pts), match/switch 1 (3 pts) (nesting depth added 12). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · EffectApplication.applyEffect (cognitive 21) · ×1

EffectApplication.applyEffect (cognitive 21) Pomo.Core/Systems/EffectApplication.fs:49 — EffectApplication.applyEffect has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 6 (11 pts), match/switch 4 (10 pts) (nesting depth added 11). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Handlers.handlePendingCast (cognitive 21) · ×1

Handlers.handlePendingCast (cognitive 21) Pomo.Core/Systems/AbilityActivation.fs:223 — Handlers.handlePendingCast has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: match/switch 6 (16 pts), if/else 2 (5 pts) (nesting depth added 13). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · EntityPicker.pickEntityBlockMap3D (cognitive 21) · ×1

EntityPicker.pickEntityBlockMap3D (cognitive 21) Pomo.Core/Rendering/EntityPicker.fs:16 — EntityPicker.pickEntityBlockMap3D has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: match/switch 4 (15 pts), if/else 2 (5 pts), loops 1 (nesting depth added 14). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Perception.gatherCues (cognitive 20) · ×1

Perception.gatherCues (cognitive 20) Pomo.Core/Systems/AISystem.fs:322 — Perception.gatherCues has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 5 (8 pts), match/switch 3 (7 pts), loops 3 (5 pts) (nesting depth added 9). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · BehaviorTreeExecution.executeAction (cognitive 20) · ×1

BehaviorTreeExecution.executeAction (cognitive 20) Pomo.Core/Systems/AISystem.fs:514 — BehaviorTreeExecution.executeAction has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: match/switch 7 (16 pts), if/else 2 (4 pts) (nesting depth added 11). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · BlockEmitter.emit (cognitive 20) · ×1

BlockEmitter.emit (cognitive 20) Pomo.Core/Rendering/BlockEmitter.fs:47 — BlockEmitter.emit has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: match/switch 3 (12 pts), if/else 2 (7 pts), loops 1 (nesting depth added 14). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Spatial.circleChainMTV (cognitive 20) · ×1

Spatial.circleChainMTV (cognitive 20) Pomo.Core/Domain/Spatial.fs:402 — Spatial.circleChainMTV has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (13 pts), loops 2 (4 pts), match/switch 1 (3 pts) (nesting depth added 10). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Helpers.generateIntervalEvents (cognitive 19) · ×1

Helpers.generateIntervalEvents (cognitive 19) Pomo.Core/Systems/EffectApplication.fs:234 — Helpers.generateIntervalEvents has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (14 pts), match/switch 1 (5 pts) (nesting depth added 10). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · BlockMapCameraSystem.create (cognitive 18) · ×1

BlockMapCameraSystem.create (cognitive 18) Pomo.Core/Systems/BlockMapCameraSystem.fs:24 — BlockMapCameraSystem.create has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (13 pts), boolean chains 2, loops 1 (2 pts), match/switch 1 (nesting depth added 4). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — so group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function. Some of it IS depth: where a check sits inside another whose only job is to reach it, merge the two into one condition, and where an else follows a branch that already returns, drop the trailing else and let the rest of the body continue at one level.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Spatial3D.canOccupyWithConfig (cognitive 18) · ×1

Spatial3D.canOccupyWithConfig (cognitive 18) Pomo.Core/Algorithms/Spatial3D.fs:93 — Spatial3D.canOccupyWithConfig has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (13 pts), boolean chains 3, loops 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 7). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Spatial3D.canTraverseWithConfig (cognitive 18) · ×1

Spatial3D.canTraverseWithConfig (cognitive 18) Pomo.Core/Algorithms/Spatial3D.fs:212 — Spatial3D.canTraverseWithConfig has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 5 (12 pts), match/switch 1 (3 pts), loops 1 (2 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 10). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · EmitterConfigCodec.decoder (cognitive 18) · ×1

EmitterConfigCodec.decoder (cognitive 18) Pomo.Core/Domain/Particles.fs:465 — EmitterConfigCodec.decoder has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: match/switch 15 (18 pts) (nesting depth added 3). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · ModelMetrics.computeNodeOffset (cognitive 17) · ×1

ModelMetrics.computeNodeOffset (cognitive 17) Pomo.Core/Graphics/ModelMetrics.fs:42 — ModelMetrics.computeNodeOffset has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: match/switch 4 (13 pts), loops 2 (4 pts) (nesting depth added 11). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · RingEventBus.FlushToObservable (cognitive 17) · ×1

RingEventBus.FlushToObservable (cognitive 17) Pomo.Core/EventBus.fs:41 — RingEventBus.FlushToObservable has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: loops 3 (9 pts), if/else 5 (8 pts) (nesting depth added 9). To reduce it, break up the iteration: give each loop body a named function, and split a multi-phase loop into one function per phase so no single body carries the whole pipeline.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · SpanToken.peek (cognitive 17) · ×1

SpanToken.peek (cognitive 17) Pomo.Core/Domain/Skill.fs:287 — SpanToken.peek has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 6 (7 pts), loops 2 (6 pts), boolean chains 4 (nesting depth added 5). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Decision.selectBestCue (cognitive 16) · ×1

Decision.selectBestCue (cognitive 16) Pomo.Core/Systems/AISystem.fs:861 — Decision.selectBestCue has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 2 (7 pts), match/switch 2 (5 pts), loops 2 (3 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 9). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · ParticleSystem.updateSingleEffect (cognitive 16) · ×1

ParticleSystem.updateSingleEffect (cognitive 16) Pomo.Core/Systems/ParticleSystem.fs:830 — ParticleSystem.updateSingleEffect has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: boolean chains 6, if/else 2 (4 pts), match/switch 3 (4 pts), loops 2 (nesting depth added 3). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Inventory.handleUseItemIntent (cognitive 16) · ×1

Inventory.handleUseItemIntent (cognitive 16) Pomo.Core/Systems/Inventory.fs:28 — Inventory.handleUseItemIntent has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: match/switch 4 (10 pts), if/else 2 (6 pts) (nesting depth added 10). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · RenderPasses.renderMeshes (cognitive 16) · ×1

RenderPasses.renderMeshes (cognitive 16) Pomo.Core/Systems/RenderOrchestratorV2.fs:55 — RenderPasses.renderMeshes has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 2 (6 pts), loops 3 (6 pts), match/switch 1 (4 pts) (nesting depth added 10). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · RenderPasses.renderGhost (cognitive 16) · ×1

RenderPasses.renderGhost (cognitive 16) Pomo.Core/Systems/RenderOrchestratorV2.fs:173 — RenderPasses.renderGhost has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: match/switch 2 (6 pts), if/else 2 (5 pts), loops 3 (5 pts) (nesting depth added 9). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Targeting.handleTargetSelected (cognitive 16) · ×1

Targeting.handleTargetSelected (cognitive 16) Pomo.Core/Systems/Targeting.fs:228 — Targeting.handleTargetSelected has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: match/switch 4 (13 pts), if/else 2 (3 pts) (nesting depth added 10). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Handlers.handleInstantDelivery (cognitive 16) · ×1

Handlers.handleInstantDelivery (cognitive 16) Pomo.Core/Systems/Combat.fs:575 — Handlers.handleInstantDelivery has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: match/switch 7 (14 pts), loops 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 8). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · PhysicsCache.calculateSnapshot (cognitive 16) · ×1

PhysicsCache.calculateSnapshot (cognitive 16) Pomo.Core/Projections.fs:383 — PhysicsCache.calculateSnapshot has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: match/switch 5 (14 pts), loops 2 (nesting depth added 9). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · PhysicsCache.calculate3DSnapshot (cognitive 16) · ×1

PhysicsCache.calculate3DSnapshot (cognitive 16) Pomo.Core/Projections.fs:457 — PhysicsCache.calculate3DSnapshot has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: match/switch 5 (14 pts), loops 2 (nesting depth added 9). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.

D35 · Change Coupling · Change-coupling hub · ×1

Change-coupling hub: PomoGame.fs → Events.fs, World.fs, AbilityActivation.fs, State.fs Pomo.Core/PomoGame.fs — `Pomo.Core/PomoGame.fs` changes together with 4 other files — `Pomo.Core/Domain/Events.fs`, `Pomo.Core/Domain/World.fs`, `Pomo.Core/Systems/AbilityActivation.fs`, `Pomo.Core/Systems/State.fs` — none of which declares a dependency on it: one file is the hub of 4 separate couplings, not 4 unrelated pairs. Read the hub first: if the others each duplicate a part of what it does, the shared concern belongs in ONE unit and extracting it clears every edge at once; if the hub is a registry, dispatcher or barrel that must name each of them, the coupling is structural and the question is whether that list can be discovered instead of enumerated. Fixing the hub is one change; breaking the couplings one pair at a time is 4.

D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED · ×1

REDACTED

D4 · Code Duplication · Near-duplicate member pair (294 shared lines) · ×1

Near-duplicate member pair (294 shared lines) Pomo.Core/Scenes/BlockMapScene.fs:1 — Pomo.Core/Scenes/BlockMapScene.fs:1-410 | Pomo.Core/Scenes/GameplayScene.fs:1-416 — These two members are variants of one another: 294 of their lines are already reported as duplicated blocks below, spread through both bodies rather than gathered into one. Read them as a single construct written twice. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared pipeline into one implementation the two call with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic (sync against async, one transport against another), generate one from the other. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves the two bodies in place and the next edit still has to be made twice.

D4 · Code Duplication · Edited copy of a member (50 corresponding lines) · ×1

Edited copy of a member (50 corresponding lines) Pomo.Core/Domain/Core.fs:1 — Pomo.Core/Domain/Core.fs:1-405 | Pomo.Core/Domain/Particles.fs:1-604 — These two members are one piece of code written twice and then edited apart: 50 consecutive lines correspond almost exactly, broken only by small local edits. Most of that correspondence is NOT reported as duplicated blocks below — the edits cut it into fragments and only the largest of them clear the block floor, so the rows below understate it. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation into one the two call with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic (an extra return value, one transport against another), generate one from the other. Left alone, the next edit has to be made twice and the two will drift further apart.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (89–92 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (89–92 lines × 2) Pomo.Core/Scenes/BlockMapScene.fs:209 — Pomo.Core/Scenes/BlockMapScene.fs:209-297 | Pomo.Core/Scenes/GameplayScene.fs:224-315 — before extracting anything, compare `Pomo.Core/Scenes/BlockMapScene.fs` and `Pomo.Core/Scenes/GameplayScene.fs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 11 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 299 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (37 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (37 lines × 2) Pomo.Core/Scenes/BlockMapScene.fs:94 — Pomo.Core/Scenes/BlockMapScene.fs:94-130 | Pomo.Core/Scenes/GameplayScene.fs:94-130 — before extracting anything, compare `Pomo.Core/Scenes/BlockMapScene.fs` and `Pomo.Core/Scenes/GameplayScene.fs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 11 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 299 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (32 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (32 lines × 2) Pomo.Core/Scenes/BlockMapScene.fs:141 — Pomo.Core/Scenes/BlockMapScene.fs:141-172 | Pomo.Core/Scenes/GameplayScene.fs:152-183 — before extracting anything, compare `Pomo.Core/Scenes/BlockMapScene.fs` and `Pomo.Core/Scenes/GameplayScene.fs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 11 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 299 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Pomo.Core/Scenes/BlockMapScene.fs:141` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members' bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (2–30 lines × 4) · ×1

Duplicated block (2–30 lines × 4) Pomo.Core/Domain/Core.fs:230 — Pomo.Core/Domain/Core.fs:230-259 | Pomo.Core/Domain/Core.fs:265-266 | Pomo.Core/Domain/Particles.fs:314-343 | Pomo.Core/Domain/Particles.fs:349-350 — there are 4 copies across 2 file(s) — more copies than files, so at least one file holds the block twice. Extract it once into a single shared function every call site can reach and call it from all 4 sites; resolving a subset leaves the remainder to drift apart. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Pomo.Core/Domain/Core.fs:230` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (24–26 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (24–26 lines × 2) Pomo.Core/Scenes/BlockMapScene.fs:361 — Pomo.Core/Scenes/BlockMapScene.fs:361-386 | Pomo.Core/Scenes/GameplayScene.fs:368-391 — before extracting anything, compare `Pomo.Core/Scenes/BlockMapScene.fs` and `Pomo.Core/Scenes/GameplayScene.fs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 11 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 299 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Pomo.Core/Scenes/BlockMapScene.fs:361` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members' bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (24 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (24 lines × 2) Pomo.Core/Scenes/BlockMapScene.fs:47 — Pomo.Core/Scenes/BlockMapScene.fs:47-70 | Pomo.Core/Scenes/GameplayScene.fs:47-70 — before extracting anything, compare `Pomo.Core/Scenes/BlockMapScene.fs` and `Pomo.Core/Scenes/GameplayScene.fs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 11 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 299 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (23 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (23 lines × 2) Pomo.Core/Scenes/BlockMapScene.fs:71 — Pomo.Core/Scenes/BlockMapScene.fs:71-93 | Pomo.Core/Scenes/GameplayScene.fs:71-93 — before extracting anything, compare `Pomo.Core/Scenes/BlockMapScene.fs` and `Pomo.Core/Scenes/GameplayScene.fs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 11 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 299 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (21 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (21 lines × 2) Pomo.Core/Systems/Combat.fs:263 — Pomo.Core/Systems/Combat.fs:263-283 | Pomo.Core/Systems/Combat.fs:846-866 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Pomo.Core/Systems/Combat.fs:263` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (20–21 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (20–21 lines × 2) Pomo.Core/Systems/Targeting.fs:114 — Pomo.Core/Systems/Targeting.fs:114-134 | Pomo.Core/Systems/Targeting.fs:195-214 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Pomo.Core/Systems/Targeting.fs:114` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (18 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (18 lines × 2) Pomo.Core/Rendering/BlockEmitter.fs:15 — Pomo.Core/Rendering/BlockEmitter.fs:15-32 | Pomo.Core/Rendering/EntityEmitter.fs:15-32 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Pomo.Core/Rendering/BlockEmitter.fs:15` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (14–18 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (14–18 lines × 2) Pomo.Core/Systems/HUDComponents.fs:473 — Pomo.Core/Systems/HUDComponents.fs:473-486 | Pomo.Core/Systems/HUDComponents.fs:515-532 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (17 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (17 lines × 2) Pomo.Core/UI/Widgets.fs:132 — Pomo.Core/UI/Widgets.fs:132-148 | Pomo.Core/UI/Widgets.fs:284-300 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (16 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (16 lines × 2) Pomo.Core/Scenes/BlockMapScene.fs:1 — Pomo.Core/Scenes/BlockMapScene.fs:1-16 | Pomo.Core/Scenes/GameplayScene.fs:1-16 — before extracting anything, compare `Pomo.Core/Scenes/BlockMapScene.fs` and `Pomo.Core/Scenes/GameplayScene.fs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 11 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 299 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (13–15 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (13–15 lines × 2) Pomo.Core/Scenes/BlockMapScene.fs:25 — Pomo.Core/Scenes/BlockMapScene.fs:25-39 | Pomo.Core/Scenes/GameplayScene.fs:28-40 — before extracting anything, compare `Pomo.Core/Scenes/BlockMapScene.fs` and `Pomo.Core/Scenes/GameplayScene.fs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 11 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 299 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (12 lines × 3) · ×1

Duplicated block (12 lines × 3) Pomo.Core/UI/MyraExtensions.fs:556 — Pomo.Core/UI/MyraExtensions.fs:556-567 | Pomo.Core/UI/MyraExtensions.fs:605-616 | Pomo.Core/UI/MyraExtensions.fs:623-634 — all 3 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) Pomo.Core/Systems/HUDComponents.fs:144 — Pomo.Core/Systems/HUDComponents.fs:144-155 | Pomo.Core/Systems/HUDComponents.fs:255-266 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Pomo.Core/Systems/HUDComponents.fs:144` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (9–11 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (9–11 lines × 2) Pomo.Core/UI/Widgets.fs:55 — Pomo.Core/UI/Widgets.fs:55-63 | Pomo.Core/UI/Widgets.fs:340-350 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (8–10 lines × 3) · ×1

Duplicated block (8–10 lines × 3) Pomo.Core/Graphics/Camera.fs:116 — Pomo.Core/Graphics/Camera.fs:116-123 | Pomo.Core/Graphics/Picking.fs:24-33 | Pomo.Core/Graphics/RenderMath.fs:66-75 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from all 3 call sites, so a change lands once.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (7–10 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (7–10 lines × 2) Pomo.Core/Projections.fs:418 — Pomo.Core/Projections.fs:418-424 | Pomo.Core/Projections.fs:488-497 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (9–10 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (9–10 lines × 2) Pomo.Core/Scenes/BlockMapScene.fs:350 — Pomo.Core/Scenes/BlockMapScene.fs:350-359 | Pomo.Core/Scenes/GameplayScene.fs:354-362 — before extracting anything, compare `Pomo.Core/Scenes/BlockMapScene.fs` and `Pomo.Core/Scenes/GameplayScene.fs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 11 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 299 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Pomo.Core/Scenes/BlockMapScene.fs:350` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (9 lines × 6) · ×1

Duplicated block (9 lines × 6) Pomo.Core/Stores.fs:34 — Pomo.Core/Stores.fs:34-43 | Pomo.Core/Stores.fs:52-60 | Pomo.Core/Stores.fs:69-77 | Pomo.Core/Stores.fs:86-94 | Pomo.Core/Stores.fs:105-113 | Pomo.Core/Stores.fs:122-130 — all 6 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (9 lines × 3) · ×1

Duplicated block (9 lines × 3) Pomo.Core/UI/Widgets.fs:137 — Pomo.Core/UI/Widgets.fs:137-145 | Pomo.Core/UI/Widgets.fs:199-211 | Pomo.Core/UI/Widgets.fs:289-297 — all 3 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Pomo.Core/UI/Widgets.fs:137` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (2–9 lines × 4) · ×1

Duplicated block (2–9 lines × 4) Pomo.Core/Domain/Core.fs:260 — Pomo.Core/Domain/Core.fs:260-261 | Pomo.Core/Domain/Core.fs:267-275 | Pomo.Core/Domain/Particles.fs:344-345 | Pomo.Core/Domain/Particles.fs:351-359 — there are 4 copies across 2 file(s) — more copies than files, so at least one file holds the block twice. Extract it once into a single shared function every call site can reach and call it from all 4 sites; resolving a subset leaves the remainder to drift apart. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Pomo.Core/Domain/Core.fs:267` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (7–8 lines × 3) · ×1

Duplicated block (7–8 lines × 3) Pomo.Core/Domain/Spatial.fs:141 — Pomo.Core/Domain/Spatial.fs:141-147 | Pomo.Core/Domain/Spatial.fs:166-173 | Pomo.Core/Domain/Spatial.fs:203-210 — all 3 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) Pomo.Core/Projections.fs:390 — Pomo.Core/Projections.fs:390-395 | Pomo.Core/Projections.fs:465-470 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) Pomo.Core/Projections.fs:384 — Pomo.Core/Projections.fs:384-388 | Pomo.Core/Projections.fs:458-462 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) Pomo.Core/Domain/Skill.fs:1116 — Pomo.Core/Domain/Skill.fs:1116-1124 | Pomo.Core/Domain/Skill.fs:1128-1136 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

D8 · Code Coverage · Coverage not measured · ×1

Coverage not measured — no coverage collector is wired up — Coverage NOT MEASURED: `--collect:"XPlat Code Coverage"` names a data collector that ships in the `coverlet.collector` package, and this repository wires up none — no test project references it and no runsettings declares one. The absence of coverage here is therefore not evidence about the suite or about our analyzer environment: without a collector, `--collect` produces nothing even from a suite that builds and passes. Add a `coverlet.collector` PackageReference to the test project(s) (or commit the Cobertura/OpenCover/lcov report your CI produces) and real coverage will be measured. It is excluded from the score rather than counted as a near-zero defect.

SC1 · Supply-chain hygiene · NuGet dependencies are not locked · ×1

NuGet dependencies are not locked — No packages.lock.json and no central package management — restores aren't reproducible or pinned (SSDF PW.4.4). Enable <RestorePackagesWithLockFile>true</RestorePackagesWithLockFile> (commit the lockfile) or adopt Directory.Packages.props. Advisory — never scored.

Minor — 12 finding(s)

M4 · Documentation accuracy · README/code drift · ×2

README/code drift — MonoGame dependency not present — searched for: `MonoGame`. Each was matched case- and separator-insensitively against file and directory NAMES anywhere in the tree, and against the CONTENTS of manifest files (package.json, *.csproj, *.props, *.slnx, *.yml, Dockerfile); the README's own prose never counts, so a claim is never refuted by merely being made. Nothing outside that search was read — a footprint living only in a submodule, in a file type not listed here, or under a name none of those terms matches is not seen, and this row is then wrong.
README/code drift — Android runner Pomo.Android/ exists but no Android project is shown in the evidence — reported by the model that read the README against this repository; no term search was run for this one, so nothing here has been checked against the tree. Treat it as a reading to confirm, not as a measured contradiction: verify it against the code before acting on it, and if the footprint it describes does exist, this row is wrong.

D20 · ADR Quality · No ADRs found · ×1

No ADRs found — No ADRs found. No recognised ADR directory (`docs/adr/`, `docs/decisions/`, `adr/`, `docs/rfcs/`, an `ADR0001/` folder, or their siblings) exists anywhere in this tree. What was searched, so you can tell an empty log from a search that missed one: every directory under the tree (build output, dependencies and VCS metadata excepted), for a document that is either any non-index page inside a recognised ADR directory, whatever its name and however deeply nested (`docs/adr/use-postgres.md`, `docs/adr/2024/0001-x.md`); or a file anywhere whose name is ADR-shaped (`0001-use-postgres.md`, `adr-012-caching.md`); or, when neither turned anything up, a document carrying the decision-record signature (an "Architecture Decision Record" heading, or Status / Context / Decision / Consequences as section headings). A decision log that clears none of these — unnumbered files outside any recognised directory, without those headings — is not seen by this check and this row is then wrong. If that is your case, say so rather than renaming anything; otherwise, consider recording architectural decisions in `docs/adr/`.

D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED · ×1

REDACTED

D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED · ×1

REDACTED

D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED · ×1

REDACTED

D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED · ×1

REDACTED

D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED · ×1

REDACTED

M2 · Architecture documentation · No ADRs · ×1

No ADRs — No Architecture Decision Records found — no conventional ADR directory, no numbered `NNNN-title` documents in any markup this check reads, and nothing ADR-shaped by content. Design rationale recorded elsewhere (a design-notes tree, a mailing list, pull-request discussion) is not visible to this check and is not re-findable per decision, so a future maintainer cannot ask why one choice was made and get an answer.

M3 · Folder & project structure · No src/ separation · ×1

No src/ separation — Production code isn't grouped under a src/ folder — it's spread across several top-level directories, so there's no one place that says 'this is the product'.

P3 · Security & performance tooling · No SAST · ×1

No SAST — No static application security testing detected. For this repository's stack, add `semgrep --config=auto` plus gitleaks for committed secrets (F# is not a CodeQL language and has no language-specific SAST engine) as a CI step. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: the 8555 CI workflow file(s) in this repository, and the scanner and linter configuration checked in beside them. A scan that runs outside CI, one configured in your forge's web UI rather than in a committed file, or a tool whose name is none of those this check carries, is not seen — if that is your case the row is wrong, and saying so is more useful than adding a second scanner.

P4 · Deployment & Rollback · No release approval gate · ×1

No release approval gate — The release is automated and no gate that pauses it for a human is DECLARED IN THIS REPOSITORY'S PIPELINE FILES. What was read: every file under `.github/workflows/`, `.forgejo/workflows/`, `.gitea/workflows/`, `.azuredevops/` and `.azure-pipelines/`, plus `.gitlab-ci*` and `azure-pipelines*` — with comment text stripped, so documenting a gate is not declaring one. What would have counted: GitLab's `when: manual`, CircleCI's `type: approval`, an Azure `ManualValidation@` task or an `approvals:` block, a Jenkins `input` step, a `uses:` step naming an approval action, an `environment:` paired with `reviewers` / `required_reviewers` / `protection` / `wait-timer` / `deployment_branch_policy`, a draft-release step, a `workflow_dispatch` promotion, or a release-event gate. ★ What this cannot see, because none of it is a file: a GitHub environment whose required reviewers are configured in repo SETTINGS, a branch protection rule, or an organisation deployment policy — all of them real, enforced gates that live outside the repository. If yours is one of those, this row is wrong and nothing in the tree could have told us. Otherwise: whatever the release trigger points at is published to users unreviewed, so a mistagged or unverified commit ships and the only remedy is a follow-up release.

Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail

Every external tool invocation behind a deep-scan dimension — the tool, its captured version, the exact command, how many findings it yielded, and a link to the retained raw output. To reproduce any finding: check out the same commit and run the command shown (repo-relative — never an absolute scratch path). The complete raw scanner output is retained verbatim under artifacts/raw/ (indexed in artifacts/raw/index.json); per-invocation exit codes and wall-clock durations are in sidecar.json — kept out of this table so the rendered report stays byte-identical across runs of the same commit.

Dimension	Tool	Version	Command	Findings	Raw output
D28 · Secrets (history)	gitleaks	—	gitleaks detect --no-banner --config /opt/gitleaks-rules/watchdog-gitleaks.toml --report-format json --report-path /tmp/watchdog-gitleaks-ea26760f17394a128ec854b0b162ba15/history.json --exit-code 0 --source .	0	artifacts/raw/gitleaks-history.json
D28 · Secrets (history)	gitleaks	—	gitleaks detect --no-git --no-banner --config /opt/gitleaks-rules/watchdog-gitleaks.toml --report-format json --report-path /tmp/watchdog-gitleaks-ea26760f17394a128ec854b0b162ba15/tree.json --exit-code 0 --source .	0	artifacts/raw/gitleaks-tree.json
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)	semgrep	—	semgrep --config /opt/semgrep-rules/security-audit.yml --config /opt/semgrep-rules/owasp-top-ten.yml --config /opt/semgrep-rules/watchdog-sast.yml --json --quiet --timeout 10 --timeout-threshold 3 --metrics off .	8	artifacts/raw/semgrep.json
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities	nuget	—	nuget: not applicable — nuget: the solution did not restore on the analyzer's .NET SDK (an SDK/target-framework/restore mismatch, common for an older codebase), so there was no restored dependency graph to scan	0	—
D31 · IaC & Container Security	trivy	—	trivy: not applicable — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Docker Compose, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation, ARM, Bicep, Ansible); nothing to scan.	0	—
D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR)	semgrep	—	semgrep: not applicable — No personal data was found crossing a boundary the PII/GDPR ruleset checks — nothing written to a log or console sink, placed in a URL or query string, or persisted to browser storage. That is a clean result for the LEAK surface only: this ruleset detects personal data escaping, it does not inventory the personal data a repository holds, so it is not evidence that this repository has no personal-data surface. The personal-data map (Appendix C) and the C1-C5 compliance cards are what speak to that.	0	—
D37 · Vulnerability-disclosure Policy	disclosure	—	disclosure: not applicable — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.	0	—
D40 · Network Egress Confinement	runtime-hardening	—	runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.	0	—
D41 · Kernel & Syscall Confinement	runtime-hardening	—	runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.	0	—
D42 · Runtime Threat Enforcement	runtime-hardening	—	runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.	0	—
D43 · Malicious Dependencies	none (no readable dependency manifest)	—	none (no readable dependency manifest): not applicable — Not scored — no dependency manifest in a supported ecosystem was read for this repository. A gap in the analyzer's language coverage, NOT a finding that the repository is free of vulnerable dependencies (a Python pyproject.toml/requirements.txt (pip/uv/Poetry), a Swift Package.swift/Package.resolved, a Cargo manifest, a Go module (go.mod/go.sum), a Gradle version catalogue, a Maven POM, an sbt build (build.sbt), composer.json, package.json, a Dart pubspec.yaml, an Elixir mix.exs/mix.lock (Hex), a rebar.config / erlang.mk DEPS (Hex), a Ruby Gemfile/Gemfile.lock or .gemspec (Bundler/RubyGems) — not scanned yet).	0	—

Run 01a100c9-4a29-7bab-8350-cce15ff6ccca · every finding is also locatable in findings.md, and the complete scoring record (with exit codes + durations) in sidecar.json.

AngelMunoz/Kipo

Findings by grade

This survey was produced by

Executive summary

Top priorities

Diagnosis — what's actually going on

Architecture — module dependency graph

Architecture — module dependency matrix

At a glance — Code Health · 72% · Strong ·

At a glance — Architecture · 99% · Exemplary ·

At a glance — Maturity · 52% · Adequate · gated by M4 ·

At a glance — Readiness · 52% · Adequate · gated by P3 ·

At a glance — Security · 68% · Adequate · gated by D36 ·

At a glance — Domain Modelling · 100% · Exemplary ·

Security & Compliance — OWASP Top-10 mapping

Roadmap

File quality

How the grades work

Methodology & how to trust this report

Tools & methods

Run transparency — what happened this run

Limitations & what we did not check

Per-dimension blind spots

The LLM boundary

Dimensions

Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions

Reference — by lens

Appendix A — Findings (grouped)

Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail

Downloadable artifacts