Public report of App-vNext/Polly, published 22 October 2026. It has the same score, grades and number of
findings as the full report. The details of security findings (where they are in the code, which known
vulnerabilities and which passwords or keys were found) are left out, so nobody can use them against the project.
Public
Executive reportMeasured under the Code Assurance Index, an open standard for code quality, using its published scoring rules (rubric version 2026.10.5). Watchdog signed this survey and filed it in the standard's public register, where anyone can look it up by its survey ID. Check this survey →
Signed and filed in the standard's public register, 22 October 2026, 23:48 UTC · Survey ID cd_2026fe1e5c9347a19b712a74e60fb666
App-vNext/Polly
Measured 22 October 2026, 23:45 UTC, at code version 3f3adad
A regression is a drop of 0.5 points or more in the score, or of 2.5 or more out of 10 in a dimension, since the last survey.
Code coverage is not measured: Suite not runnable in-image and no committed report.
Test reliability is not measured: No test run produced results.
Boundary Type-Coupling is not measured: Bounded contexts not declared.
Knowledge freshness is not measured: Freshness signal contradicted by repo activity.
CAI scoreWeak
CriticalWeakAdequateStrongExemplary
No change since the last survey
The score is built from these lenses. Each lens grades one area of the code, such as how easy it is to change or how well it is protected. The weakest lens counts most, so one weak area pulls the score down instead of being averaged away.
A medium codebase: 36,152 lines of product code in 54 projects, tests not counted · Estimated rebuild effort: about 0.5 person-years · Weakest lens: Code Health, 52
Findings by how serious they are
125 critical160 serious57 minor
1 dimension is left out of the score. Watchdog either couldn't measure it in this code, or found no evidence of the safeguard it looks for, such as a tested backup restore. It counts neither for nor against the score, and Limitations lists it with its reason.
This survey was produced by
Watchdog
Producer
Canine Development
Analyzer
Watchdog engine 1.0.0
Measured
22 October 2026, 23:45 UTC
A measurement, not a certificate. The Code Assurance Index records a number
together with the evidence it was worked out from, so anyone can recalculate it, but it doesn't certify or guarantee
the code. The standard was written by Canine Development, which also builds Watchdog. It is open to any tool that
implements it, and today Watchdog is the only one that does.
The score is deterministic, which means the same code always gets the same score. Watchdog works it out with tools that follow published rules, and an AI model never decides it, so anyone who applies the same rules to the same code gets the same number. How it is done is explained under Methodology ▸
69of 74 dimensions measured by tools. The other 5 are advisory notes from an AI model, which explain the code but don't count towards the score.
306of 342 findings point to an exact file and line, so you can open each one in the code. The other 36 concern the repository as a whole, such as missing documentation.
74dimensions across 6 lenses, read from 36,152 lines of product code in 54 projects.
App-vNext/Polly scores 65 out of 100, which would normally be rated Adequate, but it is rated Weak because its weakest group of dimensions, Explicit debt, is rated Critical. The standard never rates a score more than one step above its weakest group, so a high average can't hide a weak area.
The weakest lens counts most in the score, and here that is Code Health, which scores 52 and is rated Adequate. Its Explicit Debt dimension scores 0 out of 10, and until that reaches 4, Code Health can't be rated higher than Adequate. The first actions are to resolve the 80 FileScopedPragmaDisable finding(s) in Explicit Debt and to resolve the 10 AnalyzerSeverityNone finding(s) in Explicit Debt, and if Code Health rose to 70, the score would rise from 65 to about 74.
125 findings are critical: 120 in Explicit Debt, two in Project dependency cycles, one in Secret Scanning, one in Secrets (history) and one in Static Analysis (SAST).
The product code is 36,152 lines, which would take an estimated 0.5 person-years, around €75,000, to rebuild.
How the score is built: what each lens counts forThe lenses don't count equally. The weakest lens counts most, the next weakest a little less, and so on, so a weak area pulls the score down instead of being averaged away. In the bar below, each part's width shows how much that lens counts and its colour shows its rating. Improving the widest part moves the score most, and as that lens improves, it counts for less, because another lens becomes the weakest.
Watchdog compares every finding with the previous survey's. A finding that has only moved to another line in the same file counts as the same finding, so only new findings appear here. Advisory notes from the AI model are left out, because the model words them afresh in every survey.
Fixed since the last survey: 54 findings
These 54 critical or serious findings were in the previous survey, on 8 October 2026, and are gone from this one.
Code Coverage · Coverage not measured — no coverage collector is wired up
Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: ActionInfiniteAsync bench/Polly.Benchmarks/Workloads.cs
Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: ExecuteStrategyPipeline_NonGenericTelemetry_V8 bench/Polly.Core.Benchmarks/MultipleStrategiesBenchmark.cs
Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: ExecuteOutcomeAsync bench/Polly.Core.Benchmarks/ResiliencePipelineBenchmark.cs
Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: ExecuteAsync_ResilienceContextAndState bench/Polly.Core.Benchmarks/ResiliencePipelineBenchmark.cs
Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: ExecuteAsync_CancellationToken bench/Polly.Core.Benchmarks/ResiliencePipelineBenchmark.cs
Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: ExecuteAsync_GenericStrategy_CancellationToken bench/Polly.Core.Benchmarks/ResiliencePipelineBenchmark.cs
Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: Execute bench/Polly.Core.Benchmarks/TelemetryBenchmark.cs
Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: ExecuteAsync bench/Polly.Core.Benchmarks/Utils/Helper.cs
Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: StartProcessingAsync src/Polly.Core/CircuitBreaker/Controller/ScheduledTaskExecutor.cs
Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: LoadExecutionAsync src/Polly.Core/Hedging/Controller/HedgingExecutionContext.cs
Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: TryCreateSecondaryActionAsync src/Polly.Core/Hedging/Controller/TaskExecution.cs
Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: ResetAsync src/Polly.Core/Hedging/Controller/TaskExecution.cs
Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: ExecuteSecondaryActionAsync src/Polly.Core/Hedging/Controller/TaskExecution.cs
Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: ExecutePrimaryActionAsync src/Polly.Core/Hedging/Controller/TaskExecution.cs
Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: UpdateOutcomeAsync src/Polly.Core/Hedging/Controller/TaskExecution.cs
Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: ExecuteAsync src/Polly.Core/ResiliencePipeline.Async.cs
Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: ExecuteAsync src/Polly.Core/ResiliencePipeline.Async.cs
Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: ExecuteAsync src/Polly.Core/ResiliencePipeline.AsyncT.cs
Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: ExecuteAsync src/Polly.Core/ResiliencePipeline.AsyncT.cs
Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: ShouldInjectAsync src/Polly.Core/Simmy/ChaosStrategy.TResult.cs
Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: ShouldInjectAsync src/Polly.Core/Simmy/Utils/ChaosStrategyHelper.cs
Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: TryDisposeSafeAsync src/Polly.Core/Utils/DisposeHelper.cs
Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: ExecuteCoreWithTelemetry src/Polly.Core/Utils/Pipeline/CompositeComponent.cs
Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: DisposeDiscardedComponentSafeAsync src/Polly.Core/Utils/Pipeline/ReloadableComponent.cs
Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: Usage src/Snippets/Docs/CircuitBreaker.cs
Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: AntiPattern_CircuitPerEndpoint src/Snippets/Docs/CircuitBreaker.cs
Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: Pattern_CircuitPerEndpoint src/Snippets/Docs/CircuitBreaker.cs
Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: AntiPattern_ReduceThrownExceptions src/Snippets/Docs/CircuitBreaker.cs
Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: Pattern_ReduceThrownExceptions src/Snippets/Docs/CircuitBreaker.cs
Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: KeyedServicesDefine src/Snippets/Docs/DependencyInjection.cs
Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: DeferredAddition src/Snippets/Docs/DependencyInjection.cs
Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: DynamicReloads src/Snippets/Docs/DependencyInjection.cs
Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: ResourceDisposal src/Snippets/Docs/DependencyInjection.cs
Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: AddResiliencePipelineWithComplexKey src/Snippets/Docs/DependencyInjection.cs
Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: ConfigureRegistry src/Snippets/Docs/DependencyInjection.cs
Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: ConfigureRegistry src/Snippets/Docs/DependencyInjection.cs
Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: Pattern_ReplaceException src/Snippets/Docs/Fallback.cs
Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: Action src/Snippets/Docs/Fallback.cs
Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: Pattern_NestingExecute src/Snippets/Docs/Fallback.cs
Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: HttpClientExample src/Snippets/Docs/HttpClientIntegrations.cs
Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: RefitExample src/Snippets/Docs/HttpClientIntegrations.cs
Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: FlurlExample src/Snippets/Docs/HttpClientIntegrations.cs
Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: RestSharpExample src/Snippets/Docs/HttpClientIntegrations.cs
Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: CircuitBreaker_V8 src/Snippets/Docs/Migration.CircuitBreaker.cs
Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: SwitchExpressions src/Snippets/Docs/Performance.cs
Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: Disposal src/Snippets/Docs/RateLimiter.cs
Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: QuickStartDi src/Snippets/Docs/Readme.cs
Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: Usage src/Snippets/Docs/ResiliencePipelineRegistry.cs
Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: UsageWithoutBuilders src/Snippets/Docs/ResiliencePipelineRegistry.cs
Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: RegistryOptions src/Snippets/Docs/ResiliencePipelineRegistry.cs
Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: Usage src/Snippets/Docs/ResilienceStrategies.cs
Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: AntiPattern_CallingMethodBefore src/Snippets/Docs/Retry.cs
Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: HandleTimeout src/Snippets/Docs/Timeout.cs
Rebuild cost: about €75,000 · Estimate
Cost to rebuild
€25,000 to €130,000, for 416 to 1,319 hours of work, about 0.5 person-years for one engineer
Difficulty of the problem
Low, judged from the kind of software and how it is built. Code that solves a harder problem, such as payments or medical bookings, costs more per line to write.
Quality factor
×0.9 at a score of 65. Better code takes more work to write, so the factor is ×1.0 at a score of 70, lower below it and higher above it.
Size
Medium: 36,152 lines of product code
Comment lines
The estimate prices 22,527 lines. Comment lines count towards the size of 36,152 lines but aren't priced as work.
How the estimate is made: Watchdog prices the hours a team would need to write this code again, at €60 to €95 an hour. Declarations and boilerplate are priced at a fast rate and logic at a slower one, and the logic is then multiplied by the difficulty of the problem and by the quality factor. The estimate can be about 30% off either way, and it moves most with the hourly rate and the difficulty.
Top priorities
The three actions that raise the score most for the work they take. The full ranked list is in the Roadmap.
1
Resolve the 80 FileScopedPragmaDisable finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with NullableAttributes.cs (14), RequiresUnreferencedCodeAttribute.cs (9), DynamicDependencyAttribute.cs (8).
Raises the score by about 12 points · Medium effort · Explicit Debt
2
Resolve the 10 AnalyzerSeverityNone finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with .editorconfig (10).
Raises the score by about 9 points · Medium effort · Explicit Debt
3
Resolve the 25 NoWarnInCsproj finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with Snippets.csproj (15), Polly.Benchmarks.csproj (2), Polly.csproj (2).
Raises the score by about 9 points · Medium effort · Explicit Debt
Diagnosis: what the measurements show together
Each conclusion below combines several dimensions into one point that no single dimension shows, and lists the measurements it rests on.
Where the investment is most exposed · Value at risk
This code would cost about €75,000 to build again, about 0.5 person-years of work. Its weakest lens is Code Health, at 52 (Adequate). Code Health is about how easy the code is to read and change safely, and code that is hard to read is slow and risky to change, so every future change costs more than it should. Because the weakest lens counts most in the score, work on Code Health also moves the score most.
Based on: the rebuild estimate · the Code Health grade · how much each lens counts
What to do: Start with the Code Health actions in Top priorities.
If you do one thing first · First action
Resolve the 80 FileScopedPragmaDisable finding(s) in Explicit Debt. Of all the actions in this report, it raises the score most for the work it takes: about 12 points for medium effort, because it clears the 80 Explicit Debt findings. The next survey will show the change in the score.
Based on: the ranked actions in Top priorities, by score gain and effort
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: which parts of the code depend on which
The code is divided into modules, groups of code that each handle one part of the product, and a module depends on another when it uses code from it. The table lists the modules both down the side and across the top, in an order where each module should only use modules listed above it. A number in a cell means the module on that row uses the module in that column, and it counts the pairs of building blocks (types) that connect them. The one thing to look for is a mark above the diagonal line. It means two or more modules use each other in a loop (a dependency cycle), so none of them can be changed, tested or released on its own.
37 modules, with 99 dependencies between them. 2 loops run through 25 of the modules, marked above the diagonal.
Which modules use which. The module on each row uses the module in each column, and the number counts the pairs of types that connect them. A cell above the diagonal is part of a loop.
Polly.CircuitBreaker uses Polly.CircuitBreaker.Health, so a change to Polly.CircuitBreaker.Health can break Polly.CircuitBreaker, while a change to Polly.CircuitBreaker can't break Polly.CircuitBreaker.Health.
Position
Below the diagonal: Polly.CircuitBreaker uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
Polly.CircuitBreaker uses Polly.Utilities, so a change to Polly.Utilities can break Polly.CircuitBreaker, while a change to Polly.CircuitBreaker can't break Polly.Utilities.
Position
Below the diagonal: Polly.CircuitBreaker uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
Polly.CircuitBreaker uses Polly.Utils, so a change to Polly.Utils can break Polly.CircuitBreaker, while a change to Polly.CircuitBreaker can't break Polly.Utils.
Position
Below the diagonal: Polly.CircuitBreaker uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
Polly.CircuitBreaker uses Polly.Telemetry, so a change to Polly.Telemetry can break Polly.CircuitBreaker, while a change to Polly.CircuitBreaker can't break Polly.Telemetry.
Position
Below the diagonal: Polly.CircuitBreaker uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
15→26 Polly.CircuitBreaker uses Pollypart of a loop✕
Connections
35 pairs of types, where a type in Polly.CircuitBreaker uses a type in Polly. Showing 25 of them; the rest are in namespace-graph.json in this report's bundle.
Polly.Fallback uses Polly.Telemetry, so a change to Polly.Telemetry can break Polly.Fallback, while a change to Polly.Fallback can't break Polly.Telemetry.
Position
Below the diagonal: Polly.Fallback uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
27 pairs of types, where a type in Polly.Fallback uses a type in Polly. Showing 25 of them; the rest are in namespace-graph.json in this report's bundle.
Polly.Hedging.Controller uses Polly.Utils, so a change to Polly.Utils can break Polly.Hedging.Controller, while a change to Polly.Hedging.Controller can't break Polly.Utils.
Position
Below the diagonal: Polly.Hedging.Controller uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
Polly.Hedging.Controller uses Polly.Telemetry, so a change to Polly.Telemetry can break Polly.Hedging.Controller, while a change to Polly.Hedging.Controller can't break Polly.Telemetry.
Position
Below the diagonal: Polly.Hedging.Controller uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
17→22 Polly.Hedging.Controller uses Polly.Hedging.Utilspart of a loop✕
Connections
2 pairs of types, where a type in Polly.Hedging.Controller uses a type in Polly.Hedging.Utils.
Polly.Hedging.Controller uses Polly.Hedging.Utils, so a change to Polly.Hedging.Utils can break Polly.Hedging.Controller, while a change to Polly.Hedging.Controller can't break Polly.Hedging.Utils.
Position
Above the diagonal, so it is part of a loop. Neither module can be changed, tested or released on its own until one of these dependencies is removed.
17→25 Polly.Hedging.Controller uses Polly.Hedgingpart of a loop✕
Connections
1 pair of types, where a type in Polly.Hedging.Controller uses a type in Polly.Hedging.
Polly.Hedging.Controller uses Polly.Hedging, so a change to Polly.Hedging can break Polly.Hedging.Controller, while a change to Polly.Hedging.Controller can't break Polly.Hedging.
Position
Above the diagonal, so it is part of a loop. Neither module can be changed, tested or released on its own until one of these dependencies is removed.
17→26 Polly.Hedging.Controller uses Pollypart of a loop✕
Connections
2 pairs of types, where a type in Polly.Hedging.Controller uses a type in Polly.
Polly.Hedging.Controller uses Polly, so a change to Polly can break Polly.Hedging.Controller, while a change to Polly.Hedging.Controller can't break Polly.
Position
Above the diagonal, so it is part of a loop. Neither module can be changed, tested or released on its own until one of these dependencies is removed.
Polly.RateLimiting uses Polly.Telemetry, so a change to Polly.Telemetry can break Polly.RateLimiting, while a change to Polly.RateLimiting can't break Polly.Telemetry.
Position
Below the diagonal: Polly.RateLimiting uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
18→26 Polly.RateLimiting uses Pollypart of a loop✕
Connections
7 pairs of types, where a type in Polly.RateLimiting uses a type in Polly.
Polly.Timeout uses Polly.Telemetry, so a change to Polly.Telemetry can break Polly.Timeout, while a change to Polly.Timeout can't break Polly.Telemetry.
Position
Below the diagonal: Polly.Timeout uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
Polly.Utils.Pipeline uses Polly.Utils, so a change to Polly.Utils can break Polly.Utils.Pipeline, while a change to Polly.Utils.Pipeline can't break Polly.Utils.
Position
Below the diagonal: Polly.Utils.Pipeline uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
Polly.Utils.Pipeline uses Polly.Telemetry, so a change to Polly.Telemetry can break Polly.Utils.Pipeline, while a change to Polly.Utils.Pipeline can't break Polly.Telemetry.
Position
Below the diagonal: Polly.Utils.Pipeline uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
21→26 Polly.Utils.Pipeline uses Pollypart of a loop✕
Connections
23 pairs of types, where a type in Polly.Utils.Pipeline uses a type in Polly.
Polly.Hedging.Utils uses Polly.Utils, so a change to Polly.Utils can break Polly.Hedging.Utils, while a change to Polly.Hedging.Utils can't break Polly.Utils.
Position
Below the diagonal: Polly.Hedging.Utils uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
Polly.Hedging.Utils uses Polly.Telemetry, so a change to Polly.Telemetry can break Polly.Hedging.Utils, while a change to Polly.Hedging.Utils can't break Polly.Telemetry.
Position
Below the diagonal: Polly.Hedging.Utils uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
Polly.Hedging.Utils uses Polly.Hedging.Controller, so a change to Polly.Hedging.Controller can break Polly.Hedging.Utils, while a change to Polly.Hedging.Utils can't break Polly.Hedging.Controller.
Position
Below the diagonal: Polly.Hedging.Utils uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
22→25 Polly.Hedging.Utils uses Polly.Hedgingpart of a loop✕
Connections
3 pairs of types, where a type in Polly.Hedging.Utils uses a type in Polly.Hedging.
Polly.Hedging.Utils uses Polly.Hedging, so a change to Polly.Hedging can break Polly.Hedging.Utils, while a change to Polly.Hedging.Utils can't break Polly.Hedging.
Position
Above the diagonal, so it is part of a loop. Neither module can be changed, tested or released on its own until one of these dependencies is removed.
22→26 Polly.Hedging.Utils uses Pollypart of a loop✕
Connections
5 pairs of types, where a type in Polly.Hedging.Utils uses a type in Polly.
Polly.Registry uses Polly.Telemetry, so a change to Polly.Telemetry can break Polly.Registry, while a change to Polly.Registry can't break Polly.Telemetry.
Position
Below the diagonal: Polly.Registry uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
Polly.Registry uses Polly.Utils.Pipeline, so a change to Polly.Utils.Pipeline can break Polly.Registry, while a change to Polly.Registry can't break Polly.Utils.Pipeline.
Position
Below the diagonal: Polly.Registry uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
Polly.DependencyInjection uses Polly.Registry, so a change to Polly.Registry can break Polly.DependencyInjection, while a change to Polly.DependencyInjection can't break Polly.Registry.
Position
Below the diagonal: Polly.DependencyInjection uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
24→26 Polly.DependencyInjection uses Pollypart of a loop✕
Connections
1 pair of types, where a type in Polly.DependencyInjection uses a type in Polly.
Polly.DependencyInjection uses Polly, so a change to Polly can break Polly.DependencyInjection, while a change to Polly.DependencyInjection can't break Polly.
Position
Above the diagonal, so it is part of a loop. Neither module can be changed, tested or released on its own until one of these dependencies is removed.
Polly.Hedging uses Polly.Telemetry, so a change to Polly.Telemetry can break Polly.Hedging, while a change to Polly.Hedging can't break Polly.Telemetry.
Position
Below the diagonal: Polly.Hedging uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
Polly.Hedging uses Polly.Hedging.Utils, so a change to Polly.Hedging.Utils can break Polly.Hedging, while a change to Polly.Hedging can't break Polly.Hedging.Utils.
Position
Below the diagonal: Polly.Hedging uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
Polly uses Polly.DependencyInjection, so a change to Polly.DependencyInjection can break Polly, while a change to Polly can't break Polly.DependencyInjection.
Position
Below the diagonal: Polly uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
Polly.Benchmarks uses Polly.Caching, so a change to Polly.Caching can break Polly.Benchmarks, while a change to Polly.Benchmarks can't break Polly.Caching.
Position
Below the diagonal: Polly.Benchmarks uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
Polly.Core.Benchmarks uses Polly.Telemetry, so a change to Polly.Telemetry can break Polly.Core.Benchmarks, while a change to Polly.Core.Benchmarks can't break Polly.Telemetry.
Position
Below the diagonal: Polly.Core.Benchmarks uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
Polly.Core.Benchmarks uses Polly.Retry, so a change to Polly.Retry can break Polly.Core.Benchmarks, while a change to Polly.Core.Benchmarks can't break Polly.Retry.
Position
Below the diagonal: Polly.Core.Benchmarks uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
Polly.Core.Benchmarks uses Polly.Utils.Pipeline, so a change to Polly.Utils.Pipeline can break Polly.Core.Benchmarks, while a change to Polly.Core.Benchmarks can't break Polly.Utils.Pipeline.
Position
Below the diagonal: Polly.Core.Benchmarks uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
Polly.Core.Benchmarks uses Polly.Registry, so a change to Polly.Registry can break Polly.Core.Benchmarks, while a change to Polly.Core.Benchmarks can't break Polly.Registry.
Position
Below the diagonal: Polly.Core.Benchmarks uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
Polly.Simmy.Behavior uses Polly.Telemetry, so a change to Polly.Telemetry can break Polly.Simmy.Behavior, while a change to Polly.Simmy.Behavior can't break Polly.Telemetry.
Position
Below the diagonal: Polly.Simmy.Behavior uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
Polly.Simmy.Behavior uses Polly.Simmy, so a change to Polly.Simmy can break Polly.Simmy.Behavior, while a change to Polly.Simmy.Behavior can't break Polly.Simmy.
Position
Above the diagonal, so it is part of a loop. Neither module can be changed, tested or released on its own until one of these dependencies is removed.
Polly.Simmy.Latency uses Polly.Telemetry, so a change to Polly.Telemetry can break Polly.Simmy.Latency, while a change to Polly.Simmy.Latency can't break Polly.Telemetry.
Position
Below the diagonal: Polly.Simmy.Latency uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
Polly.Simmy.Latency uses Polly.Simmy, so a change to Polly.Simmy can break Polly.Simmy.Latency, while a change to Polly.Simmy.Latency can't break Polly.Simmy.
Position
Above the diagonal, so it is part of a loop. Neither module can be changed, tested or released on its own until one of these dependencies is removed.
Polly.Simmy.Utils uses Polly.Simmy, so a change to Polly.Simmy can break Polly.Simmy.Utils, while a change to Polly.Simmy.Utils can't break Polly.Simmy.
Position
Above the diagonal, so it is part of a loop. Neither module can be changed, tested or released on its own until one of these dependencies is removed.
Polly.Utilities.Wrappers uses Polly, so a change to Polly can break Polly.Utilities.Wrappers, while a change to Polly.Utilities.Wrappers can't break Polly.
Position
Below the diagonal: Polly.Utilities.Wrappers uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
Polly.Core.Benchmarks.Utils uses Polly, so a change to Polly can break Polly.Core.Benchmarks.Utils, while a change to Polly.Core.Benchmarks.Utils can't break Polly.
Position
Below the diagonal: Polly.Core.Benchmarks.Utils uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
Polly.Core.Benchmarks.Utils uses Polly.Core.Benchmarks, so a change to Polly.Core.Benchmarks can break Polly.Core.Benchmarks.Utils, while a change to Polly.Core.Benchmarks.Utils can't break Polly.Core.Benchmarks.
Position
Below the diagonal: Polly.Core.Benchmarks.Utils uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
Polly.Simmy.Fault uses Polly.Telemetry, so a change to Polly.Telemetry can break Polly.Simmy.Fault, while a change to Polly.Simmy.Fault can't break Polly.Telemetry.
Position
Below the diagonal: Polly.Simmy.Fault uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
Polly.Simmy.Fault uses Polly.Simmy.Utils, so a change to Polly.Simmy.Utils can break Polly.Simmy.Fault, while a change to Polly.Simmy.Fault can't break Polly.Simmy.Utils.
Position
Below the diagonal: Polly.Simmy.Fault uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
34→36 Polly.Simmy.Fault uses Polly.Simmypart of a loop✕
Connections
2 pairs of types, where a type in Polly.Simmy.Fault uses a type in Polly.Simmy.
Polly.Simmy.Fault uses Polly.Simmy, so a change to Polly.Simmy can break Polly.Simmy.Fault, while a change to Polly.Simmy.Fault can't break Polly.Simmy.
Position
Above the diagonal, so it is part of a loop. Neither module can be changed, tested or released on its own until one of these dependencies is removed.
Polly.Simmy.Outcomes uses Polly.Telemetry, so a change to Polly.Telemetry can break Polly.Simmy.Outcomes, while a change to Polly.Simmy.Outcomes can't break Polly.Telemetry.
Position
Below the diagonal: Polly.Simmy.Outcomes uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
Polly.Simmy.Outcomes uses Polly.Simmy.Utils, so a change to Polly.Simmy.Utils can break Polly.Simmy.Outcomes, while a change to Polly.Simmy.Outcomes can't break Polly.Simmy.Utils.
Position
Below the diagonal: Polly.Simmy.Outcomes uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
35→36 Polly.Simmy.Outcomes uses Polly.Simmypart of a loop✕
Connections
2 pairs of types, where a type in Polly.Simmy.Outcomes uses a type in Polly.Simmy.
Polly.Simmy.Outcomes uses Polly.Simmy, so a change to Polly.Simmy can break Polly.Simmy.Outcomes, while a change to Polly.Simmy.Outcomes can't break Polly.Simmy.
Position
Above the diagonal, so it is part of a loop. Neither module can be changed, tested or released on its own until one of these dependencies is removed.
Polly.Simmy uses Polly.Simmy.Behavior, so a change to Polly.Simmy.Behavior can break Polly.Simmy, while a change to Polly.Simmy can't break Polly.Simmy.Behavior.
Position
Below the diagonal: Polly.Simmy uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
Polly.Simmy uses Polly.Simmy.Latency, so a change to Polly.Simmy.Latency can break Polly.Simmy, while a change to Polly.Simmy can't break Polly.Simmy.Latency.
Position
Below the diagonal: Polly.Simmy uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
Polly.Simmy uses Polly.Simmy.Fault, so a change to Polly.Simmy.Fault can break Polly.Simmy, while a change to Polly.Simmy can't break Polly.Simmy.Fault.
Position
Below the diagonal: Polly.Simmy uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
Polly.Simmy uses Polly.Simmy.Outcomes, so a change to Polly.Simmy.Outcomes can break Polly.Simmy, while a change to Polly.Simmy can't break Polly.Simmy.Outcomes.
Position
Below the diagonal: Polly.Simmy uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
Snippets.Docs uses Polly.Telemetry, so a change to Polly.Telemetry can break Snippets.Docs, while a change to Snippets.Docs can't break Polly.Telemetry.
Position
Below the diagonal: Snippets.Docs uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
Snippets.Docs uses Polly.Simmy.Latency, so a change to Polly.Simmy.Latency can break Snippets.Docs, while a change to Snippets.Docs can't break Polly.Simmy.Latency.
Position
Below the diagonal: Snippets.Docs uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
Snippets.Docs uses Polly.Simmy.Fault, so a change to Polly.Simmy.Fault can break Snippets.Docs, while a change to Snippets.Docs can't break Polly.Simmy.Fault.
Position
Below the diagonal: Snippets.Docs uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
At a glance — Code Health · 52% · Adequate · gated by D17 ·
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
A07:2025 — Authentication Failures
2
High / Critical
A05:2025 — Injection
1
High / Critical
A03:2025 — Software Supply Chain Failures
1
Medium
Roadmap
Begin by addressing explicit code debt, starting with nullable attributes and editor configuration, then proceed to clean up suppressed warnings in project files. Simultaneously, improve reliability by threading cancellation tokens through asynchronous methods to ensure work stops promptly. Finally, resolve the single leaked secret in the key file to secure sensitive credentials.
Ranked by impact ÷ effort. "Helps" is the estimated gain on the 0–100 health score.
Do this
Helps
Effort
Dimension
Resolve the 80 FileScopedPragmaDisable finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with NullableAttributes.cs (14), RequiresUnreferencedCodeAttribute.cs (9), DynamicDependencyAttribute.cs (8).
Record your significant design decisions. Write one short document per decision, giving its date, the situation, the decision and its consequences, and keep them together with your other design documents. A docs/adr folder with each file named by number and title is the easiest place to find them.
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 — 125
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 — 160
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 — 57
Recorded, with no effect on how the codebase functions.
Present so the survey is complete, not because it needs doing.
Could not be resolved — 1
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. 69 of 74 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); 5 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 — 74 dimensions across the health lenses
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, 306 of 342 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
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.
D8 Code Coverage — 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. Coverage NOT READ here — but this repository measures it: a Codecov configuration (.github/codecov.yml, target 95%) and a coverage step in CI (`codecov/codecov-action`) shows that coverage is collected and tracked in your own CI. The suite could not be built/run in-image and no machine-readable report was present in the working tree at scan time, so the number could not be read — it is excluded from the score rather than treated as unmeasured-by-the-team. To have it read, commit the lcov/Cobertura artifact your CI produces (a hosted scan measures a clone of the repository, so only a committed report reaches it — `git add -f` that one file if it is gitignored), or make the suite runnable in-image. For context only, test code is ≈ 100% of production LoC (50,778 test / 36,089 production) — a rough proxy, NOT a coverage measurement. You can widen what we reach: optional: commit the lcov/Cobertura artifact your CI produces (a hosted scan measures a clone of the repository, so only a committed report reaches it — `git add -f` that one file if it is gitignored), or make the suite runnable in-image, and the real number is read.
D11 Test Reliability — 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. Test reliability NOT MEASURED: the test run produced no results for any test tier, so no test ever ran and flakiness could not be exercised. The cause could not be attributed, so it is excluded from the score rather than read as an absence of tests.
D22 Internal API Consistency — 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. The loaded project set declares no packable project and no `.Contracts` project, so there is no intentionally-exposed surface for API consistency to be judged over.
D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — 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. Large codebase (36,089 production LoC in the .NET projects) with no declared bounded contexts — cross-boundary type coupling is unassessed Bounded contexts cannot be inferred from a codebase that is not physically organised by them (D-321), so with none declared there are no boundaries for the coupling pass to measure across. You can widen what we reach: name this codebase's bounded contexts (≥2 module groups, e.g. per subsystem) so cross-boundary type coupling can 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"]`.
D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — 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. `bench/Polly.Benchmarks/Cache.cs`, `cake.cs`, `src/Polly.Core/CircuitBreaker/CircuitBreakerManualControl.cs`, `src/Polly.Core/Registry/RegistryPipelineComponentBuilder.cs`, `src/Polly.Core/ResilienceContext.cs`, … (+4 more) produced a parse error, so every rule in this engine's `gdpr.yml` was absent there. That absence is NOT a clean result: these rules detect personal data crossing a boundary into a log sink, a URL or browser storage, and a file that was never parsed cannot report any of the three. The rest of the tree analysed normally and its rows above stand; only these files are unaccounted for. You can widen what we reach: fix the syntax error (or exclude the file deliberately) and re-scan to cover it.
D34 Knowledge Freshness — 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. File-level freshness contradicts repo activity: 94 commits in the last 90 days, yet 140 of 151 significant files carry no living knowledge. Those two readings cannot both be true, so the per-file recency signal is treated as unreliable here and freshness is not scored for this run.
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.
X2 Cancellation propagation — 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. 81 further occurrence(s) are not listed individually; the score already reflects all 121.
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.
D6 Cohesion (LCOM4): LCOM4 cohesion is syntactic — it infers connectivity from which methods touch which fields/methods by name, not from real runtime behaviour or intent.
D9 Test Distribution: The test-pyramid shape is inferred from project/folder naming and references, with a single test host bucketed per-file by its path tier and content signals — a suite that names tiers unconventionally and gives no per-file signal can still be mis-bucketed.
D10 Test Quality: Assertion density is structural — it cannot tell a meaningful behavioural assertion from a trivial one, only that an assertion is present.
D12 Dependency Hygiene: Dependency health reads manifests and lockfiles — a vulnerability in a vendored/copied dependency, or risk from how a dependency is actually used, is outside this view.
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.
D16 Bus Factor: Bus-factor is a time-decayed model of commit attribution (who has recently, repeatedly worked a file), not comprehension — pairing, review and reading-without-committing spread knowledge it can't see; bot commits and shared accounts still distort it.
D17 Explicit Debt: Acknowledged-debt signals (TODO/FIXME, suppressions, dead code) are textual — undocumented debt that nobody marked, and debt that lives in design rather than annotations, is invisible. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, generated stubs) is excluded — it is never the team's dead code to delete.
D18 Solution Shape: Build integrity reflects whether the solution compiled in this environment — a build that needs a private feed, a specific SDK, or a generated file absent from the repo can read as broken when it is merely unreproducible here.
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.
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.
D24 Comment Value: Comment value (WHY vs WHAT) is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it is advisory and cannot weigh a comment against the precise code change it was written to explain.
D26 Project Cohesion: Project focus is sized from members/namespaces per project — a project that is broad by deliberate design reads the same as one that has sprawled.
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").
D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities: CVE matching depends on accurate package/version metadata and on the advisory databases — a vulnerability with no published advisory, or in code not declared as a dependency, is not seen. Coverage needs a RESOLVED graph: an unpinned requirements.txt, or a pom without a resolved build, yields partial coverage rather than a clean verdict. An ecosystem the analyzer cannot scan is reported as unmeasured, never as clean.
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.
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".
P6 Release Hygiene: Rollback/observability controls are inferred from repo artefacts (pipelines, dashboards-as-code) — controls configured in external tooling, with no in-repo trace, cannot be credited.
The LLM boundary
LLM-set scores this run (5): D19, D21, D24, D26, 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.
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.
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.
Bring the 3 bodies over 15 down to 15 or less in Cognitive Complexity — start with RetryResilienceStrategy.ExecuteCore (cognitive 25), AsyncRetryEngine.ImplementationAsync (cognitive 21), RetryEngine.Implementation (cognitive 21). — 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 3 together lifts Cognitive Complexity from 9.2 to about 10.0/10, projected with the scoring formula itself and assuming each lands exactly at 15.
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 Classes9.7 / 10Stronggated by 2 serious findings✓ 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.
Resolve the 2 TooManyMethods finding(s) in God Classes — start with AsyncCacheTResultSyntax.cs, AsyncPolicy.ExecuteOverloads.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 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.
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.
15 duplicated block group(s) detected. 2 of the 15 are in trees this repository does not ship — vendored, example/demo, fixture and benchmark code — and are ranked below the shipped groups rather than excluded from them: the duplication there is real and is still counted in this dimension's score. The dimensions that publish a production-file census leave those trees out of theirs, so this count is deliberately drawn over the wider population.
+ 7 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.
What to do
Resolve the 3 Duplicated block (21 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with ResiliencePipelineAsyncPolicy.TResult.cs, ResiliencePipelineSyncPolicy.TResult.cs, Bulkhead.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 warning-level).
Resolve the 2 Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with CircuitBreakerManualControl.cs, AsyncPolicy.TResult.ExecuteOverloads.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 Duplicated block (26 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with AsyncRetryEngine.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 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 · Coupling9.9 / 10Stronggated by 1 serious finding✓ 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.
Off the main sequence: Polly.Core(net8.0)src/Polly.Core/Polly.Core.csproj:1
What to do
Resolve the 1 Off the main sequence finding(s) in Coupling — start with Polly.Core.csproj. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Enforce Coupling in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Detailed fixes: d5_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: Whether a class's methods are focused on a single responsibility.
Method: LCOM4 cohesion per production class with at least two methods: connected components of methods sharing state or calls, computed syntactically. Deterministic, not a proxy.
Coverage: Exhaustive · type-level: LCOM4 cohesion computed over every production class — the population is all types, not a name convention.
D9 · Test Distribution10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified
What it measures: Whether the test suite has a healthy mix of unit / integration / end-to-end tests.
Method: Test projects classified (Unit/Integration/BDD/E2E) from compiled metadata; test methods counted exhaustively across projects with placement-agnostic disk fallback. Deterministic.
7881 test methods: 7881 unit, 0 integration, 0 BDD, 0 e2e.
✓ On the Gold path — maintain.
Detailed fixes: d9_recommendation.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D10 · Test Quality10.0 / 10Stronggated by 4 serious findings✓ Tool-verified
What it measures: Whether the tests truly assert behaviour rather than just running the code.
Method: Per-test assertions, skips, and mock references analyzed via Roslyn; structured skip-reason tags (BUG:/ENV:) separate documented deferrals from debt. Deterministic.
Resolve the 3 Fixed-sleep synchronisation finding(s) in Test Quality — start with ExecutionTrackingComponentTests.cs (3). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 warning-level).
Resolve the 2 Mock-dominated test finding(s) in Test Quality — start with BridgePipelineComponentTests.cs (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 recommendation-level).
Resolve the 1 Skipped test finding(s) in Test Quality — start with RateLimiterResiliencePipelineBuilderExtensionsTests.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Enforce Test Quality in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Detailed fixes: d10_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: Whether dependencies are current, secure, and not bloated.
Method: Manifest scan via dotnet list package across all projects; worst-signal-per-package deduction (saturating for vulnerabilities, capped-linear for deprecation/outdated) per KLoC. Exhaustive, deterministic.
Resolve the 1 Prerelease dependency finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 Outdated finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene — start with Directory.Packages.props. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Detailed fixes: d12_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
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.
Resolve the 1 Leaked secret finding(s) in Secret Scanning — start with REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).
Enforce Secret Scanning in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Detailed fixes: d13_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
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.
0 of 151 packages use a banned license. ★ DEPTH: this repository's MSBuild projects declare 29 direct `PackageReference`(s), and 122 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.
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.
What it measures: Whether knowledge is concentrated in too few people (the "bus factor").
Method: Living knowledge per author via time-decayed commit attribution (6-month half-life, focus weighting) across largest source files. Deterministic, avoids blame's mechanical-refactor false positives.
4 source file(s) have their living knowledge concentrated in one author (≥90% of recent, decayed contribution). The largest is src/Polly.Core/Retry/RetryHelper.cs. Counted over 151 of the 416 production source files in this repository: the rest are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over.
Off-boarding risk: anonymized user #1
Further sole-owners (lower concentration)
✓ On the Gold path — maintain.
Detailed fixes: d16_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: Acknowledged debt left in the code — TODOs, dead code, suppressed warnings.
Method: Roslyn syntactic debt markers (suppressions/TODO/FIXME/HACK/empty-catch/commented-code/Obsolete) plus SymbolFinder dead-code analysis; weighted-debt-per-KLoC density deducted 2.0x per unit. Deterministic, exhaustive.
FileScopedPragmaDisable repeated across 38 filessrc/Polly.Core/CircuitBreaker/BreakDurationGeneratorArguments.cs:5
+ 9 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.
What to do
Resolve the 80 FileScopedPragmaDisable finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with NullableAttributes.cs (14), RequiresUnreferencedCodeAttribute.cs (9), DynamicDependencyAttribute.cs (8). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (80 issue-level).
Resolve the 25 NoWarnInCsproj finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with Snippets.csproj (15), Polly.Benchmarks.csproj (2), Polly.csproj (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (25 issue-level).
Resolve the 10 AnalyzerSeverityNone finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with .editorconfig (10). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (10 issue-level).
Enforce Explicit Debt in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Detailed fixes: d17_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: Whether the solution is laid out in a sensible, conventional structure.
Method: Solution structure: project count, decomposition, shell-project detection, build success (confirmed failures cap the score); traced to actual .sln files and binaries. Deterministic.
54 projects, 2995 source files, 86867 hand-written lines of code (36089 production / 50778 test — the split is derived per file: test is what its project, its own path, or a compile-guarded region marks as test, and a file carrying no test signal counts as production), 86 inter-project edges. Measured across 2 solutions loaded as one workspace: `Polly.slnx`, `samples/Samples.slnx`.
Thin analysable surface across projects: Intro.VisualBasicsamples/Intro.VisualBasic/Intro.VisualBasic.vbproj
✓ On the Gold path — maintain.
Detailed fixes: d18_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
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.
Clear and complete documentation for a .NET resilience library. The repository's root README (with an OSMF licensing announcement) is exemplary, covering overview, usage, and sponsorship guidance. A focused bench/README documents the bench directory, not the repo; samples/READMEs document their own directories (Intro, Chaos). Architecture/design docs are present but not shown in this summary. The XML-doc coverage figures reflect a well-documented API surface. The documentation is excellent: the READMEs and architecture/design docs are well written for their audience (the repository root's README documents each directory, not the project), covering a comprehensive set of topics including dependency injection, performance benchmarks, resilience context, telemetry, testing, F#/VB interoperability, chaos strategies with proactive behavior and fault injection, and an extensive index. The XML-doc coverage is low across several packages but the visible content is clear and complete for its scope. The project's documentation is strong: the README files for each package are well written and cover what they describe (usage examples, defaults, telemetry), while architecture/Docs markdown files provide comprehensive design coverage. XML-doc coverage is low across most packages but high on Polly.Core.Benchmarks (65%) and Polly.RateLimiting (68%), with chaos strategies getting strong usage documentation. The visible content is clear and complete for its scope; the clipped sections are not penalized.
Resolve the 6 Low XML-doc coverage finding(s) in Documentation Quality — start with Polly.Benchmarks.csproj, Polly.Core.Benchmarks.csproj, Snippets.csproj. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (6 warning-level).
Detailed fixes: d19_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
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.
0 naming inconsistencies across 200 sampled symbols.
✓ On the Gold path — maintain.
Detailed fixes: d21_recommendation.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D24 · Comment ValueExemplary◐ Sampled · advisory
What it measures: Whether comments are worth it — explaining WHY (valuable) rather than WHAT (redundant).
Method: Judged by language model at low temperature (0.0-0.1) on deterministically sampled inline comments with surrounding code; findings verified back to sampled comments by substring match. Advisory, sampled.
2 of 22 projects flagged as possibly oversized/incoherent.
Projects may be oversized for their cohesion
What to do
Resolve the 1 Projects may be oversized for their cohesion finding(s) in Project Cohesion. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Detailed fixes: d26_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D27 · Navigability5.8 / 10Adequate✓ 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. C# also names each pass-through layer (a class whose every public method only forwards its own parameters to one collaborator) as a located finding; the score is not affected.
Coverage: Slice locality from the first namespace segments, SAMPLED (≤400 methods) — not exhaustive.
82 % of calls cross a namespace and 3 % go through an interface, but 52 % of collaborators are co-located — so following a call takes several hops. Baseline: medium — clean/modular boundaries expected.
Resolve the 2 Pass-through layer finding(s) in Navigability — start with ResiliencePipelineT.Async.cs, ResiliencePipelineT.Sync.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 recommendation-level).
Resolve the 1 Scattered collaborators finding(s) in Navigability. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Detailed fixes: d27_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
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.
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).
1 finding(s): 0 critical, 1 high, 0 medium, 0 low. semgrep hit a parse error in 12 file(s) — `bench/Polly.Benchmarks/Cache.cs` (lines 48–49, line 91), `build.ps1` (lines 2–87), `cake.cs` (line 1, lines 1–2, line 3, …), `samples/Chaos/ChaosManager.cs` (line 5), `samples/Chaos/TodosClient.cs` (line 3), … (+7 more) — so no absence of findings in the named regions is evidence of anything; rows reported elsewhere in those files are real. Fix the syntax error (or exclude the file deliberately) and re-scan to cover them. In 7 of those file(s) — `bench/Polly.Benchmarks/Cache.cs`, `samples/Chaos/ChaosManager.cs`, `samples/Chaos/TodosClient.cs`, `src/Polly.Core/CircuitBreaker/CircuitBreakerManualControl.cs`, `src/Polly.Core/Registry/RegistryPipelineComponentBuilder.cs`, … (+2 more) — the break is a C# primary constructor, which semgrep's grammar cannot parse and which hides the type from every rule scoped to it; those files were re-scanned from a shadow copy with the constructor's parameter list blanked (line and column preserving), which restores the type to the rules, and 0 additional row(s) came from that pass. Only the header's own parameter list is unread in them. In 1 of those file(s) — `src/Snippets/Docs/ResiliencePipelineRegistry.cs` — the break is at a TYPE DECLARATION (a C# primary constructor semgrep's grammar cannot parse), so the loss is wider than the named lines: rules scoped to that type see no type to scope to and are blind over its whole body, while rules matching statements keep working there. Absence of a type-scoped finding in those types is not evidence of anything. Separately, one or more rules could not re-parse an embedded snippet in 6 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 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).
Detailed fixes: d29_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: Whether any dependency has a known published vulnerability (CVE), direct or transitive, in ANY ecosystem the repository declares — Dart pub, Elixir and Erlang via Hex, Go modules, Java and Kotlin via Maven/Gradle, JavaScript/npm, .NET/NuGet, PHP/Composer, Python/PyPI, RubyGems, Rust/Cargo and Swift.
Method: Dependency-CVE scan across every ecosystem the repository declares, scored ONCE. Three sources are unioned and deduplicated by advisory identity (rule id + alias closure, CVE<->GHSA) scoped to package+version, keeping the worst severity: `osv-scanner --recursive` over osv.dev for Dart pub, Elixir/Hex (and Erlang, whose `rebar.lock` syft first converts to a CycloneDX SBOM the scanner reads, with rows attributed back to the lock), Go, Java and Kotlin via Maven/Gradle (and Scala, whose sbt build's pinned direct declarations are written into a CycloneDX SBOM the scanner reads, with rows attributed back to the build file), npm, PHP/Composer, Python/PyPI, RubyGems, Rust/Cargo and Swift; `trivy fs --scanners vuln` for npm lockfiles; and `dotnet list package --vulnerable --include-transitive` for NuGet (with per-advisory collapse of the project x target-framework fan-out), plus a DECLARED-dependency arm that resolves a published gem's gemspec against rubygems.org where no Gemfile.lock is committed. `SeverityScore(c,h,m,l, normalizer 8.0)`. NotApplicable only when NO ecosystem is readable; if any applicable ecosystem could not be scanned the findings are REPORTED and the score is withheld. Supersedes the npm and OSV arms, retired 2026-09-05.
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.
Resolve the 2 Change coupling finding(s) in Change Coupling — start with AsyncRetryTResultSyntax.cs, CircuitBreaker.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
Detailed fixes: d35_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
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.
What it measures: Whether the repository publishes a coordinated-vulnerability-disclosure policy (SECURITY.md or security.txt) with a reporting contact, so finders know how to report a vulnerability. Presence of a policy file with a contact, not whether the policy is adequate or honoured.
Method: Vulnerability-disclosure policy read deterministically from the repo: a SECURITY.md (root/.github/docs) or .well-known/security.txt / security.txt, regex-checked for a reporting contact (email / URL / mailto). Present + contact → 10; present without a contact → 4; NotApplicable when no policy file exists (it may live off-repo). Detects the policy file's presence + contact, not its adequacy.
A vulnerability-disclosure policy (SECURITY.md) is published with a reporting contact.
✓ On the Gold path — maintain.
Detailed fixes: d37_recommendation.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D39 · IL Efficiency10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified
Method: IL instruction count per method, read from the BUILT first-party assemblies via Mono.Cecil (the target is compiled on a deep run); scored on the fraction of methods whose emitted IL body exceeds the size threshold. Sees compiler-generated bloat source can't; not-applicable when the target fails to build. Deterministic.
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.
0 end-of-life runtime(s) and 0 end-of-life framework(s), read from 23 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.
Other · Architecture — Whether any singleton service captures a scoped/transient dependency — a silent lifetime/threading bug.
Method: Roslyn scan: DI registrations parsed from AddSingleton/Scoped/Transient; each singleton checked for captured shorter-lifetime dependencies. Exhaustive, deterministic.
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.
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.
What to do
The domain core is a small share of production code, but most of the rest matched no layer vocabulary at all — so this is not yet an anemic-domain finding. The namespace/path convention could not place that code, which makes the composition above a statement about the naming, not about the design. Name the layers (or check that the repository's conventions differ from the ones this check knows) before reading a thin domain into it.
Other · Architecture — Whether singleton services avoid mutable shared instance state that concurrent callers would race on.
Method: Roslyn scan: singleton field mutations unguarded by lock or Interlocked, per type; syntax-based guard detection. Deterministic, traceable per field.
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.
The namespaces Polly ↔ Polly.Bulkhead ↔ Polly.Caching ↔ Polly.CircuitBreaker ↔ Polly.DependencyInjection ↔ Polly.Fallback ↔ Polly.Hedging ↔ Polly.Hedging.Controller ↔ Polly.Hedging.Utils ↔ Polly.NoOp ↔ Polly.RateLimit ↔ Polly.RateLimiting ↔ Polly.Registry ↔ Polly.Retry ↔ Polly.Telemetry ↔ Polly.Timeout ↔ Polly.Utils ↔ Polly.Utils.Pipeline ↔ Polly.Wrap depend on each other. The lightest dependency in the cycle is Polly → Polly.RateLimiting (Polly.RateLimiterResiliencePipelineBuilderExtensions → Polly.RateLimiting.RateLimiterStrategyOptions, 1 type pair(s)); cut that one first, e.g. by moving the shared type to a namespace both can use or inverting it behind an interface. — src/Polly.RateLimiting/RateLimiterResiliencePipelineBuilderExtensions.cs:4
The namespaces Polly.Simmy ↔ Polly.Simmy.Behavior ↔ Polly.Simmy.Fault ↔ Polly.Simmy.Latency ↔ Polly.Simmy.Outcomes ↔ Polly.Simmy.Utils depend on each other. The lightest dependency in the cycle is Polly.Simmy → Polly.Simmy.Behavior (Polly.Simmy.ChaosBehaviorPipelineBuilderExtensions → Polly.Simmy.Behavior.ChaosBehaviorStrategyOptions, 1 type pair(s)); cut that one first, e.g. by moving the shared type to a namespace both can use or inverting it behind an interface. — src/Polly.Core/Simmy/Behavior/ChaosBehaviorPipelineBuilderExtensions.cs:3
What to do
Break namespace cycles inside a project by moving the shared type to a namespace both sides can use, or by inverting the back edge behind an interface.
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.
Other · Architecture — Whether the codebase has a recognisable, scale-appropriate structure (a named architectural style, or modular enough for its size) rather than being an ad-hoc ball of mud.
Method: Roslyn plus csproj analysis: architecture style detection (DDD, clean, vertical-slice, CQRS) and structure fitness for repo size. Deterministic.
Other · Architecture — Whether interfaces stay focused rather than fat — the Interface-Segregation principle (SOLID 'I').
Method: Roslyn scan: public interface declared-member counts (accessors fold into their property/event); fat-interface threshold (over 15 declared members) flagged per type. Each finding also reports the distinct-OPERATION count — members counted by name, so an overload group counts once — which decides whether it states the caller-side ISP harm or the implementer-side burden of an overload set. TypeScript: exported interfaces that declare behaviour, counted over their REQUIRED operations (method signatures and function-typed properties with no `?`, once per signature) — data-shape interfaces and ambient .d.ts declarations are outside the population; JavaScript declares no interfaces and is not applicable. Deterministic, type-level.
`IAsyncPolicy` declares 37 members under just 3 distinct name(s): `WithPolicyKey`, `ExecuteAsync`, `ExecuteAsync`, `ExecuteAsync`, `ExecuteAsync`, `ExecuteAsync`, `ExecuteAsync`, `ExecuteAsync`, `ExecuteAsync`, `ExecuteAsync`, `ExecuteAsync`, `ExecuteAsync`, `ExecuteAsync`, `ExecuteAsync`, `ExecuteAsync`, `ExecuteAsync`, `ExecuteAsync`, `ExecuteAsync`, `ExecuteAsync`, `ExecuteAndCaptureAsync`, `ExecuteAndCaptureAsync`, `ExecuteAndCaptureAsync`, `ExecuteAndCaptureAsync`, `ExecuteAndCaptureAsync`, `ExecuteAndCaptureAsync`, `ExecuteAndCaptureAsync`, `ExecuteAndCaptureAsync`, `ExecuteAndCaptureAsync`, `ExecuteAndCaptureAsync`, `ExecuteAndCaptureAsync`, `ExecuteAndCaptureAsync`, `ExecuteAndCaptureAsync`, `ExecuteAndCaptureAsync`, `ExecuteAndCaptureAsync`, `ExecuteAndCaptureAsync`, `ExecuteAndCaptureAsync`, `ExecuteAndCaptureAsync`. Counted as the author wrote them — a property is ONE member and its get/set accessors are not counted separately, and an event counts once. That is an OVERLOAD SET, not 37 separate responsibilities: a caller binds to 3 operation(s) and uses the overload it selected, so the Interface-Segregation harm does NOT apply on the caller's side and splitting this into role-interfaces would scatter one operation without relieving anything. The burden that does remain is the IMPLEMENTER's — all 37 signatures must be written and kept in step. Reduce it by collapsing overloads (optional or default parameters, or an options object) rather than by segregating the interface. — src/Polly/IAsyncPolicy.cs:6
`IAsyncPolicy<TResult>` declares 19 members under just 3 distinct name(s): `WithPolicyKey`, `ExecuteAsync`, `ExecuteAsync`, `ExecuteAsync`, `ExecuteAsync`, `ExecuteAsync`, `ExecuteAsync`, `ExecuteAsync`, `ExecuteAsync`, `ExecuteAsync`, `ExecuteAndCaptureAsync`, `ExecuteAndCaptureAsync`, `ExecuteAndCaptureAsync`, `ExecuteAndCaptureAsync`, `ExecuteAndCaptureAsync`, `ExecuteAndCaptureAsync`, `ExecuteAndCaptureAsync`, `ExecuteAndCaptureAsync`, `ExecuteAndCaptureAsync`. Counted as the author wrote them — a property is ONE member and its get/set accessors are not counted separately, and an event counts once. That is an OVERLOAD SET, not 19 separate responsibilities: a caller binds to 3 operation(s) and uses the overload it selected, so the Interface-Segregation harm does NOT apply on the caller's side and splitting this into role-interfaces would scatter one operation without relieving anything. The burden that does remain is the IMPLEMENTER's — all 19 signatures must be written and kept in step. Reduce it by collapsing overloads (optional or default parameters, or an options object) rather than by segregating the interface. — src/Polly/IAsyncPolicy.TResult.cs:7
`ISyncPolicy` declares 25 members under just 3 distinct name(s): `WithPolicyKey`, `Execute`, `Execute`, `Execute`, `Execute`, `Execute`, `Execute`, `Execute`, `Execute`, `Execute`, `Execute`, `Execute`, `Execute`, `ExecuteAndCapture`, `ExecuteAndCapture`, `ExecuteAndCapture`, `ExecuteAndCapture`, `ExecuteAndCapture`, `ExecuteAndCapture`, `ExecuteAndCapture`, `ExecuteAndCapture`, `ExecuteAndCapture`, `ExecuteAndCapture`, `ExecuteAndCapture`, `ExecuteAndCapture`. Counted as the author wrote them — a property is ONE member and its get/set accessors are not counted separately, and an event counts once. That is an OVERLOAD SET, not 25 separate responsibilities: a caller binds to 3 operation(s) and uses the overload it selected, so the Interface-Segregation harm does NOT apply on the caller's side and splitting this into role-interfaces would scatter one operation without relieving anything. The burden that does remain is the IMPLEMENTER's — all 25 signatures must be written and kept in step. Reduce it by collapsing overloads (optional or default parameters, or an options object) rather than by segregating the interface. — src/Polly/ISyncPolicy.cs:6
What to do
Collapse overload sets (optional/default parameters, or an options object) — these interfaces are wide in SIGNATURES, not in responsibilities, so segregating them would relieve no caller.
Other · Code Health — Unreviewed-generation residue: shipped members still throwing NotImplementedException, and placeholder string literals left in non-test, non-generated code. Scored as a quality signature, never as a claim about authorship.
Method: Roslyn syntax scan: NotImplementedException throws and placeholder string literals in non-test, non-generated shipped code. Deterministic, code-shape signature.
Other · Code Health — Unfinished work detected by code SHAPE, not keywords: members that only throw a "not implemented" exception, methods that take inputs and return a constant, async methods that never await, dead `if (false)` / `#if false` branches, and skeleton types most of whose members are holes. A real, objective slice of technical debt.
Method: Roslyn syntax scan: incompleteness by code shape (constant-returning methods, async-never-await, #if false branches, guards that return what the code already falls through to, tests an earlier guard already decided, comparisons against NaN, skeleton types), not keyword-gated. Deterministic, code-shape heuristic.
`EmptyHandlerOfT` looks like it should compute a result but its body just returns a constant — a placeholder return that was never filled in. — src/Polly/Timeout/AsyncTimeoutTResultSyntax.cs:423
A `#pragma warning disable` with no error codes silences every warning for the rest of the file — hidden debt. Suppress specific codes with a justification instead. — src/Shared/DebuggerDisableUserUnhandledExceptionsAttribute.cs:1
A test is skipped ("https://github.com/stryker-mutator/stryker-net/issues/2144") — coverage that looks present but never runs in any gate. If it's an opt-in suite, document how it runs; otherwise re-enable or delete it. — test/Polly.RateLimiting.Tests/RateLimiterResiliencePipelineBuilderExtensionsTests.cs:47
What to do
Finish or delete the unfinished stubs (NotImplementedException / empty / constant-returning bodies) — they are dead surface that looks live.
Clear the softer debt: remove commented-out code and dead branches, re-enable or delete skipped tests, and replace blanket warning suppressions with targeted ones.
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.
What to do
Explain in the README how to run the tests. Add a section called Testing to the README in the repository's top folder, saying how to run the test suite.
Add an 'Architecture' / 'How it works' section to the root README — the high-level shape.
Add a README to the 16 of 22 project(s) that lack one — worth up to 1.5 pts.
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 your significant design decisions. Write one short document per decision, giving its date, the situation, the decision and its consequences, and keep them together with your other design documents. A docs/adr folder with each file named by number and title is the easiest place to find them.
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.
docs/chaos/index.md names the project `Polly.Contrib.Simmy`, but no project, folder or namespace of that name exists. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — docs/chaos/index.md:134
What to do
Reconcile the README with reality: docs/chaos/index.md names the project `Polly.Contrib.Simmy`, but no project, folder or namespace of that name exists.
Only 4/6 service-like projects use logging (pure contract/DTO projects are excluded — they have nothing to log). Of those 6, 2 ship a process this repository operates; the rest are libraries their consumer hosts, where the logging decision belongs to the host.
`src/Snippets/Docs/Hedging.cs` reports through `Console.Write…` at line 31 although other files in its project log through a logger. Console lines carry no level, category or structured properties and never reach the log pipeline or its exporters. — src/Snippets/Docs/Hedging.cs:31
`src/Snippets/Docs/Hedging.cs` reports through `Console.Write…` at line 44 although other files in its project log through a logger. Console lines carry no level, category or structured properties and never reach the log pipeline or its exporters. — src/Snippets/Docs/Hedging.cs:44
`src/Snippets/Docs/Hedging.cs` reports through `Console.Write…` at line 92 although other files in its project log through a logger. Console lines carry no level, category or structured properties and never reach the log pipeline or its exporters. — src/Snippets/Docs/Hedging.cs:92
What to do
Extend structured logging across the projects you operate, and give the library ones a diagnostics seam instead — an `EventSource`/`ActivitySource` the host can subscribe to, or an optional logger on your options object — rather than taking a logging dependency on your consumers' behalf.
Replace `Console.Write…` in service code with the project's injected `ILogger<T>` (message templates with named properties), so delivery outcomes and failures reach the log pipeline with a level and a category.
For more than a log file, an `ActivitySource`/`EventSource` the user can switch on gives you a structured trace to attach to a bug report. A health-check endpoint does not apply here: nothing orchestrates or load-balances a binary the user launches.
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.
What to do
Add gitleaks/trufflehog in CI to block PRs that introduce committed secrets.
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.
Readiness · Performance — Whether the code protects its performance with benchmarks — a benchmark suite, allocation/memory measurement, and (ideally) a CI gate. Presence is credited as a bonus, never a deduction.
Method: Repo + source scan: BenchmarkDotNet referenced (csproj/source), [Benchmark]/[MemoryDiagnoser] attribute counts, and a benchmark step in CI; off .NET, the same ladder over Go testing.B, Rust criterion/#[bench]/divan, JMH/kotlinx-benchmark, pytest-benchmark/asv/pyperf, tinybench/mitata/vitest bench/benchmark.js and Swift package-benchmark — scored as a bonus ladder (absence is neutral, never a deduction). Deterministic, presence detection.
Readiness · Performance — Whether the code is written to minimise allocations so it doesn't pressure its host's memory manager — buffer/slice views over copies, object pooling, stack or value-type allocation, and buffer writers. Reward-only: credited where present, never penalised where a simpler style is fine.
Method: Production-source scan: density (per 1k LoC) of allocation-aware APIs — in .NET Span/Memory, ArrayPool/ObjectPool, stackalloc, ValueTask, value-type structs, IBufferWriter, string.Create, SkipLocalsInit; off .NET, with comments and strings blanked, Go's sync.Pool, preallocated slices/maps, Grow, strconv.Append* and buf[:0] reuse; the JVM's NIO buffer views, MemorySegment, primitive collections, pools and literal presizes (plus Kotlin primitive arrays and value classes, Scala AnyVal and @specialized); Swift's reserveCapacity, ContiguousArray, withUnsafe* access and ~Copyable. Activated off .NET on the same floor (400 lines, and benchmarks or 8 uses); Rust and garbage-collected scripting languages are not applicable. Reward-only. Deterministic, syntax/text detection.
Readiness · Performance — Whether asynchronous code stays responsive — it avoids sync-over-async blocking (a .NET .Wait()/.GetAwaiter().GetResult(), a time.sleep or blocking HTTP call inside a Python coroutine, a *Sync call inside an async JavaScript function, block_on inside a Rust async fn, runBlocking inside a Kotlin suspend function, block() inside a Reactor publisher) that stalls a thread or event loop and risks deadlock, and, where the code is a reusable library on .NET, awaits with ConfigureAwait(false) so it never captures and stalls its caller's context.
Method: Production-source scan: sync-over-async blocking counted everywhere — .Wait()/.GetAwaiter().GetResult() in .NET; off .NET, read from the language model, a blocking call inside an async function (Python, TS/JS, Rust, Kotlin, Swift, Dart) or inside a Java method returning a Reactor Mono/Flux or a Scala method returning a Future or effect — and, for a .NET library with ≥5 awaits, the share of awaits using ConfigureAwait(false). Deterministic, syntax/text detection.
8 blocking call(s) on async work (.Wait()/.GetAwaiter().GetResult()) — these waste a thread and can deadlock wherever a synchronization context is in play (a UI thread, or a caller that has one).
`.GetAwaiter().GetResult()` blocks this thread until the async work completes — it wastes a thread-pool thread for as long as the work runs and can deadlock wherever a synchronization context is in play (a UI thread, or a caller that has one). (×8) — bench/Polly.Core.Benchmarks/Utils/Helper.CircuitBreaker.cs:24, src/Polly.Core/CircuitBreaker/CircuitBreakerManualControl.cs:45, src/Polly.Core/CircuitBreaker/Controller/CircuitStateController.cs:174, …
What to do
Make the call chain async end-to-end and await it — never block on a Task with .Wait()/.GetAwaiter().GetResult().
Other · Code Health — Whether the code avoids sync-over-async (deadlock-prone blocking on tasks) and async void.
Method: Roslyn syntax scan: async methods scanned for .Wait()/.GetAwaiter().GetResult() and async-void outside event handlers. Deterministic, hard fact per invocation.
Blocking on a Task with `.Wait()`/`.GetAwaiter().GetResult()` can deadlock (and wastes a thread). Prefer awaiting it: make the caller `async` and `await` instead. Where a synchronous entry point must stay — a public sync API you cannot break, or a process entry point that must not return until the work finishes — the block belongs in ONE documented bridge and never inside code that is already async; and where it already is that bridge, give the wait a TIMEOUT so a hung task fails the call instead of hanging the process. (×4) — bench/Polly.Core.Benchmarks/Utils/Helper.CircuitBreaker.cs:24, src/Polly.Core/CircuitBreaker/CircuitBreakerManualControl.cs:45, src/Polly.Core/CircuitBreaker/Controller/CircuitStateController.cs:343, …
Blocking on a Task with `.Wait()`/`.GetAwaiter().GetResult()` wastes a thread and, if the task needs a context this one is holding, deadlocks. `Dispose()` returns void by contract, so it cannot simply `await`: signal the work to stop first (cancel its token, set its stop flag) so the wait is short, give the wait a TIMEOUT so a hung task cannot hang shutdown, and — where callers can use it — add an awaitable teardown (`DisposeAsync`/`StopAsync`) beside the synchronous one and let `Dispose()` remain the bounded fallback. — src/Polly.Core/Registry/ResiliencePipelineRegistry.cs:219
`.Wait(…)` blocks this thread until the task completes or the bound expires — sync-over-async: it can deadlock under a synchronization context and it parks a thread while it waits. `await` the task (with `.WaitAsync(timeout, token)` where the bound matters). — src/Polly/Timeout/TimeoutEngine.cs:48
Other · Code Health — Whether any branch is dead by construction — a switch arm whose label can never equal a case-normalised subject, or an `else if` whose predicate the arm above has already swallowed.
Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: switch labels compared against the subject's own case normaliser, and if/else-if chains checked for a literal an earlier arm's containment test already swallows. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Do you agree with this assessment?
X13 · Undrained process stream10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged
Other · Code Health — Whether a child process that has BOTH standard streams redirected drains both — reading one to the end while the other is never read deadlocks once the child fills the unread pipe.
Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: ProcessStartInfo launches with both streams redirected, checked for a drain of each stream across the enclosing type. On a repository with no .NET source it reads JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (test, vendored and minified paths not) with the same rule: a `spawn` imported from `child_process` whose stdout and stderr are both pipes (no options, no `stdio`, or `stdio` of `'pipe'`), bound to a local that never leaves its scope, where exactly one of the two streams is read, the other never, and the child’s `close`/`exit` (or the read stream’s end) is awaited; a shell redirect in the call’s arguments or a `kill` of the child suppresses it. The same rule reads Python’s `subprocess.Popen`, Dart’s `Process.start`, Ruby’s `Open3.popen3`, and Scala’s JDK process starts (`new ProcessBuilder(…).start()` with no `redirectErrorStream`/`redirectError`/`redirectOutput`/`inheritIO`, `Runtime.getRuntime.exec`) where one of `getInputStream`/`getErrorStream` is read and the other never while `waitFor()` is called or the read stream is read to its end. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Other · Security — Whether a hand-rolled public/private IP check can be walked past — a method that unwraps IPv4-mapped IPv6 but returns the opposite verdict for the same host written as IPv4-compatible, 6to4 or NAT64.
Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: methods that unwrap IPv4-mapped IPv6 and hand-roll IPv4 range carve-outs, checked for whether the IPv6 branch also accounts for the IPv4-compatible, 6to4 and NAT64 embeddings. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Do you agree with this assessment?
X15 · Unvalidated length from an untrusted reader10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged
Other · Security — Whether a length read out of the stream being parsed is bounded before it is allocated or read — an unchecked count taken from the input lets the input choose the allocation.
Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: integer lengths read from a BinaryReader and spent on a bulk read or an array allocation, checked for any comparison or bounding call on the value anywhere in the method. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Other · Code Health — Whether a loop that shortens a string until it fits a length budget has a floor — one with none grinds the value down to the empty string, or past it into a negative-length `Substring`.
Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: while/do loops whose body's only effect on a string is to drop its last character, checked for whether anything — a direct comparison on the length, a body guard, a break — bounds that length below. On a repository with no .NET source it reads JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (test, vendored and minified paths not) with the same rule: a `while`/`do` loop whose body’s one assignment to a value is `x = x.slice(0, -1)` or `x = x.slice|substring|substr(0, x.length - 1)`, driven by a condition that reads `x.length` only as a term of a larger expression — never compared directly, never tested for truthiness, and with no other read of `x` — and whose body has no `break`, `return`, `throw` or `if` naming `x`. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Do you agree with this assessment?
X17 · Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged
Other · Security — Whether a walk that recurses through a JSON/XML tree handed in by its caller bounds how deep it will go — an uncapped walk lets the document's nesting choose the stack depth, and the resulting StackOverflowException cannot be caught.
Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: methods that take a JSON/XML document node and call themselves with a child of it, reachable from an externally-callable member of the same type that accepts a document, checked for any depth parameter, descent counter or threaded arithmetic anywhere in the walk. On a repository with no .NET source it reads TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (test, vendored, generated and minified paths and `.d.ts` not) with the same rule: a function or method with a parameter typed as a document value — `unknown`, `any`, `object`, `Record<string, unknown|any>`, a JSON alias (`JsonValue`, `JSONObject`, …) or a DOM node global the file does not rebind — that calls itself (bare, or through `this` for a method, or hands itself to a call over the value as in `value.map(walk)`) with something it took out of that value and never through an ancestor accessor such as `closest()` or `parentElement`, that is exported or reached from an exported function (a public method of the same exported class) taking such a value, and that names no depth, level, nesting, recursion, remaining or budget anywhere and threads no `+`/`-` arithmetic through a self-call. Plain JavaScript is not read: with no annotation nothing tells a parsed document from a tree the code built itself. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Other · Code Health — Whether a type's disposal matches what it OWNS — releasing what it created, leaving alone what it was handed, and not declaring a finalizer for state that has nothing unmanaged to finalize.
Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: every assignment to a disposable field is read to decide whether the type CREATED the value or was handed it, and the type's disposal is checked against that answer — an injected interface it disposes, a value it constructed and never releases, a finalizer on a type holding nothing unmanaged, and a disposable local whose every reference is a plain member read. A value handed to a container that disposes its contents (a parent control's `Controls` collection, a component `IContainer`) is released by that container and is not reported; generated code is out of population. On a repository with no .NET source the same ownership questions are read in JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (test, vendored, generated and minified paths not): a class declaring `dispose()`, `[Symbol.dispose]()` or `[Symbol.asyncDispose]()` that disposes a field it was handed through a constructor parameter typed as a repository interface or resolved by a dependency-injection container; that assigns a field only ever from `new X(…)` of a disposable class and neither releases it anywhere in the class nor names it in its disposal member or a method that member calls, nor hands it to anything else; and a `const`/`let` local built from literals only whose every reference opens a statement operating on a non-release member of it. A class is disposable when every repository declaration of its name declares or inherits a disposal member, or when it is a documented library disposable (`vscode` EventEmitter, CancellationTokenSource and Disposable; three.js geometries, materials, textures, render targets, renderers, controls and composers). The finalizer arm has no JavaScript counterpart: a class cannot declare one. Dart is read for the owned-and-never-released arm: a Flutter `State` (or a class declaring `dispose()`/`close()`) whose library-private field is written only with direct creations of a framework controller, `FocusNode`, `StreamController` or periodic `Timer` (or a `.listen(…)` into a field declared `StreamSubscription`), which nothing in the class or its library releases (`dispose`/`close`/`cancel`) and which is never handed on except as a named argument. Ruby is read for the owned-and-never-released arm and the abandoned-local arm: a class declaring an instance `close`, `dispose`, `shutdown`, `stop`, `disconnect` or `terminate` whose instance variable is written only with a blockless core descriptor creation (`File.open`/`new`, `Tempfile`, `Dir.open`, `IO.popen`, the `socket` and `openssl` socket classes) that no method of the class closes and that is never handed on (passed, returned, stored, exposed by `attr_reader`, delegated) — a class whose superclass or mixin lies outside the repository is not judged — and a blockless creation read through and dropped (`File.open(path).read`) or held in a local that is never closed, returned, passed or stored (a `&:read` block-pass, an `autoclose: false` borrow and a `fileno` hand-over are not abandonment). PHP is read for the same two arms: a class (not a trait, and not one using a trait) declaring an instance `close`, `dispose`, `shutdown`, `stop`, `disconnect` or `terminate` whose `private` property (or a `final` class's `protected` one) is written only with a direct core `fopen`, `tmpfile`, `popen`, `proc_open`, `fsockopen`, `stream_socket_client`/`server` or `opendir` that nothing in the class closes (`fclose`, `pclose`, `closedir`, `unset`, a reset to `null`) and that is never handed on, and a handle held in a function's local, or read through as the argument of a reader, that is never closed, returned, passed, captured or stored; a `php://` stream, `curl_init`, `SplFileObject`, `PDO` and a function the repository declares under the core name are not read. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
`flurlClient` is a `FlurlClient`, which implements `IDisposable`, and it is created here (line 94). Every use of it in `FlurlExample` reads a member through it — it is never returned, never stored, never handed to anything else, and never disposed — so this method both creates the value and is the last thing that can release it, and does not. Nothing announces the leak: the object holds its resource until finalization if its type has a finalizer, and until the process ends if it does not, so the cost accumulates once per CALL rather than showing up as a failure. Declare it with `using` (`using var flurlClient = …;`), which releases it at the end of the scope on every path including a throw. — src/Snippets/Docs/HttpClientIntegrations.cs:94
`restClient` is a `RestClient`, which implements `IDisposable`, and it is created here (line 116). Every use of it in `RestSharpExample` reads a member through it — it is never returned, never stored, never handed to anything else, and never disposed — so this method both creates the value and is the last thing that can release it, and does not. Nothing announces the leak: the object holds its resource until finalization if its type has a finalizer, and until the process ends if it does not, so the cost accumulates once per CALL rather than showing up as a failure. Declare it with `using` (`using var restClient = …;`), which releases it at the end of the scope on every path including a throw. — src/Snippets/Docs/HttpClientIntegrations.cs:116
`registry` is a `ResiliencePipelineRegistry`, which implements `IDisposable`, and it is created here (line 39). Every use of it in `Registry_V8` reads a member through it — it is never returned, never stored, never handed to anything else, and never disposed — so this method both creates the value and is the last thing that can release it, and does not. Nothing announces the leak: the object holds its resource until finalization if its type has a finalizer, and until the process ends if it does not, so the cost accumulates once per CALL rather than showing up as a failure. Declare it with `using` (`using var registry = …;`), which releases it at the end of the scope on every path including a throw. — src/Snippets/Docs/Migration.Registry.cs:39
`registry` is a `ResiliencePipelineRegistry`, which implements `IDisposable`, and it is created here (line 15). Every use of it in `Usage` reads a member through it — it is never returned, never stored, never handed to anything else, and never disposed — so this method both creates the value and is the last thing that can release it, and does not. Nothing announces the leak: the object holds its resource until finalization if its type has a finalizer, and until the process ends if it does not, so the cost accumulates once per CALL rather than showing up as a failure. Declare it with `using` (`using var registry = …;`), which releases it at the end of the scope on every path including a throw. — src/Snippets/Docs/ResiliencePipelineRegistry.cs:15
`registry` is a `ResiliencePipelineRegistry`, which implements `IDisposable`, and it is created here (line 58). Every use of it in `UsageWithoutBuilders` reads a member through it — it is never returned, never stored, never handed to anything else, and never disposed — so this method both creates the value and is the last thing that can release it, and does not. Nothing announces the leak: the object holds its resource until finalization if its type has a finalizer, and until the process ends if it does not, so the cost accumulates once per CALL rather than showing up as a failure. Declare it with `using` (`using var registry = …;`), which releases it at the end of the scope on every path including a throw. — src/Snippets/Docs/ResiliencePipelineRegistry.cs:58
`registry` is a `ResiliencePipelineRegistry`, which implements `IDisposable`, and it is created here (line 94). Every use of it in `RegistryOptions` reads a member through it — it is never returned, never stored, never handed to anything else, and never disposed — so this method both creates the value and is the last thing that can release it, and does not. Nothing announces the leak: the object holds its resource until finalization if its type has a finalizer, and until the process ends if it does not, so the cost accumulates once per CALL rather than showing up as a failure. Declare it with `using` (`using var registry = …;`), which releases it at the end of the scope on every path including a throw. — src/Snippets/Docs/ResiliencePipelineRegistry.cs:94
`registry` is a `ResiliencePipelineRegistry`, which implements `IDisposable`, and it is created here (line 105). Every use of it in `DynamicReloads` reads a member through it — it is never returned, never stored, never handed to anything else, and never disposed — so this method both creates the value and is the last thing that can release it, and does not. Nothing announces the leak: the object holds its resource until finalization if its type has a finalizer, and until the process ends if it does not, so the cost accumulates once per CALL rather than showing up as a failure. Declare it with `using` (`using var registry = …;`), which releases it at the end of the scope on every path including a throw. — src/Snippets/Docs/ResiliencePipelineRegistry.cs:105
`registry` is a `ResiliencePipelineRegistry`, which implements `IDisposable`, and it is created here (line 151). Every use of it in `DynamicReloadsWithDispose` reads a member through it — it is never returned, never stored, never handed to anything else, and never disposed — so this method both creates the value and is the last thing that can release it, and does not. Nothing announces the leak: the object holds its resource until finalization if its type has a finalizer, and until the process ends if it does not, so the cost accumulates once per CALL rather than showing up as a failure. Declare it with `using` (`using var registry = …;`), which releases it at the end of the scope on every path including a throw. — src/Snippets/Docs/ResiliencePipelineRegistry.cs:151
`request` is a `HttpRequestMessage`, which implements `IDisposable`, and it is created here (line 271). Every use of it in `AntiPattern_BranchingByUrl` reads a member through it — it is never returned, never stored, never handed to anything else, and never disposed — so this method both creates the value and is the last thing that can release it, and does not. Nothing announces the leak: the object holds its resource until finalization if its type has a finalizer, and until the process ends if it does not, so the cost accumulates once per CALL rather than showing up as a failure. Declare it with `using` (`using var request = …;`), which releases it at the end of the scope on every path including a throw. — src/Snippets/Docs/Retry.cs:271
`request` is a `HttpRequestMessage`, which implements `IDisposable`, and it is created here (line 285). Every use of it in `Pattern_BranchingByUrl` reads a member through it — it is never returned, never stored, never handed to anything else, and never disposed — so this method both creates the value and is the last thing that can release it, and does not. Nothing announces the leak: the object holds its resource until finalization if its type has a finalizer, and until the process ends if it does not, so the cost accumulates once per CALL rather than showing up as a failure. Declare it with `using` (`using var request = …;`), which releases it at the end of the scope on every path including a throw. — src/Snippets/Docs/Retry.cs:285
`httpClient` is a `HttpClient`, which implements `IDisposable`, and it is created here (line 50). Every use of it in `Usage` reads a member through it — it is never returned, never stored, never handed to anything else, and never disposed — so this method both creates the value and is the last thing that can release it, and does not. Nothing announces the leak: the object holds its resource until finalization if its type has a finalizer, and until the process ends if it does not, so the cost accumulates once per CALL rather than showing up as a failure. Declare it with `using` (`using var httpClient = …;`), which releases it at the end of the scope on every path including a throw. — src/Snippets/Docs/Timeout.cs:50
What to do
Each finding names the value and the span that decides who owns it — the `new` that created it, or the constructor parameter that handed it over. Confirm ownership from that span, then make the disposal match it: release what this type created, leave what it was injected with to whoever created THAT, and drop a finalizer whose type holds nothing unmanaged to release.
Other · Code Health — Whether a method that temporarily changes state belonging to the whole process — the working directory, an environment variable — puts it back on EVERY path: a restore reached only when nothing throws leaks the change to the rest of the process.
Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: method bodies that write the process working directory or an environment variable and write it back in the same body, checked for whether that restore sits in a `finally`/`catch` or only on the straight-line path. On a repository with no .NET source the same rule reads production JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (test, vendored and minified paths not): `process.chdir`, `process.env.NAME =`/`["NAME"] =` and `delete process.env.NAME`, and Deno’s `Deno.chdir`/`Deno.env.set`/`Deno.env.delete`, paired per function body (a nested function or arrow is its own body, and module top-level code is none), where the last write puts back a local the body captured from the same global or deletes a variable the first write set, with at least one statement between them; a write in a `catch`/`finally` of that body silences it. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Other · Code Health — Whether async methods accept a CancellationToken so work can be cancelled (adoption curve).
Method: Roslyn scan: every async method (excluding framework-fixed overrides/Blazor handlers) checked for CancellationToken parameter presence. Deterministic, adoption percentage. On a repository with no .NET source it reads JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (test, vendored and minified paths not) with the same question: every named async function that itself makes a request an AbortSignal can cancel (global `fetch`, axios and its file-local instances, ky, ofetch) counts, and it is compliant when its parameters or body name a signal or it hands one of its own parameters to the request as options; signatures a framework fixes (JSX event handlers, route and lifecycle exports, request-first handlers, `override`, `'use server'` modules, TanStack `mutationFn`) are exempt unless they take a signal. Deterministic, adoption percentage.
Only 39/159 async methods accept a CancellationToken, so in-flight work can't be stopped early when the caller gives up — whatever ends it in your host (shutdown signal, timeout, abandoned request, user cancel). Thread a token through the call chain and honour it at each await and loop; where a method genuinely cannot be interrupted, omitting it is a deliberate choice — judge against your hosting model.
No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started. (×23) — bench/Polly.Benchmarks/Bulkhead.cs:14, bench/Polly.Benchmarks/Bulkhead.cs:26, bench/Polly.Benchmarks/Fallback.cs:14, …
No CancellationToken parameter — the body observes an ambient token instead (a field or a context object), so the work does stop on cancellation, but a caller cannot cancel this call independently of the owner that created that token. (×16) — bench/Polly.Benchmarks/Bulkhead.cs:18, bench/Polly.Benchmarks/Bulkhead.cs:30, bench/Polly.Benchmarks/Cache.cs:21, …
What to do
Thread a CancellationToken through async methods so work stops promptly on cancellation.
Other · Code Health — Whether an argument guard throws the exception its own condition describes — a guard that rejects a value for being EMPTY and reports it as `ArgumentNullException` tells the caller a parameter was null when it provably was not.
Method: Roslyn syntax: `throw new ArgumentNullException(nameof(p))` statements controlled by an `if`, whose condition is read for a test that is true of a NON-null `p` — an emptiness test that dereferences it (`p.Count == 0`, `!p.Any()`) or a BCL predicate documented true of the empty value (`string.IsNullOrEmpty(p)`). Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Other · Code Health — Whether a `when` guard is free of side effects — a guard that increments a counter or assigns while deciding whether its arm matches applies that change during PATTERN MATCHING, on an arm that may not be selected, and skips it entirely when a short-circuit to its left answers first.
Method: Roslyn syntax: `when` guards on case labels and switch-expression arms, read for a mutation (`++`/`--`/assignment) sitting in a position the guard's own `&&`/`||`/`??`/`?:`/`?.` can skip. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Other · Code Health — Whether a method that TAKES a lock or semaphore and gives it back from a flag-guarded `finally` returns the value that flag implies — reporting success while the guard hands the primitive back admits a second caller the exclusion was there to keep out, and reporting failure while the guard keeps it leaves nothing to ever give it back.
Method: Roslyn syntax: `try` statements whose `finally` releases a synchronisation primitive under a bare local-bool guard, where the method also TOOK that same primitive before the `try`, checked for a `return` of a bool literal whose value disagrees with the flag state the method's own straight-line assignments put it in. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Other · Code Health — Whether the work a diagnostic log line costs is paid only when that line is wanted — C# evaluates a call's arguments BEFORE the call, so a trace/debug message joined or projected out of a collection is built in full on every pass, and then discarded by a sink the shipped configuration leaves switched off.
Method: Roslyn syntax: log calls at a diagnostic level (a `Log`-prefixed method naming Trace/Debug/Verbose, or a bare `Debug`/`Trace`/`Verbose` on a receiver named for a logger), whose argument list is read for a call whose cost scales with a sequence — a LINQ operator, a materialisation, `string.Join`, a serializer — with no enclosing level check or conditional-compilation region. On a repository with no .NET source it reads JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (test, vendored and minified paths not) with the same rule: a `debug`/`trace`/`verbose` call on a receiver named for a logger, or a `log`-prefixed method naming the level, whose argument calls an array operator (`map`/`filter`/`reduce`/`sort`/…), `Array.from`, `Object.keys/values/entries`, `JSON.stringify`/`util.inspect` over anything but a literal, or an array `join` — outside any arrow or function passed as an argument, which the logger calls only when the level is on — with no enclosing `if`, `&&` or `?:` whose condition names a level, a level string, or the `NODE_ENV`/`__DEV__`/`DEV` build switch. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Do you agree with this assessment?
X24 · Document value interpolated into markup unescaped10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged
Other · Security — Whether text read out of the document being converted is escaped before it is written into generated markup — a value the document's author chose, interpolated into an attribute the surrounding literal delimits, can close that attribute and open another.
Method: Roslyn semantic model over the whole compilation: a string-typed `Value`/`InnerText`/`InnerXml`/`Text` member declared inside `DocumentFormat.OpenXml` or `System.Xml` is a taint SOURCE, propagated through assignments, returns, arguments, tuple elements and string composition to its transitive closure, then read at interpolated-string holes that sit in a markup position the surrounding literal itself delimits. Escaper/encoder calls and enclosing validator conditions cut the flow. Flow- and container-insensitive by construction. A second arm needs no provenance at all and reports a type that CONTRADICTS ITSELF — the same expression escaped at one delimited markup hole and interpolated raw at another hole in the same markup position of the same type, which the type's own escaping proves is a defect without knowing where the value came from. On a repository with no .NET source it reads JavaScript/TypeScript off the token stream with the same rule: a DOM read of raw document text (`getAttribute`, `textContent`, `innerText`, `nodeValue`) is the source, propagated through local bindings and string composition, and judged at template-literal and concatenation holes in the same two delimited markup positions; escapers and validating conditions cut it, and documentation-site, test, vendored and minified scripts are not read. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Other · Code Health — Whether a value the caller is invited to supply is the value the type actually uses — a constructor parameter stored in a private field that nothing ever reads while the default it was given is spelled out a second time at the site that should have read it, a keyed lookup that falls back to a different setting than the one its key names while the same type falls back to the matching one for that same key, or a culture-sensitive parse given no format provider by a type that feeds its own settable culture to the same kind of parse elsewhere, or a number an entry point writes to standard output under the host's culture while the same entry point formats with the invariant culture elsewhere. Either way, every caller who supplies a value silently gets something else.
Method: Roslyn syntax: private instance fields of a non-partial type assigned in a constructor from one of its own parameters with a `??` fallback, checked for whether anything in the type body reads the field and whether that same fallback expression is spelled out again outside the constructor; and `??` fallbacks onto a member access from a lookup call carrying exactly one string literal, grouped by that key across the type and checked for a fallback member whose folded name disagrees with the key while a sibling site for the same key agrees with it. On a repository with no .NET source the first two arms read JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (tests included, bundles and vendored paths not): a `#x`, `private` or `private` parameter-property instance field filled in the constructor from a parameter (or one member of one) through `??`/`||` or a parameter default, never read anywhere in the file by name, whose constructed default is spelled again in the class body; and `lookup("key") ?? s.member` grouped by key per class, or per module outside every class. The culture arm has no JavaScript counterpart: its parses take no locale. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Other · Code Health — Whether a value handed from a callback to the body that waits on it crosses on something built to be crossed — a `Queue<T>`/`List<T>`/`Dictionary<K,V>` written inside an event handler and read back outside it is mutated by two flows at once, and the semaphore or completion source beside it orders how MANY items exist while leaving the collection's own head, tail and backing array unprotected.
Method: Roslyn syntax: method, accessor, local-function and lambda bodies that declare BOTH a non-thread-safe generic collection (`Queue`/`Stack`/`List`/`Dictionary`/`HashSet`/`Sorted*`/`LinkedList`) and a synchronisation primitive (`SemaphoreSlim`/`TaskCompletionSource`/`ManualResetEvent(Slim)`/`AutoResetEvent`/`CountdownEvent`) as locals, then read for a `+=`-registered lambda that raises that primitive while the body outside every lambda waits on it — and, in that scope, a mutating call on the collection inside the lambda paired with a mention of it outside. Any `lock` in the scope abstains it. On a repository with no .NET source the same handoff is read in Java off the engine’s own token stream (test source sets, vendored and demonstration paths not): an `ArrayList`/`LinkedList`/`ArrayDeque`/`PriorityQueue`/`Hash*`/`LinkedHash*`/`Tree*` local and a `CountDownLatch`/`Semaphore`/`CompletableFuture` local, a lambda or anonymous class that raises the primitive and mutates the collection, and a wait outside it; any `synchronized` or `lock()` abstains the body. Because each of those primitives orders what the callback wrote before raising it, only a touch that provably overlaps the callback is convicted: one after the registration and before the next wait, or one in a loop registered-before, waiting on every pass and not declaring the collection. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Do you agree with this assessment?
X27 · Collection changed while being enumerated10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged
Other · Code Health — Whether a `foreach` leaves the collection it is walking alone — a body that adds to or removes from the very collection the loop is enumerating invalidates the enumerator it is holding, so the next `MoveNext` throws `InvalidOperationException` and the remaining items are never seen.
Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: `foreach` statements whose body calls a structural mutator (`Add`/`Remove`/`Clear`/`Insert`/…) on the very expression the loop is enumerating. Two arms. ARM A — the source is a concrete fragile BCL collection, or a live `Keys`/`Values` view over one, and the mutator resolves to that same collection's own member; concurrent and immutable collections and arrays are outside the population by construction, since their enumerators survive a structural change. ARM B — the source is an argument-less accessor CALL on a receiver whose body is in source: the accessor must return a stored field VERBATIM and a sibling member must structurally change that same field, both read off the implementations rather than from the members' names. A mutation the loop provably exits immediately after (`break`/`return`/`throw`/`goto`), or one written inside a nested loop or a lambda, is counted and never reported. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
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?
X29 · Per-element action decided by a fixed element10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged
Other · Code Health — Whether a decision taken once per element is taken ABOUT that element — a test inside a counted loop that reads a fixed subscript of the very collection its guarded statement indexes by the loop variable applies element zero's answer to all of them, so the elements that differ from it are all handled wrongly, and in the same direction.
Method: Roslyn syntax only, no semantic model: every `for` statement declaring exactly ONE loop variable, and every `if` inside its body that is not under a nested loop or a lambda. A site enters the population when the `if`’s condition never mentions the loop variable while the statement it guards indexes some collection by that variable ALONE (`c[i]`; `c[i + 1]` and `c[i, j]` are outside it). A finding additionally needs the AGREEING TWIN at the same-collection grain: the condition must read THAT SAME collection at a subscript that does not move — written into the condition, or reached through a local declared BEFORE the loop, so an alias bound inside the body is not followed. Both collection expressions must be simple identifiers. On a repository with no .NET source the same rule reads JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (tests included, bundles and vendored paths not): a `for (let|var|const x = …; …; …)` with one declarator and a braced body, an alias followed only when it is declared before the loop in a block that encloses it and never assigned inside the loop. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Other · Code Health — Whether exceptions are handled rather than silently swallowed or rethrown with lost stack traces.
Method: Roslyn syntax scan: every catch clause counted; empty catches and bare rethrows flagged. Population is all catch clauses, not estimated. Deterministic, hard fact.
An empty catch block silently discards the error — failures vanish with no log and no rethrow. Log it, handle it, or don't catch it. — src/Polly.Core/Utils/DisposeHelper.cs:35
What to do
Swallowed exception (empty catch)
Do you agree with this assessment?
X30 · Support guard that admits what it rejects10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged
Other · Code Health — Whether a guard written as a NEGATED `||` says what its author meant — `!(a || b || x != k)` is `!a && !b && x == k` by De Morgan, so a bail-out that mixes capabilities the code needs with a fault it refuses turns inside out: it fires only where the capabilities are ABSENT, and lets every value the fault term names walk straight into the body that cannot handle it.
Method: Roslyn syntax only, no semantic model: every logical-not whose operand is a parenthesised `||` chain of two or more disjuncts, flattened (a left-nested `a || b || c` read once would see `(a || b)` as one disjunct). A site enters the population on that shape alone. A finding additionally needs the disjuncts to DISAGREE in polarity: at least one bare boolean read — an identifier or member access, never an invocation, which is a predicate rather than a capability flag — and at least one `x != <constant>`, the only form that negates into an exact-value pin (`== null` negates into a looser requirement and is outside the fault set). Consistently-polarised disjunctions, all-fault or all-capability, are counted and never reported; a negated `&&` is outside the population entirely. No same-receiver gate: it was measured to cost a real defect and remove no false positive. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Do you agree with this assessment?
X32 · Type resolved by simple name across every loaded assembly10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged
Other · Code Health — Whether a plugin lookup names the type it means — searching every assembly loaded into the process for a candidate whose SIMPLE name equals a string supplied at runtime, and taking the first one found, is decided by assembly LOAD ORDER rather than by this source, so the same name can resolve to a different type on the next run.
Method: Roslyn syntax only, no semantic model: every invocation of `First`/`FirstOrDefault`/`Single`/`SingleOrDefault` whose OWN expression subtree contains both a `GetAssemblies()` call and a `GetTypes()`/`GetExportedTypes()` call — a single-element pick out of every type loaded into the process. A nested selector in the same chain sees no `GetAssemblies()` in its own subtree and is outside the population, so one lookup counts once however many links its chain has. A finding additionally needs both remaining halves: the selector must be `First`/`FirstOrDefault` (`Single`/`SingleOrDefault` reports the ambiguity rather than resolving it, and is counted and never reported), and the chain must carry an `==` comparison of `<lambda parameter>.Name` against something that is not a literal. The receiver must be a plain identifier bound by one of the chain’s own lambdas, which places `assembly.GetName().Name == "X"` outside the rule by construction. One exemption: a `.Name` test joined by `&&` to a `FullName`/`AssemblyQualifiedName` test on the same identifier is spared; joined by `||` it is not. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Other · Code Health — Whether log calls use message templates (queryable) rather than interpolated strings.
Method: Roslyn syntax scan: every log call-site counted; interpolated-string first-argument violations flagged. Population is all log calls, not estimated. On a repository with no .NET source it reads JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (test, vendored and minified paths not) with the same rule: a `trace`/`debug`/`info`/`warn`/`error`/`fatal`/`verbose`/`silly`/`http`/`log` call on a receiver named for a logger, in a package whose own or an enclosing `package.json` declares a logger that carries values as fields (pino, pino-http, nestjs-pino, Fastify, winston, bunyan, tslog, LogTape, roarr), whose first deciding argument is a template literal with substitutions; an object-literal fields argument is stepped over, a plain string message clears the call. Python is read the same way: a `debug`/`info`/`warning`/`error`/`exception`/`critical`/`log` call on a logger in a file that imports the standard library’s `logging` or structlog (loguru, which formats at the call, is not judged), whose message is a whole f-string with a non-constant field; a `%`-formatted, `.format()`-ed or concatenated message is not convicted, as in C#. PHP is read the same way: a PSR-3 level call (`emergency`…`debug`, `log`) on a logger (`$logger`, `$this->logger`, Laravel’s `Log::`, `logger()`, `\Drupal::logger()`) in a package whose `composer.json` requires a PSR-3 logger or a framework that hands one out (psr/log, Monolog, Laravel, Symfony, Drupal, CakePHP), or a file that imports one, whose message is a double-quoted string interpolating a variable; a single-quoted message clears the call, and `sprintf` or `.` concatenation is not convicted, as in C#. Dart is read the same way: a `trace`/`debug`/`info`/`warn`/`error`/`fatal` call on Sentry’s structured logger (`Sentry.logger`) whose message is a whole string literal interpolating a value (`$name`, `${…}`); the `Sentry.logger.fmt` template API clears the call. Dart that logs only through loggers with one message and no fields (package:logging, package:logger, talker, dart:developer) is not applicable rather than a reach gap. Ruby is read the same way: a `trace`/`debug`/`info`/`warn`/`error`/`fatal` call on the console gem’s `Console` (declared by a Gemfile, gemspec or Gemfile.lock, or required) or, where SemanticLogger, Ougai or dry-logger is declared or required, on a receiver named for a logger (`logger`, `@logger`, `Rails.logger`, `log`), whose first deciding argument is, as the whole argument, a double-quoted string interpolating a non-constant value (`#{…}`, `#@ivar`); a plain literal clears the call, keyword arguments are the fields, and a block, `%`-format or `+` concatenation is not convicted. Ruby that logs only through the standard Logger (Rails.logger) is not applicable rather than a reach gap. Deterministic.
Other · Code Health — Whether nullable reference types are enabled and not undermined by heavy `!` suppression.
Method: Roslyn compiler-options scan: NullableContextOptions per project; null-forgiving (!) suppression density per 1k syntax nodes. Deterministic, adoption plus suppression penalty.
~1.1 `!` suppressions per 1k syntax nodes — 86 suppression(s) across the 75109 syntax node(s) in code where nullable warnings are ENABLED, which is the only code a `!` can suppress anything in (a `!` under `#nullable disable` is inert and is not counted, and its file's nodes are not in the denominator). Each one tells the compiler to trust you about null, suppressing the very safety NRTs provide.
What to do
Enable <Nullable>enable</Nullable> across all projects and resolve warnings rather than suppressing with `!`.
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.
Unscored — 2 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.
P12 CI test-gate honesty — 2 observation(s) recorded · Reported, not scored — this card publishes what the CI gate does with the test inventory rather than grading it. The findings above are its output.
X10 Duplicated predicate — 5 observation(s) recorded · Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score.
Not evidenced — 1 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.
P5 DR & Backup — not evidenced — repo shows no backup/RTO/RPO controls; absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control
Not included — 43 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.
AX7 Slice cohesion — not applicable — not a vertical-slice architecture
AX8 Test isolation — no test/production split to check
AX9 CQS / query purity — no CQRS query handlers detected — query purity is not applicable to this codebase
AXB1 Runtime evidence locked — no reproducible boot — This repository has nothing the runtime tiers could boot or serve — no markup, no UI framework or web-server dependency, no UI component source, no native UI project and no API definition — nothing here is a surface to boot — so runtime a11y/egress/header evidence has no subject here. Not applicable: this is neither a gap in the scan nor a finding about your code.
AXB2 Runtime readiness — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
C1 Data Protection — No personal data detected in the analyzed source — no PII-typed entity/column names (Email, FirstName, DateOfBirth, …), no ASP.NET Identity / user-account model, and no stored user credentials. GDPR data-protection controls are therefore N/A here. If this is intentional, record the no-PII posture in an ADR; if the app does process personal data, name those fields conventionally so this dimension activates.
C2 Access Controls — No access-control surface detected in the analyzed source — no web/app surface to authorize (no HTTP API or web-UI project) and no authorization code at all (no [Authorize]/policies, no imperative guard methods). Access control is therefore N/A here — this is a library/CLI, which is authorized by its CALLER, not by itself. If this codebase grows request handlers, the dimension reactivates and a default-deny posture is expected then.
C3 Audit Trail — No personal data detected in the analyzed source — no PII-typed entity/column names (Email, FirstName, DateOfBirth, …), no ASP.NET Identity / user-account model, and no stored user credentials. GDPR data-protection controls are therefore N/A here. If this is intentional, record the no-PII posture in an ADR; if the app does process personal data, name those fields conventionally so this dimension activates.
C4 Data Retention — No personal data detected in the analyzed source — no PII-typed entity/column names (Email, FirstName, DateOfBirth, …), no ASP.NET Identity / user-account model, and no stored user credentials. GDPR data-protection controls are therefore N/A here. If this is intentional, record the no-PII posture in an ADR; if the app does process personal data, name those fields conventionally so this dimension activates.
C5 Data-Subject Rights — No personal data detected in the analyzed source — no PII-typed entity/column names (Email, FirstName, DateOfBirth, …), no ASP.NET Identity / user-account model, and no stored user credentials. GDPR data-protection controls are therefore N/A here. If this is intentional, record the no-PII posture in an ADR; if the app does process personal data, name those fields conventionally so this dimension activates.
D11 Test Reliability — Test reliability not measured — no test run produced results
D20 ADR Quality — N/A — ADRs are expected on deployable products with a user-facing host, not consumed libraries; no ADR log is required here.
D22 Internal API Consistency — No intentionally-exposed public API to evaluate for consistency.
D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — Cross-context type coupling could not be assessed — this codebase's bounded contexts are neither declared nor inferable.
D25 ADR Conformance — no ADRs to check
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) — 9 file(s) were not parsed by semgrep — the PII/GDPR ruleset never ran over them
D34 Knowledge Freshness — knowledge concentrated in recent work — freshness signal contradicted by repo activity
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).
D7 Architectural Integrity — no checkable ADRs and no dependency cycles — architectural integrity not assessed
D8 Code Coverage — Coverage not measured
DM1 Domain Modelling — not scored — this repository shows only 1 of the 3 signals this lens looks for (5 value object(s))
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
P7 Outbound HTTP resilience — not applicable — this isn't a service/API/worker
P8 Schema migrations — no EF Core usage detected
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
S1 Web-Security Posture — No web surface detected in the analyzed source — no HTTP API or web-UI project (no controllers/minimal-API endpoints, no Razor/Blazor views) and no web middleware (HTTPS redirection, HSTS, security headers, cookies). Transport security, security headers, secure cookies, CSRF/input-validation and middleware-order controls are therefore N/A here — this is a library/CLI/worker, not a web app. Crypto hygiene was still checked and found nothing to flag. If this codebase becomes web-facing, the dimension reactivates automatically.
SC1 Supply-chain hygiene — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
X6 Hand-rolled structured-format parsing — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
X7 Silent fallback defaults — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
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.
FileScopedPragmaDisable src/LegacySupport/CallerArgumentExpressionAttribute.cs:3— #pragma warning disable IDE0079 — the disable has no matching restore anywhere in this file, so it does not end with the construct that needed it: it runs to the end of the file and silences the rule for everything written below, including code added years later that nobody weighed against it. Close it with the matching restore directive immediately after the construct it covers — that alone turns a standing exemption into a scoped one — or fix the cause and drop the directive entirely.
FileScopedPragmaDisable src/LegacySupport/DynamicDependencyAttribute.cs:4— #pragma warning disable IDE0079 — the disable has no matching restore anywhere in this file, so it does not end with the construct that needed it: it runs to the end of the file and silences the rule for everything written below, including code added years later that nobody weighed against it. Close it with the matching restore directive immediately after the construct it covers — that alone turns a standing exemption into a scoped one — or fix the cause and drop the directive entirely.
FileScopedPragmaDisable src/LegacySupport/DynamicallyAccessedMemberTypes.cs:4— #pragma warning disable IDE0079 — the disable has no matching restore anywhere in this file, so it does not end with the construct that needed it: it runs to the end of the file and silences the rule for everything written below, including code added years later that nobody weighed against it. Close it with the matching restore directive immediately after the construct it covers — that alone turns a standing exemption into a scoped one — or fix the cause and drop the directive entirely.
FileScopedPragmaDisable src/LegacySupport/DynamicallyAccessedMembersAttribute.cs:4— #pragma warning disable IDE0079 — the disable has no matching restore anywhere in this file, so it does not end with the construct that needed it: it runs to the end of the file and silences the rule for everything written below, including code added years later that nobody weighed against it. Close it with the matching restore directive immediately after the construct it covers — that alone turns a standing exemption into a scoped one — or fix the cause and drop the directive entirely.
FileScopedPragmaDisable src/LegacySupport/IsExternalInit.cs:3— #pragma warning disable IDE0079 — the disable has no matching restore anywhere in this file, so it does not end with the construct that needed it: it runs to the end of the file and silences the rule for everything written below, including code added years later that nobody weighed against it. Close it with the matching restore directive immediately after the construct it covers — that alone turns a standing exemption into a scoped one — or fix the cause and drop the directive entirely.
FileScopedPragmaDisable src/LegacySupport/NullableAttributes.cs:3— #pragma warning disable IDE0079 — the disable has no matching restore anywhere in this file, so it does not end with the construct that needed it: it runs to the end of the file and silences the rule for everything written below, including code added years later that nobody weighed against it. Close it with the matching restore directive immediately after the construct it covers — that alone turns a standing exemption into a scoped one — or fix the cause and drop the directive entirely.
FileScopedPragmaDisable src/LegacySupport/NullableAttributes.cs:4— #pragma warning disable IDE0079 — the disable has no matching restore anywhere in this file, so it does not end with the construct that needed it: it runs to the end of the file and silences the rule for everything written below, including code added years later that nobody weighed against it. Close it with the matching restore directive immediately after the construct it covers — that alone turns a standing exemption into a scoped one — or fix the cause and drop the directive entirely.
FileScopedPragmaDisable src/LegacySupport/RequiresUnreferencedCodeAttribute.cs:4— #pragma warning disable IDE0079 — the disable has no matching restore anywhere in this file, so it does not end with the construct that needed it: it runs to the end of the file and silences the rule for everything written below, including code added years later that nobody weighed against it. Close it with the matching restore directive immediately after the construct it covers — that alone turns a standing exemption into a scoped one — or fix the cause and drop the directive entirely.
FileScopedPragmaDisable src/LegacySupport/UnconditionalSuppressMessageAttribute.cs:4— #pragma warning disable IDE0079 — the disable has no matching restore anywhere in this file, so it does not end with the construct that needed it: it runs to the end of the file and silences the rule for everything written below, including code added years later that nobody weighed against it. Close it with the matching restore directive immediately after the construct it covers — that alone turns a standing exemption into a scoped one — or fix the cause and drop the directive entirely.
FileScopedPragmaDisable src/LegacySupport/CallerArgumentExpressionAttribute.cs:4— #pragma warning disable SA1101 — the disable has no matching restore anywhere in this file, so it does not end with the construct that needed it: it runs to the end of the file and silences the rule for everything written below, including code added years later that nobody weighed against it. Close it with the matching restore directive immediately after the construct it covers — that alone turns a standing exemption into a scoped one — or fix the cause and drop the directive entirely.
FileScopedPragmaDisable src/LegacySupport/DynamicDependencyAttribute.cs:5— #pragma warning disable SA1101 — the disable has no matching restore anywhere in this file, so it does not end with the construct that needed it: it runs to the end of the file and silences the rule for everything written below, including code added years later that nobody weighed against it. Close it with the matching restore directive immediately after the construct it covers — that alone turns a standing exemption into a scoped one — or fix the cause and drop the directive entirely.
FileScopedPragmaDisable src/LegacySupport/DynamicallyAccessedMembersAttribute.cs:5— #pragma warning disable SA1101 — the disable has no matching restore anywhere in this file, so it does not end with the construct that needed it: it runs to the end of the file and silences the rule for everything written below, including code added years later that nobody weighed against it. Close it with the matching restore directive immediately after the construct it covers — that alone turns a standing exemption into a scoped one — or fix the cause and drop the directive entirely.
FileScopedPragmaDisable src/LegacySupport/NullableAttributes.cs:5— #pragma warning disable SA1101 — the disable has no matching restore anywhere in this file, so it does not end with the construct that needed it: it runs to the end of the file and silences the rule for everything written below, including code added years later that nobody weighed against it. Close it with the matching restore directive immediately after the construct it covers — that alone turns a standing exemption into a scoped one — or fix the cause and drop the directive entirely.
FileScopedPragmaDisable src/LegacySupport/RequiresUnreferencedCodeAttribute.cs:5— #pragma warning disable SA1101 — the disable has no matching restore anywhere in this file, so it does not end with the construct that needed it: it runs to the end of the file and silences the rule for everything written below, including code added years later that nobody weighed against it. Close it with the matching restore directive immediately after the construct it covers — that alone turns a standing exemption into a scoped one — or fix the cause and drop the directive entirely.
FileScopedPragmaDisable src/LegacySupport/UnconditionalSuppressMessageAttribute.cs:5— #pragma warning disable SA1101 — the disable has no matching restore anywhere in this file, so it does not end with the construct that needed it: it runs to the end of the file and silences the rule for everything written below, including code added years later that nobody weighed against it. Close it with the matching restore directive immediately after the construct it covers — that alone turns a standing exemption into a scoped one — or fix the cause and drop the directive entirely.
FileScopedPragmaDisable src/LegacySupport/CallerArgumentExpressionAttribute.cs:5— #pragma warning disable SA1512 — the disable has no matching restore anywhere in this file, so it does not end with the construct that needed it: it runs to the end of the file and silences the rule for everything written below, including code added years later that nobody weighed against it. Close it with the matching restore directive immediately after the construct it covers — that alone turns a standing exemption into a scoped one — or fix the cause and drop the directive entirely.
FileScopedPragmaDisable src/LegacySupport/DynamicDependencyAttribute.cs:8— #pragma warning disable SA1512 — the disable has no matching restore anywhere in this file, so it does not end with the construct that needed it: it runs to the end of the file and silences the rule for everything written below, including code added years later that nobody weighed against it. Close it with the matching restore directive immediately after the construct it covers — that alone turns a standing exemption into a scoped one — or fix the cause and drop the directive entirely.
FileScopedPragmaDisable src/LegacySupport/DynamicallyAccessedMemberTypes.cs:7— #pragma warning disable SA1512 — the disable has no matching restore anywhere in this file, so it does not end with the construct that needed it: it runs to the end of the file and silences the rule for everything written below, including code added years later that nobody weighed against it. Close it with the matching restore directive immediately after the construct it covers — that alone turns a standing exemption into a scoped one — or fix the cause and drop the directive entirely.
FileScopedPragmaDisable src/LegacySupport/DynamicallyAccessedMembersAttribute.cs:8— #pragma warning disable SA1512 — the disable has no matching restore anywhere in this file, so it does not end with the construct that needed it: it runs to the end of the file and silences the rule for everything written below, including code added years later that nobody weighed against it. Close it with the matching restore directive immediately after the construct it covers — that alone turns a standing exemption into a scoped one — or fix the cause and drop the directive entirely.
FileScopedPragmaDisable src/LegacySupport/NullableAttributes.cs:9— #pragma warning disable SA1512 — the disable has no matching restore anywhere in this file, so it does not end with the construct that needed it: it runs to the end of the file and silences the rule for everything written below, including code added years later that nobody weighed against it. Close it with the matching restore directive immediately after the construct it covers — that alone turns a standing exemption into a scoped one — or fix the cause and drop the directive entirely.
FileScopedPragmaDisable src/LegacySupport/RequiresUnreferencedCodeAttribute.cs:8— #pragma warning disable SA1512 — the disable has no matching restore anywhere in this file, so it does not end with the construct that needed it: it runs to the end of the file and silences the rule for everything written below, including code added years later that nobody weighed against it. Close it with the matching restore directive immediately after the construct it covers — that alone turns a standing exemption into a scoped one — or fix the cause and drop the directive entirely.
FileScopedPragmaDisable src/LegacySupport/UnconditionalSuppressMessageAttribute.cs:8— #pragma warning disable SA1512 — the disable has no matching restore anywhere in this file, so it does not end with the construct that needed it: it runs to the end of the file and silences the rule for everything written below, including code added years later that nobody weighed against it. Close it with the matching restore directive immediately after the construct it covers — that alone turns a standing exemption into a scoped one — or fix the cause and drop the directive entirely.
FileScopedPragmaDisable src/LegacySupport/DynamicDependencyAttribute.cs:6— #pragma warning disable SA1116 — the disable has no matching restore anywhere in this file, so it does not end with the construct that needed it: it runs to the end of the file and silences the rule for everything written below, including code added years later that nobody weighed against it. Close it with the matching restore directive immediately after the construct it covers — that alone turns a standing exemption into a scoped one — or fix the cause and drop the directive entirely.
FileScopedPragmaDisable src/LegacySupport/DynamicallyAccessedMembersAttribute.cs:6— #pragma warning disable SA1116 — the disable has no matching restore anywhere in this file, so it does not end with the construct that needed it: it runs to the end of the file and silences the rule for everything written below, including code added years later that nobody weighed against it. Close it with the matching restore directive immediately after the construct it covers — that alone turns a standing exemption into a scoped one — or fix the cause and drop the directive entirely.
FileScopedPragmaDisable src/LegacySupport/NullableAttributes.cs:6— #pragma warning disable SA1116 — the disable has no matching restore anywhere in this file, so it does not end with the construct that needed it: it runs to the end of the file and silences the rule for everything written below, including code added years later that nobody weighed against it. Close it with the matching restore directive immediately after the construct it covers — that alone turns a standing exemption into a scoped one — or fix the cause and drop the directive entirely.
NoWarnInCsproj — 7 warning codes suppressed in one element src/Snippets/Snippets.csproj:8— A single <NoWarn> suppresses 7 warning codes (CA1031;CA1062;CA1064;CA1303;CA1848;CA2000;CA2007) in one stroke — one team-wide decision, not 7 independent debts. Review the set centrally rather than code-by-code; each code you can re-enable is one less blanket suppression. (Every code still counts toward the score and metrics.)
NoWarnInCsproj — 9 warning codes suppressed in one element samples/Directory.Build.props:10— A single <NoWarn> suppresses 9 warning codes (SA1123;SA1515;CA2000;CA2007;CA1303;IDE0021;RS0037;RS0016;CS1591) in one stroke — one team-wide decision, not 9 independent debts. Review the set centrally rather than code-by-code; each code you can re-enable is one less blanket suppression. (Every code still counts toward the score and metrics.)
NoWarnInCsproj test/Polly.Core.Tests/Polly.Core.Tests.csproj:9— S6966 — this warning is switched off for the WHOLE project, in every file it builds, including code written years from now: nothing at the call site records that the rule was ever silenced, so the next reader has no reason to look here. Fix what the rule is reporting and drop the code from the list, or — if some occurrences really are legitimate — narrow the suppression to those sites and give each one its reason, so the rule keeps protecting the rest of the project.
NoWarnInCsproj src/Snippets/Snippets.csproj:9— CS1998 — this warning is switched off for the WHOLE project, in every file it builds, including code written years from now: nothing at the call site records that the rule was ever silenced, so the next reader has no reason to look here. Fix what the rule is reporting and drop the code from the list, or — if some occurrences really are legitimate — narrow the suppression to those sites and give each one its reason, so the rule keeps protecting the rest of the project.
NoWarnInCsproj src/Snippets/Snippets.csproj:10— IDE0017 — this warning is switched off for the WHOLE project, in every file it builds, including code written years from now: nothing at the call site records that the rule was ever silenced, so the next reader has no reason to look here. Fix what the rule is reporting and drop the code from the list, or — if some occurrences really are legitimate — narrow the suppression to those sites and give each one its reason, so the rule keeps protecting the rest of the project.
NoWarnInCsproj src/Snippets/Snippets.csproj:10— IDE0021 — this warning is switched off for the WHOLE project, in every file it builds, including code written years from now: nothing at the call site records that the rule was ever silenced, so the next reader has no reason to look here. Fix what the rule is reporting and drop the code from the list, or — if some occurrences really are legitimate — narrow the suppression to those sites and give each one its reason, so the rule keeps protecting the rest of the project.
NoWarnInCsproj src/Snippets/Snippets.csproj:10— IDE0022 — this warning is switched off for the WHOLE project, in every file it builds, including code written years from now: nothing at the call site records that the rule was ever silenced, so the next reader has no reason to look here. Fix what the rule is reporting and drop the code from the list, or — if some occurrences really are legitimate — narrow the suppression to those sites and give each one its reason, so the rule keeps protecting the rest of the project.
NoWarnInCsproj src/Snippets/Snippets.csproj:10— IDE0028 — this warning is switched off for the WHOLE project, in every file it builds, including code written years from now: nothing at the call site records that the rule was ever silenced, so the next reader has no reason to look here. Fix what the rule is reporting and drop the code from the list, or — if some occurrences really are legitimate — narrow the suppression to those sites and give each one its reason, so the rule keeps protecting the rest of the project.
NoWarnInCsproj src/Snippets/Snippets.csproj:10— IDE0060 — this warning is switched off for the WHOLE project, in every file it builds, including code written years from now: nothing at the call site records that the rule was ever silenced, so the next reader has no reason to look here. Fix what the rule is reporting and drop the code from the list, or — if some occurrences really are legitimate — narrow the suppression to those sites and give each one its reason, so the rule keeps protecting the rest of the project.
NoWarnInCsproj bench/Polly.Benchmarks/Polly.Benchmarks.csproj:8— IDE0060 — this warning is switched off for the WHOLE project, in every file it builds, including code written years from now: nothing at the call site records that the rule was ever silenced, so the next reader has no reason to look here. Fix what the rule is reporting and drop the code from the list, or — if some occurrences really are legitimate — narrow the suppression to those sites and give each one its reason, so the rule keeps protecting the rest of the project.
NoWarnInCsproj src/Snippets/Snippets.csproj:11— RS0016 — this warning is switched off for the WHOLE project, in every file it builds, including code written years from now: nothing at the call site records that the rule was ever silenced, so the next reader has no reason to look here. Fix what the rule is reporting and drop the code from the list, or — if some occurrences really are legitimate — narrow the suppression to those sites and give each one its reason, so the rule keeps protecting the rest of the project.
NoWarnInCsproj src/Snippets/Snippets.csproj:11— RS0037 — this warning is switched off for the WHOLE project, in every file it builds, including code written years from now: nothing at the call site records that the rule was ever silenced, so the next reader has no reason to look here. Fix what the rule is reporting and drop the code from the list, or — if some occurrences really are legitimate — narrow the suppression to those sites and give each one its reason, so the rule keeps protecting the rest of the project.
NoWarnInCsproj src/Polly/Polly.csproj:11— RS0037 — this warning is switched off for the WHOLE project, in every file it builds, including code written years from now: nothing at the call site records that the rule was ever silenced, so the next reader has no reason to look here. Fix what the rule is reporting and drop the code from the list, or — if some occurrences really are legitimate — narrow the suppression to those sites and give each one its reason, so the rule keeps protecting the rest of the project.
NoWarnInCsproj src/Snippets/Snippets.csproj:12— S3257 — this warning is switched off for the WHOLE project, in every file it builds, including code written years from now: nothing at the call site records that the rule was ever silenced, so the next reader has no reason to look here. Fix what the rule is reporting and drop the code from the list, or — if some occurrences really are legitimate — narrow the suppression to those sites and give each one its reason, so the rule keeps protecting the rest of the project.
NoWarnInCsproj src/Snippets/Snippets.csproj:13— SA1123 — this warning is switched off for the WHOLE project, in every file it builds, including code written years from now: nothing at the call site records that the rule was ever silenced, so the next reader has no reason to look here. Fix what the rule is reporting and drop the code from the list, or — if some occurrences really are legitimate — narrow the suppression to those sites and give each one its reason, so the rule keeps protecting the rest of the project.
NoWarnInCsproj src/Snippets/Snippets.csproj:13— SA1204 — this warning is switched off for the WHOLE project, in every file it builds, including code written years from now: nothing at the call site records that the rule was ever silenced, so the next reader has no reason to look here. Fix what the rule is reporting and drop the code from the list, or — if some occurrences really are legitimate — narrow the suppression to those sites and give each one its reason, so the rule keeps protecting the rest of the project.
NoWarnInCsproj src/Snippets/Snippets.csproj:13— SA1402 — this warning is switched off for the WHOLE project, in every file it builds, including code written years from now: nothing at the call site records that the rule was ever silenced, so the next reader has no reason to look here. Fix what the rule is reporting and drop the code from the list, or — if some occurrences really are legitimate — narrow the suppression to those sites and give each one its reason, so the rule keeps protecting the rest of the project.
NoWarnInCsproj src/Snippets/Snippets.csproj:13— SA1515 — this warning is switched off for the WHOLE project, in every file it builds, including code written years from now: nothing at the call site records that the rule was ever silenced, so the next reader has no reason to look here. Fix what the rule is reporting and drop the code from the list, or — if some occurrences really are legitimate — narrow the suppression to those sites and give each one its reason, so the rule keeps protecting the rest of the project.
NoWarnInCsproj src/Snippets/Snippets.csproj:13— SA1600 — this warning is switched off for the WHOLE project, in every file it builds, including code written years from now: nothing at the call site records that the rule was ever silenced, so the next reader has no reason to look here. Fix what the rule is reporting and drop the code from the list, or — if some occurrences really are legitimate — narrow the suppression to those sites and give each one its reason, so the rule keeps protecting the rest of the project.
NoWarnInCsproj eng/Benchmark.targets:3— SA1600 — this warning is switched off for the WHOLE project, in every file it builds, including code written years from now: nothing at the call site records that the rule was ever silenced, so the next reader has no reason to look here. Fix what the rule is reporting and drop the code from the list, or — if some occurrences really are legitimate — narrow the suppression to those sites and give each one its reason, so the rule keeps protecting the rest of the project.
NoWarnInCsproj src/Polly/Polly.csproj:11— CA1510 — this warning is switched off for the WHOLE project, in every file it builds, including code written years from now: nothing at the call site records that the rule was ever silenced, so the next reader has no reason to look here. Fix what the rule is reporting and drop the code from the list, or — if some occurrences really are legitimate — narrow the suppression to those sites and give each one its reason, so the rule keeps protecting the rest of the project.
NoWarnInCsproj bench/Polly.Benchmarks/Polly.Benchmarks.csproj:8— CA1822 — this warning is switched off for the WHOLE project, in every file it builds, including code written years from now: nothing at the call site records that the rule was ever silenced, so the next reader has no reason to look here. Fix what the rule is reporting and drop the code from the list, or — if some occurrences really are legitimate — narrow the suppression to those sites and give each one its reason, so the rule keeps protecting the rest of the project.
NoWarnInCsproj eng/Common.props:8— S8969 — this warning is switched off for the WHOLE project, in every file it builds, including code written years from now: nothing at the call site records that the rule was ever silenced, so the next reader has no reason to look here. Fix what the rule is reporting and drop the code from the list, or — if some occurrences really are legitimate — narrow the suppression to those sites and give each one its reason, so the rule keeps protecting the rest of the project.
NoWarnInCsproj eng/Common.props:8— S8970 — this warning is switched off for the WHOLE project, in every file it builds, including code written years from now: nothing at the call site records that the rule was ever silenced, so the next reader has no reason to look here. Fix what the rule is reporting and drop the code from the list, or — if some occurrences really are legitimate — narrow the suppression to those sites and give each one its reason, so the rule keeps protecting the rest of the project.
NoWarnInCsproj eng/Test.targets:6— S8949 — this warning is switched off for the WHOLE project, in every file it builds, including code written years from now: nothing at the call site records that the rule was ever silenced, so the next reader has no reason to look here. Fix what the rule is reporting and drop the code from the list, or — if some occurrences really are legitimate — narrow the suppression to those sites and give each one its reason, so the rule keeps protecting the rest of the project.
AnalyzerSeverityNone .editorconfig:59— IDE0007 — this rule is switched off for every file the section matches, in every project under this directory, and the only record that it was ever switched off is this line: nothing at the sites it would have reported says so, so a reader of that code has no reason to look here, and code added years from now inherits the decision silently. Fix what the rule reports and delete the entry, or — where some sites really are legitimate — leave the rule on and suppress it at those sites with their reasons, so it keeps protecting the rest of the tree. If the rule is genuinely unwanted here, say why — on this line after the entry, or in the comment run directly above it: a comment that only repeats the rule's own title is read as no explanation at all and leaves this row in place.
AnalyzerSeverityNone .editorconfig:60— IDE0008 — this rule is switched off for every file the section matches, in every project under this directory, and the only record that it was ever switched off is this line: nothing at the sites it would have reported says so, so a reader of that code has no reason to look here, and code added years from now inherits the decision silently. Fix what the rule reports and delete the entry, or — where some sites really are legitimate — leave the rule on and suppress it at those sites with their reasons, so it keeps protecting the rest of the tree. If the rule is genuinely unwanted here, say why — on this line after the entry, or in the comment run directly above it: a comment that only repeats the rule's own title is read as no explanation at all and leaves this row in place.
AnalyzerSeverityNone test/.editorconfig:3— CA1062 — this rule is switched off for every file the section matches, in every project under this directory, and the only record that it was ever switched off is this line: nothing at the sites it would have reported says so, so a reader of that code has no reason to look here, and code added years from now inherits the decision silently. Fix what the rule reports and delete the entry, or — where some sites really are legitimate — leave the rule on and suppress it at those sites with their reasons, so it keeps protecting the rest of the tree. If the rule is genuinely unwanted here, say why — on this line after the entry, or in the comment run directly above it: a comment that only repeats the rule's own title is read as no explanation at all and leaves this row in place.
AnalyzerSeverityNone test/.editorconfig:4— SA1204 — this rule is switched off for every file the section matches, in every project under this directory, and the only record that it was ever switched off is this line: nothing at the sites it would have reported says so, so a reader of that code has no reason to look here, and code added years from now inherits the decision silently. Fix what the rule reports and delete the entry, or — where some sites really are legitimate — leave the rule on and suppress it at those sites with their reasons, so it keeps protecting the rest of the tree. If the rule is genuinely unwanted here, say why — on this line after the entry, or in the comment run directly above it: a comment that only repeats the rule's own title is read as no explanation at all and leaves this row in place.
AnalyzerSeverityNone test/.editorconfig:5— SA1600 — this rule is switched off for every file the section matches, in every project under this directory, and the only record that it was ever switched off is this line: nothing at the sites it would have reported says so, so a reader of that code has no reason to look here, and code added years from now inherits the decision silently. Fix what the rule reports and delete the entry, or — where some sites really are legitimate — leave the rule on and suppress it at those sites with their reasons, so it keeps protecting the rest of the tree. If the rule is genuinely unwanted here, say why — on this line after the entry, or in the comment run directly above it: a comment that only repeats the rule's own title is read as no explanation at all and leaves this row in place.
AnalyzerSeverityNone test/Polly.Specs/.editorconfig:3— CA1030 — this rule is switched off for every file the section matches, in every project under this directory, and the only record that it was ever switched off is this line: nothing at the sites it would have reported says so, so a reader of that code has no reason to look here, and code added years from now inherits the decision silently. Fix what the rule reports and delete the entry, or — where some sites really are legitimate — leave the rule on and suppress it at those sites with their reasons, so it keeps protecting the rest of the tree. If the rule is genuinely unwanted here, say why — on this line after the entry, or in the comment run directly above it: a comment that only repeats the rule's own title is read as no explanation at all and leaves this row in place.
AnalyzerSeverityNone test/Polly.Specs/.editorconfig:4— CA2008 — this rule is switched off for every file the section matches, in every project under this directory, and the only record that it was ever switched off is this line: nothing at the sites it would have reported says so, so a reader of that code has no reason to look here, and code added years from now inherits the decision silently. Fix what the rule reports and delete the entry, or — where some sites really are legitimate — leave the rule on and suppress it at those sites with their reasons, so it keeps protecting the rest of the tree. If the rule is genuinely unwanted here, say why — on this line after the entry, or in the comment run directly above it: a comment that only repeats the rule's own title is read as no explanation at all and leaves this row in place.
AnalyzerSeverityNone test/Polly.Specs/.editorconfig:5— CA2201 — this rule is switched off for every file the section matches, in every project under this directory, and the only record that it was ever switched off is this line: nothing at the sites it would have reported says so, so a reader of that code has no reason to look here, and code added years from now inherits the decision silently. Fix what the rule reports and delete the entry, or — where some sites really are legitimate — leave the rule on and suppress it at those sites with their reasons, so it keeps protecting the rest of the tree. If the rule is genuinely unwanted here, say why — on this line after the entry, or in the comment run directly above it: a comment that only repeats the rule's own title is read as no explanation at all and leaves this row in place.
AnalyzerSeverityNone test/Polly.Specs/.editorconfig:6— S104 — this rule is switched off for every file the section matches, in every project under this directory, and the only record that it was ever switched off is this line: nothing at the sites it would have reported says so, so a reader of that code has no reason to look here, and code added years from now inherits the decision silently. Fix what the rule reports and delete the entry, or — where some sites really are legitimate — leave the rule on and suppress it at those sites with their reasons, so it keeps protecting the rest of the tree. If the rule is genuinely unwanted here, say why — on this line after the entry, or in the comment run directly above it: a comment that only repeats the rule's own title is read as no explanation at all and leaves this row in place.
AnalyzerSeverityNone test/Polly.Specs/.editorconfig:7— S6966 — this rule is switched off for every file the section matches, in every project under this directory, and the only record that it was ever switched off is this line: nothing at the sites it would have reported says so, so a reader of that code has no reason to look here, and code added years from now inherits the decision silently. Fix what the rule reports and delete the entry, or — where some sites really are legitimate — leave the rule on and suppress it at those sites with their reasons, so it keeps protecting the rest of the tree. If the rule is genuinely unwanted here, say why — on this line after the entry, or in the comment run directly above it: a comment that only repeats the rule's own title is read as no explanation at all and leaves this row in place.
Namespace dependency cycle src/Polly.RateLimiting/RateLimiterResiliencePipelineBuilderExtensions.cs:4— The namespaces Polly ↔ Polly.Bulkhead ↔ Polly.Caching ↔ Polly.CircuitBreaker ↔ Polly.DependencyInjection ↔ Polly.Fallback ↔ Polly.Hedging ↔ Polly.Hedging.Controller ↔ Polly.Hedging.Utils ↔ Polly.NoOp ↔ Polly.RateLimit ↔ Polly.RateLimiting ↔ Polly.Registry ↔ Polly.Retry ↔ Polly.Telemetry ↔ Polly.Timeout ↔ Polly.Utils ↔ Polly.Utils.Pipeline ↔ Polly.Wrap depend on each other. The lightest dependency in the cycle is Polly → Polly.RateLimiting (Polly.RateLimiterResiliencePipelineBuilderExtensions → Polly.RateLimiting.RateLimiterStrategyOptions, 1 type pair(s)); cut that one first, e.g. by moving the shared type to a namespace both can use or inverting it behind an interface.
Namespace dependency cycle src/Polly.Core/Simmy/Behavior/ChaosBehaviorPipelineBuilderExtensions.cs:3— The namespaces Polly.Simmy ↔ Polly.Simmy.Behavior ↔ Polly.Simmy.Fault ↔ Polly.Simmy.Latency ↔ Polly.Simmy.Outcomes ↔ Polly.Simmy.Utils depend on each other. The lightest dependency in the cycle is Polly.Simmy → Polly.Simmy.Behavior (Polly.Simmy.ChaosBehaviorPipelineBuilderExtensions → Polly.Simmy.Behavior.ChaosBehaviorStrategyOptions, 1 type pair(s)); cut that one first, e.g. by moving the shared type to a namespace both can use or inverting it behind an interface.
WriteOnlyPrivateField src/Snippets/Docs/DependencyInjection.cs:113— private ResiliencePipeline _pipeline — assigned 1 time(s), read never — this field is written and never read anywhere its type can be reached from, so the state it keeps answers no question: every assignment to it computes a value that nothing observes, on every instance, for the lifetime of each one. It reads as a flag the code branches on, and nothing branches on it. Delete the field and its assignments — or, if the value was MEANT to be consulted, the missing read is the defect this row is pointing at, and the branch that should have depended on it is not there.
WriteOnlyPrivateField src/Snippets/Docs/DependencyInjection.cs:114— private ResiliencePipeline<HttpResponseMessage> _genericPipeline — assigned 1 time(s), read never — this field is written and never read anywhere its type can be reached from, so the state it keeps answers no question: every assignment to it computes a value that nothing observes, on every instance, for the lifetime of each one. It reads as a flag the code branches on, and nothing branches on it. Delete the field and its assignments — or, if the value was MEANT to be consulted, the missing read is the defect this row is pointing at, and the branch that should have depended on it is not there.
FileScopedPragmaDisable repeated across 38 files src/Polly.Core/CircuitBreaker/BreakDurationGeneratorArguments.cs:5— The identical FileScopedPragmaDisable (`#pragma warning disable CA1815 // Override equals and operator equals on value types`) appears in 38 files (38 occurrences) — a single repo-wide policy (e.g. a Directory.Build.props decision or an idiomatic suppression), not 38 independent debts. Decide it once centrally rather than file-by-file. (Every occurrence still counts toward the score and metrics.)
FileScopedPragmaDisable repeated across 12 files src/Polly.Core/CircuitBreaker/Controller/ScheduledTaskExecutor.cs:3— The identical FileScopedPragmaDisable (`#pragma warning disable CA1031 // Do not catch general exception types`) appears in 12 files (12 occurrences) — a single repo-wide policy (e.g. a Directory.Build.props decision or an idiomatic suppression), not 12 independent debts. Decide it once centrally rather than file-by-file. (Every occurrence still counts toward the score and metrics.)
EmptyCatchBlock src/Polly.Core/Utils/DisposeHelper.cs:35— empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or let it propagate. Where swallowing one specific failure really is correct — as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — catch exactly that exception type and write down WHY in a comment on the catch. Both are needed: a comment on a catch-all still swallows every failure nobody anticipated, and a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all.
BarePragmaDisable bench/Polly.Benchmarks/Workloads.cs:16— #pragma warning disable S2190 — the disable is closed again below, so its scope is not the problem; what it records is no reason: there is nothing on the directive line, and no ordinary comment attached to it either side. A suppression is a decision somebody made, and without the reason the next reader cannot tell a considered exception from an unexamined one, so it is never revisited and it outlives the code it was written for. Put the reason on the directive line — what makes this site legitimately different — or fix what the rule is pointing at and delete the pair. A rationale in the member's documentation comment does not clear this row and is not meant to: it explains the member to its callers, and the next person to touch the suppression is not reading it for that.
BarePragmaDisable src/Polly.Core/CircuitBreaker/Controller/CircuitStateController.cs:27— #pragma warning disable S107 — the disable is closed again below, so its scope is not the problem; what it records is no reason: there is nothing on the directive line, and no ordinary comment attached to it either side. A suppression is a decision somebody made, and without the reason the next reader cannot tell a considered exception from an unexamined one, so it is never revisited and it outlives the code it was written for. Put the reason on the directive line — what makes this site legitimately different — or fix what the rule is pointing at and delete the pair. A rationale in the member's documentation comment does not clear this row and is not meant to: it explains the member to its callers, and the next person to touch the suppression is not reading it for that.
BarePragmaDisable src/Polly.Core/CircuitBreaker/Controller/CircuitStateController.cs:341— #pragma warning disable CA2012 — the disable is closed again below, so its scope is not the problem; what it records is no reason: there is nothing on the directive line, and no ordinary comment attached to it either side. A suppression is a decision somebody made, and without the reason the next reader cannot tell a considered exception from an unexamined one, so it is never revisited and it outlives the code it was written for. Put the reason on the directive line — what makes this site legitimately different — or fix what the rule is pointing at and delete the pair. A rationale in the member's documentation comment does not clear this row and is not meant to: it explains the member to its callers, and the next person to touch the suppression is not reading it for that.
BarePragmaDisable src/Polly.Core/CircuitBreaker/Controller/CircuitStateController.cs:342— #pragma warning disable S1226 — the disable is closed again below, so its scope is not the problem; what it records is no reason: there is nothing on the directive line, and no ordinary comment attached to it either side. A suppression is a decision somebody made, and without the reason the next reader cannot tell a considered exception from an unexamined one, so it is never revisited and it outlives the code it was written for. Put the reason on the directive line — what makes this site legitimately different — or fix what the rule is pointing at and delete the pair. A rationale in the member's documentation comment does not clear this row and is not meant to: it explains the member to its callers, and the next person to touch the suppression is not reading it for that.
BarePragmaDisable src/Polly.Core/Timeout/TimeoutResilienceStrategy.cs:66— #pragma warning disable S6966 — the disable is closed again below, so its scope is not the problem; what it records is no reason: there is nothing on the directive line, and no ordinary comment attached to it either side. A suppression is a decision somebody made, and without the reason the next reader cannot tell a considered exception from an unexamined one, so it is never revisited and it outlives the code it was written for. Put the reason on the directive line — what makes this site legitimately different — or fix what the rule is pointing at and delete the pair. A rationale in the member's documentation comment does not clear this row and is not meant to: it explains the member to its callers, and the next person to touch the suppression is not reading it for that.
BarePragmaDisable test/Polly.RateLimiting.Tests/RateLimiterResilienceStrategyTests.cs:105— #pragma warning disable S6966 — the disable is closed again below, so its scope is not the problem; what it records is no reason: there is nothing on the directive line, and no ordinary comment attached to it either side. A suppression is a decision somebody made, and without the reason the next reader cannot tell a considered exception from an unexamined one, so it is never revisited and it outlives the code it was written for. Put the reason on the directive line — what makes this site legitimately different — or fix what the rule is pointing at and delete the pair. A rationale in the member's documentation comment does not clear this row and is not meant to: it explains the member to its callers, and the next person to touch the suppression is not reading it for that.
BarePragmaDisable src/Polly.Core/Utils/RandomUtil.cs:11— #pragma warning disable S2245 — the disable is closed again below, so its scope is not the problem; what it records is no reason: there is nothing on the directive line, and no ordinary comment attached to it either side. A suppression is a decision somebody made, and without the reason the next reader cannot tell a considered exception from an unexamined one, so it is never revisited and it outlives the code it was written for. Put the reason on the directive line — what makes this site legitimately different — or fix what the rule is pointing at and delete the pair. A rationale in the member's documentation comment does not clear this row and is not meant to: it explains the member to its callers, and the next person to touch the suppression is not reading it for that.
BarePragmaDisable src/Polly/Bulkhead/AsyncBulkheadPolicy.cs:7— #pragma warning disable CA1063 — the disable is closed again below, so its scope is not the problem; what it records is no reason: there is nothing on the directive line, and no ordinary comment attached to it either side. A suppression is a decision somebody made, and without the reason the next reader cannot tell a considered exception from an unexamined one, so it is never revisited and it outlives the code it was written for. Put the reason on the directive line — what makes this site legitimately different — or fix what the rule is pointing at and delete the pair. A rationale in the member's documentation comment does not clear this row and is not meant to: it explains the member to its callers, and the next person to touch the suppression is not reading it for that.
BarePragmaDisable src/Polly/Bulkhead/AsyncBulkheadPolicy.cs:61— #pragma warning disable CA1063 — the disable is closed again below, so its scope is not the problem; what it records is no reason: there is nothing on the directive line, and no ordinary comment attached to it either side. A suppression is a decision somebody made, and without the reason the next reader cannot tell a considered exception from an unexamined one, so it is never revisited and it outlives the code it was written for. Put the reason on the directive line — what makes this site legitimately different — or fix what the rule is pointing at and delete the pair. A rationale in the member's documentation comment does not clear this row and is not meant to: it explains the member to its callers, and the next person to touch the suppression is not reading it for that.
BarePragmaDisable src/Polly/Bulkhead/AsyncBulkheadPolicy.cs:76— #pragma warning disable CA1063 — the disable is closed again below, so its scope is not the problem; what it records is no reason: there is nothing on the directive line, and no ordinary comment attached to it either side. A suppression is a decision somebody made, and without the reason the next reader cannot tell a considered exception from an unexamined one, so it is never revisited and it outlives the code it was written for. Put the reason on the directive line — what makes this site legitimately different — or fix what the rule is pointing at and delete the pair. A rationale in the member's documentation comment does not clear this row and is not meant to: it explains the member to its callers, and the next person to touch the suppression is not reading it for that.
BarePragmaDisable src/Polly/Bulkhead/AsyncBulkheadPolicy.cs:130— #pragma warning disable CA1063 — the disable is closed again below, so its scope is not the problem; what it records is no reason: there is nothing on the directive line, and no ordinary comment attached to it either side. A suppression is a decision somebody made, and without the reason the next reader cannot tell a considered exception from an unexamined one, so it is never revisited and it outlives the code it was written for. Put the reason on the directive line — what makes this site legitimately different — or fix what the rule is pointing at and delete the pair. A rationale in the member's documentation comment does not clear this row and is not meant to: it explains the member to its callers, and the next person to touch the suppression is not reading it for that.
BarePragmaDisable src/Polly/Bulkhead/BulkheadPolicy.cs:7— #pragma warning disable CA1063 — the disable is closed again below, so its scope is not the problem; what it records is no reason: there is nothing on the directive line, and no ordinary comment attached to it either side. A suppression is a decision somebody made, and without the reason the next reader cannot tell a considered exception from an unexamined one, so it is never revisited and it outlives the code it was written for. Put the reason on the directive line — what makes this site legitimately different — or fix what the rule is pointing at and delete the pair. A rationale in the member's documentation comment does not clear this row and is not meant to: it explains the member to its callers, and the next person to touch the suppression is not reading it for that.
BarePragmaDisable src/Polly/Bulkhead/BulkheadPolicy.cs:56— #pragma warning disable CA1063 — the disable is closed again below, so its scope is not the problem; what it records is no reason: there is nothing on the directive line, and no ordinary comment attached to it either side. A suppression is a decision somebody made, and without the reason the next reader cannot tell a considered exception from an unexamined one, so it is never revisited and it outlives the code it was written for. Put the reason on the directive line — what makes this site legitimately different — or fix what the rule is pointing at and delete the pair. A rationale in the member's documentation comment does not clear this row and is not meant to: it explains the member to its callers, and the next person to touch the suppression is not reading it for that.
BarePragmaDisable src/Polly/Bulkhead/BulkheadPolicy.cs:74— #pragma warning disable CA1063 — the disable is closed again below, so its scope is not the problem; what it records is no reason: there is nothing on the directive line, and no ordinary comment attached to it either side. A suppression is a decision somebody made, and without the reason the next reader cannot tell a considered exception from an unexamined one, so it is never revisited and it outlives the code it was written for. Put the reason on the directive line — what makes this site legitimately different — or fix what the rule is pointing at and delete the pair. A rationale in the member's documentation comment does not clear this row and is not meant to: it explains the member to its callers, and the next person to touch the suppression is not reading it for that.
BarePragmaDisable src/Polly/Bulkhead/BulkheadPolicy.cs:122— #pragma warning disable CA1063 — the disable is closed again below, so its scope is not the problem; what it records is no reason: there is nothing on the directive line, and no ordinary comment attached to it either side. A suppression is a decision somebody made, and without the reason the next reader cannot tell a considered exception from an unexamined one, so it is never revisited and it outlives the code it was written for. Put the reason on the directive line — what makes this site legitimately different — or fix what the rule is pointing at and delete the pair. A rationale in the member's documentation comment does not clear this row and is not meant to: it explains the member to its callers, and the next person to touch the suppression is not reading it for that.
BarePragmaDisable src/Polly/Bulkhead/AsyncBulkheadSyntax.cs:4— #pragma warning disable CA1724 — the disable is closed again below, so its scope is not the problem; what it records is no reason: there is nothing on the directive line, and no ordinary comment attached to it either side. A suppression is a decision somebody made, and without the reason the next reader cannot tell a considered exception from an unexamined one, so it is never revisited and it outlives the code it was written for. Put the reason on the directive line — what makes this site legitimately different — or fix what the rule is pointing at and delete the pair. A rationale in the member's documentation comment does not clear this row and is not meant to: it explains the member to its callers, and the next person to touch the suppression is not reading it for that.
BarePragmaDisable src/Polly/Policy.ContextAndKeys.cs:31— #pragma warning disable CA1724 — the disable is closed again below, so its scope is not the problem; what it records is no reason: there is nothing on the directive line, and no ordinary comment attached to it either side. A suppression is a decision somebody made, and without the reason the next reader cannot tell a considered exception from an unexamined one, so it is never revisited and it outlives the code it was written for. Put the reason on the directive line — what makes this site legitimately different — or fix what the rule is pointing at and delete the pair. A rationale in the member's documentation comment does not clear this row and is not meant to: it explains the member to its callers, and the next person to touch the suppression is not reading it for that.
BarePragmaDisable src/Polly/Caching/IAsyncCacheProvider.cs:9— #pragma warning disable SA1414 — the disable is closed again below, so its scope is not the problem; what it records is no reason: there is nothing on the directive line, and no ordinary comment attached to it either side. A suppression is a decision somebody made, and without the reason the next reader cannot tell a considered exception from an unexamined one, so it is never revisited and it outlives the code it was written for. Put the reason on the directive line — what makes this site legitimately different — or fix what the rule is pointing at and delete the pair. A rationale in the member's documentation comment does not clear this row and is not meant to: it explains the member to its callers, and the next person to touch the suppression is not reading it for that.
BarePragmaDisable src/Polly/Caching/IAsyncCacheProvider.cs:45— #pragma warning disable SA1414 — the disable is closed again below, so its scope is not the problem; what it records is no reason: there is nothing on the directive line, and no ordinary comment attached to it either side. A suppression is a decision somebody made, and without the reason the next reader cannot tell a considered exception from an unexamined one, so it is never revisited and it outlives the code it was written for. Put the reason on the directive line — what makes this site legitimately different — or fix what the rule is pointing at and delete the pair. A rationale in the member's documentation comment does not clear this row and is not meant to: it explains the member to its callers, and the next person to touch the suppression is not reading it for that.
BarePragmaDisable src/Polly/Caching/ISyncCacheProvider.cs:9— #pragma warning disable SA1414 — the disable is closed again below, so its scope is not the problem; what it records is no reason: there is nothing on the directive line, and no ordinary comment attached to it either side. A suppression is a decision somebody made, and without the reason the next reader cannot tell a considered exception from an unexamined one, so it is never revisited and it outlives the code it was written for. Put the reason on the directive line — what makes this site legitimately different — or fix what the rule is pointing at and delete the pair. A rationale in the member's documentation comment does not clear this row and is not meant to: it explains the member to its callers, and the next person to touch the suppression is not reading it for that.
BarePragmaDisable src/Polly/Caching/ISyncCacheProvider.cs:36— #pragma warning disable SA1414 — the disable is closed again below, so its scope is not the problem; what it records is no reason: there is nothing on the directive line, and no ordinary comment attached to it either side. A suppression is a decision somebody made, and without the reason the next reader cannot tell a considered exception from an unexamined one, so it is never revisited and it outlives the code it was written for. Put the reason on the directive line — what makes this site legitimately different — or fix what the rule is pointing at and delete the pair. A rationale in the member's documentation comment does not clear this row and is not meant to: it explains the member to its callers, and the next person to touch the suppression is not reading it for that.
BarePragmaDisable src/Polly/Caching/ITtlStrategy.cs:15— #pragma warning disable S3246 — the disable is closed again below, so its scope is not the problem; what it records is no reason: there is nothing on the directive line, and no ordinary comment attached to it either side. A suppression is a decision somebody made, and without the reason the next reader cannot tell a considered exception from an unexamined one, so it is never revisited and it outlives the code it was written for. Put the reason on the directive line — what makes this site legitimately different — or fix what the rule is pointing at and delete the pair. A rationale in the member's documentation comment does not clear this row and is not meant to: it explains the member to its callers, and the next person to touch the suppression is not reading it for that.
BarePragmaDisable src/Polly/CircuitBreaker/ICircuitBreakerPolicy.cs:34— #pragma warning disable S3246 — the disable is closed again below, so its scope is not the problem; what it records is no reason: there is nothing on the directive line, and no ordinary comment attached to it either side. A suppression is a decision somebody made, and without the reason the next reader cannot tell a considered exception from an unexamined one, so it is never revisited and it outlives the code it was written for. Put the reason on the directive line — what makes this site legitimately different — or fix what the rule is pointing at and delete the pair. A rationale in the member's documentation comment does not clear this row and is not meant to: it explains the member to its callers, and the next person to touch the suppression is not reading it for that.
BarePragmaDisable src/Polly/Caching/NonSlidingTtl.cs:10— #pragma warning disable IDE1006 — the disable is closed again below, so its scope is not the problem; what it records is no reason: there is nothing on the directive line, and no ordinary comment attached to it either side. A suppression is a decision somebody made, and without the reason the next reader cannot tell a considered exception from an unexamined one, so it is never revisited and it outlives the code it was written for. Put the reason on the directive line — what makes this site legitimately different — or fix what the rule is pointing at and delete the pair. A rationale in the member's documentation comment does not clear this row and is not meant to: it explains the member to its callers, and the next person to touch the suppression is not reading it for that.
BarePragmaDisable src/Polly/IsPolicy.cs:6— #pragma warning disable IDE1006 — the disable is closed again below, so its scope is not the problem; what it records is no reason: there is nothing on the directive line, and no ordinary comment attached to it either side. A suppression is a decision somebody made, and without the reason the next reader cannot tell a considered exception from an unexamined one, so it is never revisited and it outlives the code it was written for. Put the reason on the directive line — what makes this site legitimately different — or fix what the rule is pointing at and delete the pair. A rationale in the member's documentation comment does not clear this row and is not meant to: it explains the member to its callers, and the next person to touch the suppression is not reading it for that.
CoverageExclusion src/LegacySupport/CallerArgumentExpressionAttribute.cs:18— class CallerArgumentExpressionAttribute — this shipped code is lifted out of the coverage measurement, so it is not that the code is reported as untested: it is not reported at all. The excluded lines leave the denominator, which means the percentage the team publishes goes UP when code stops being covered, and the gap is invisible in the artefact that would otherwise disclose it. Nothing here is written by a compiler or a build — the attribute is only ever typed by an author — so it is a standing decision, and the only record of it is this line. Test what it covers and delete the attribute; where the code genuinely cannot be exercised (a debugger display, a platform branch this build cannot reach), narrow the exclusion to the smallest declaration that is really untestable rather than the type around it, so members added later are not silently excluded too. If it is correct as it stands, say why — in the attribute's own Justification, or in a comment above it: that is what turns it from unexplained debt into a recorded decision, and it clears this row.
CoverageExclusion src/LegacySupport/DynamicDependencyAttribute.cs:25— class DynamicDependencyAttribute — this shipped code is lifted out of the coverage measurement, so it is not that the code is reported as untested: it is not reported at all. The excluded lines leave the denominator, which means the percentage the team publishes goes UP when code stops being covered, and the gap is invisible in the artefact that would otherwise disclose it. Nothing here is written by a compiler or a build — the attribute is only ever typed by an author — so it is a standing decision, and the only record of it is this line. Test what it covers and delete the attribute; where the code genuinely cannot be exercised (a debugger display, a platform branch this build cannot reach), narrow the exclusion to the smallest declaration that is really untestable rather than the type around it, so members added later are not silently excluded too. If it is correct as it stands, say why — in the attribute's own Justification, or in a comment above it: that is what turns it from unexplained debt into a recorded decision, and it clears this row.
CoverageExclusion src/LegacySupport/DynamicallyAccessedMembersAttribute.cs:42— class DynamicallyAccessedMembersAttribute — this shipped code is lifted out of the coverage measurement, so it is not that the code is reported as untested: it is not reported at all. The excluded lines leave the denominator, which means the percentage the team publishes goes UP when code stops being covered, and the gap is invisible in the artefact that would otherwise disclose it. Nothing here is written by a compiler or a build — the attribute is only ever typed by an author — so it is a standing decision, and the only record of it is this line. Test what it covers and delete the attribute; where the code genuinely cannot be exercised (a debugger display, a platform branch this build cannot reach), narrow the exclusion to the smallest declaration that is really untestable rather than the type around it, so members added later are not silently excluded too. If it is correct as it stands, say why — in the attribute's own Justification, or in a comment above it: that is what turns it from unexplained debt into a recorded decision, and it clears this row.
CoverageExclusion src/LegacySupport/NullableAttributes.cs:27— class AllowNullAttribute — this shipped code is lifted out of the coverage measurement, so it is not that the code is reported as untested: it is not reported at all. The excluded lines leave the denominator, which means the percentage the team publishes goes UP when code stops being covered, and the gap is invisible in the artefact that would otherwise disclose it. Nothing here is written by a compiler or a build — the attribute is only ever typed by an author — so it is a standing decision, and the only record of it is this line. Test what it covers and delete the attribute; where the code genuinely cannot be exercised (a debugger display, a platform branch this build cannot reach), narrow the exclusion to the smallest declaration that is really untestable rather than the type around it, so members added later are not silently excluded too. If it is correct as it stands, say why — in the attribute's own Justification, or in a comment above it: that is what turns it from unexplained debt into a recorded decision, and it clears this row.
CoverageExclusion src/LegacySupport/NullableAttributes.cs:34— class DisallowNullAttribute — this shipped code is lifted out of the coverage measurement, so it is not that the code is reported as untested: it is not reported at all. The excluded lines leave the denominator, which means the percentage the team publishes goes UP when code stops being covered, and the gap is invisible in the artefact that would otherwise disclose it. Nothing here is written by a compiler or a build — the attribute is only ever typed by an author — so it is a standing decision, and the only record of it is this line. Test what it covers and delete the attribute; where the code genuinely cannot be exercised (a debugger display, a platform branch this build cannot reach), narrow the exclusion to the smallest declaration that is really untestable rather than the type around it, so members added later are not silently excluded too. If it is correct as it stands, say why — in the attribute's own Justification, or in a comment above it: that is what turns it from unexplained debt into a recorded decision, and it clears this row.
CoverageExclusion src/LegacySupport/NullableAttributes.cs:41— class MaybeNullAttribute — this shipped code is lifted out of the coverage measurement, so it is not that the code is reported as untested: it is not reported at all. The excluded lines leave the denominator, which means the percentage the team publishes goes UP when code stops being covered, and the gap is invisible in the artefact that would otherwise disclose it. Nothing here is written by a compiler or a build — the attribute is only ever typed by an author — so it is a standing decision, and the only record of it is this line. Test what it covers and delete the attribute; where the code genuinely cannot be exercised (a debugger display, a platform branch this build cannot reach), narrow the exclusion to the smallest declaration that is really untestable rather than the type around it, so members added later are not silently excluded too. If it is correct as it stands, say why — in the attribute's own Justification, or in a comment above it: that is what turns it from unexplained debt into a recorded decision, and it clears this row.
CoverageExclusion src/LegacySupport/NullableAttributes.cs:48— class NotNullAttribute — this shipped code is lifted out of the coverage measurement, so it is not that the code is reported as untested: it is not reported at all. The excluded lines leave the denominator, which means the percentage the team publishes goes UP when code stops being covered, and the gap is invisible in the artefact that would otherwise disclose it. Nothing here is written by a compiler or a build — the attribute is only ever typed by an author — so it is a standing decision, and the only record of it is this line. Test what it covers and delete the attribute; where the code genuinely cannot be exercised (a debugger display, a platform branch this build cannot reach), narrow the exclusion to the smallest declaration that is really untestable rather than the type around it, so members added later are not silently excluded too. If it is correct as it stands, say why — in the attribute's own Justification, or in a comment above it: that is what turns it from unexplained debt into a recorded decision, and it clears this row.
CoverageExclusion src/LegacySupport/NullableAttributes.cs:55— class MaybeNullWhenAttribute — this shipped code is lifted out of the coverage measurement, so it is not that the code is reported as untested: it is not reported at all. The excluded lines leave the denominator, which means the percentage the team publishes goes UP when code stops being covered, and the gap is invisible in the artefact that would otherwise disclose it. Nothing here is written by a compiler or a build — the attribute is only ever typed by an author — so it is a standing decision, and the only record of it is this line. Test what it covers and delete the attribute; where the code genuinely cannot be exercised (a debugger display, a platform branch this build cannot reach), narrow the exclusion to the smallest declaration that is really untestable rather than the type around it, so members added later are not silently excluded too. If it is correct as it stands, say why — in the attribute's own Justification, or in a comment above it: that is what turns it from unexplained debt into a recorded decision, and it clears this row.
CoverageExclusion src/LegacySupport/NullableAttributes.cs:70— class NotNullWhenAttribute — this shipped code is lifted out of the coverage measurement, so it is not that the code is reported as untested: it is not reported at all. The excluded lines leave the denominator, which means the percentage the team publishes goes UP when code stops being covered, and the gap is invisible in the artefact that would otherwise disclose it. Nothing here is written by a compiler or a build — the attribute is only ever typed by an author — so it is a standing decision, and the only record of it is this line. Test what it covers and delete the attribute; where the code genuinely cannot be exercised (a debugger display, a platform branch this build cannot reach), narrow the exclusion to the smallest declaration that is really untestable rather than the type around it, so members added later are not silently excluded too. If it is correct as it stands, say why — in the attribute's own Justification, or in a comment above it: that is what turns it from unexplained debt into a recorded decision, and it clears this row.
CoverageExclusion src/LegacySupport/NullableAttributes.cs:85— class NotNullIfNotNullAttribute — this shipped code is lifted out of the coverage measurement, so it is not that the code is reported as untested: it is not reported at all. The excluded lines leave the denominator, which means the percentage the team publishes goes UP when code stops being covered, and the gap is invisible in the artefact that would otherwise disclose it. Nothing here is written by a compiler or a build — the attribute is only ever typed by an author — so it is a standing decision, and the only record of it is this line. Test what it covers and delete the attribute; where the code genuinely cannot be exercised (a debugger display, a platform branch this build cannot reach), narrow the exclusion to the smallest declaration that is really untestable rather than the type around it, so members added later are not silently excluded too. If it is correct as it stands, say why — in the attribute's own Justification, or in a comment above it: that is what turns it from unexplained debt into a recorded decision, and it clears this row.
CoverageExclusion src/LegacySupport/NullableAttributes.cs:100— class DoesNotReturnAttribute — this shipped code is lifted out of the coverage measurement, so it is not that the code is reported as untested: it is not reported at all. The excluded lines leave the denominator, which means the percentage the team publishes goes UP when code stops being covered, and the gap is invisible in the artefact that would otherwise disclose it. Nothing here is written by a compiler or a build — the attribute is only ever typed by an author — so it is a standing decision, and the only record of it is this line. Test what it covers and delete the attribute; where the code genuinely cannot be exercised (a debugger display, a platform branch this build cannot reach), narrow the exclusion to the smallest declaration that is really untestable rather than the type around it, so members added later are not silently excluded too. If it is correct as it stands, say why — in the attribute's own Justification, or in a comment above it: that is what turns it from unexplained debt into a recorded decision, and it clears this row.
CoverageExclusion src/LegacySupport/NullableAttributes.cs:107— class DoesNotReturnIfAttribute — this shipped code is lifted out of the coverage measurement, so it is not that the code is reported as untested: it is not reported at all. The excluded lines leave the denominator, which means the percentage the team publishes goes UP when code stops being covered, and the gap is invisible in the artefact that would otherwise disclose it. Nothing here is written by a compiler or a build — the attribute is only ever typed by an author — so it is a standing decision, and the only record of it is this line. Test what it covers and delete the attribute; where the code genuinely cannot be exercised (a debugger display, a platform branch this build cannot reach), narrow the exclusion to the smallest declaration that is really untestable rather than the type around it, so members added later are not silently excluded too. If it is correct as it stands, say why — in the attribute's own Justification, or in a comment above it: that is what turns it from unexplained debt into a recorded decision, and it clears this row.
CoverageExclusion src/LegacySupport/NullableAttributes.cs:124— class MemberNotNullAttribute — this shipped code is lifted out of the coverage measurement, so it is not that the code is reported as untested: it is not reported at all. The excluded lines leave the denominator, which means the percentage the team publishes goes UP when code stops being covered, and the gap is invisible in the artefact that would otherwise disclose it. Nothing here is written by a compiler or a build — the attribute is only ever typed by an author — so it is a standing decision, and the only record of it is this line. Test what it covers and delete the attribute; where the code genuinely cannot be exercised (a debugger display, a platform branch this build cannot reach), narrow the exclusion to the smallest declaration that is really untestable rather than the type around it, so members added later are not silently excluded too. If it is correct as it stands, say why — in the attribute's own Justification, or in a comment above it: that is what turns it from unexplained debt into a recorded decision, and it clears this row.
CoverageExclusion src/LegacySupport/NullableAttributes.cs:145— class MemberNotNullWhenAttribute — this shipped code is lifted out of the coverage measurement, so it is not that the code is reported as untested: it is not reported at all. The excluded lines leave the denominator, which means the percentage the team publishes goes UP when code stops being covered, and the gap is invisible in the artefact that would otherwise disclose it. Nothing here is written by a compiler or a build — the attribute is only ever typed by an author — so it is a standing decision, and the only record of it is this line. Test what it covers and delete the attribute; where the code genuinely cannot be exercised (a debugger display, a platform branch this build cannot reach), narrow the exclusion to the smallest declaration that is really untestable rather than the type around it, so members added later are not silently excluded too. If it is correct as it stands, say why — in the attribute's own Justification, or in a comment above it: that is what turns it from unexplained debt into a recorded decision, and it clears this row.
CoverageExclusion src/LegacySupport/RequiresUnreferencedCodeAttribute.cs:25— class RequiresUnreferencedCodeAttribute — this shipped code is lifted out of the coverage measurement, so it is not that the code is reported as untested: it is not reported at all. The excluded lines leave the denominator, which means the percentage the team publishes goes UP when code stops being covered, and the gap is invisible in the artefact that would otherwise disclose it. Nothing here is written by a compiler or a build — the attribute is only ever typed by an author — so it is a standing decision, and the only record of it is this line. Test what it covers and delete the attribute; where the code genuinely cannot be exercised (a debugger display, a platform branch this build cannot reach), narrow the exclusion to the smallest declaration that is really untestable rather than the type around it, so members added later are not silently excluded too. If it is correct as it stands, say why — in the attribute's own Justification, or in a comment above it: that is what turns it from unexplained debt into a recorded decision, and it clears this row.
CoverageExclusion src/LegacySupport/UnconditionalSuppressMessageAttribute.cs:25— class UnconditionalSuppressMessageAttribute — this shipped code is lifted out of the coverage measurement, so it is not that the code is reported as untested: it is not reported at all. The excluded lines leave the denominator, which means the percentage the team publishes goes UP when code stops being covered, and the gap is invisible in the artefact that would otherwise disclose it. Nothing here is written by a compiler or a build — the attribute is only ever typed by an author — so it is a standing decision, and the only record of it is this line. Test what it covers and delete the attribute; where the code genuinely cannot be exercised (a debugger display, a platform branch this build cannot reach), narrow the exclusion to the smallest declaration that is really untestable rather than the type around it, so members added later are not silently excluded too. If it is correct as it stands, say why — in the attribute's own Justification, or in a comment above it: that is what turns it from unexplained debt into a recorded decision, and it clears this row.
CoverageExclusion src/Polly.Core/ResilienceContext.cs:78— method AssertInitialized — this shipped code is lifted out of the coverage measurement, so it is not that the code is reported as untested: it is not reported at all. The excluded lines leave the denominator, which means the percentage the team publishes goes UP when code stops being covered, and the gap is invisible in the artefact that would otherwise disclose it. Nothing here is written by a compiler or a build — the attribute is only ever typed by an author — so it is a standing decision, and the only record of it is this line. Test what it covers and delete the attribute; where the code genuinely cannot be exercised (a debugger display, a platform branch this build cannot reach), narrow the exclusion to the smallest declaration that is really untestable rather than the type around it, so members added later are not silently excluded too. If it is correct as it stands, say why — in the attribute's own Justification, or in a comment above it: that is what turns it from unexplained debt into a recorded decision, and it clears this row.
CoverageExclusion src/Polly.Core/Utils/Guard.cs:6— class Guard — this shipped code is lifted out of the coverage measurement, so it is not that the code is reported as untested: it is not reported at all. The excluded lines leave the denominator, which means the percentage the team publishes goes UP when code stops being covered, and the gap is invisible in the artefact that would otherwise disclose it. Nothing here is written by a compiler or a build — the attribute is only ever typed by an author — so it is a standing decision, and the only record of it is this line. Test what it covers and delete the attribute; where the code genuinely cannot be exercised (a debugger display, a platform branch this build cannot reach), narrow the exclusion to the smallest declaration that is really untestable rather than the type around it, so members added later are not silently excluded too. If it is correct as it stands, say why — in the attribute's own Justification, or in a comment above it: that is what turns it from unexplained debt into a recorded decision, and it clears this row.
CoverageExclusion src/Polly.Core/Utils/Pipeline/DelegatingComponent.cs:19— method ExecuteCore — this shipped code is lifted out of the coverage measurement, so it is not that the code is reported as untested: it is not reported at all. The excluded lines leave the denominator, which means the percentage the team publishes goes UP when code stops being covered, and the gap is invisible in the artefact that would otherwise disclose it. Nothing here is written by a compiler or a build — the attribute is only ever typed by an author — so it is a standing decision, and the only record of it is this line. Test what it covers and delete the attribute; where the code genuinely cannot be exercised (a debugger display, a platform branch this build cannot reach), narrow the exclusion to the smallest declaration that is really untestable rather than the type around it, so members added later are not silently excluded too. If it is correct as it stands, say why — in the attribute's own Justification, or in a comment above it: that is what turns it from unexplained debt into a recorded decision, and it clears this row.
CoverageExclusion src/Polly.Core/Utils/ValidationHelper.cs:7— class ValidationHelper — this shipped code is lifted out of the coverage measurement, so it is not that the code is reported as untested: it is not reported at all. The excluded lines leave the denominator, which means the percentage the team publishes goes UP when code stops being covered, and the gap is invisible in the artefact that would otherwise disclose it. Nothing here is written by a compiler or a build — the attribute is only ever typed by an author — so it is a standing decision, and the only record of it is this line. Test what it covers and delete the attribute; where the code genuinely cannot be exercised (a debugger display, a platform branch this build cannot reach), narrow the exclusion to the smallest declaration that is really untestable rather than the type around it, so members added later are not silently excluded too. If it is correct as it stands, say why — in the attribute's own Justification, or in a comment above it: that is what turns it from unexplained debt into a recorded decision, and it clears this row.
CoverageExclusion src/Polly.Extensions/Telemetry/Log.cs:8— class Log — this shipped code is lifted out of the coverage measurement, so it is not that the code is reported as untested: it is not reported at all. The excluded lines leave the denominator, which means the percentage the team publishes goes UP when code stops being covered, and the gap is invisible in the artefact that would otherwise disclose it. Nothing here is written by a compiler or a build — the attribute is only ever typed by an author — so it is a standing decision, and the only record of it is this line. Test what it covers and delete the attribute; where the code genuinely cannot be exercised (a debugger display, a platform branch this build cannot reach), narrow the exclusion to the smallest declaration that is really untestable rather than the type around it, so members added later are not silently excluded too. If it is correct as it stands, say why — in the attribute's own Justification, or in a comment above it: that is what turns it from unexplained debt into a recorded decision, and it clears this row.
CoverageExclusion src/Polly.Extensions/Telemetry/TelemetrySource.cs:19— method GetVersion — this shipped code is lifted out of the coverage measurement, so it is not that the code is reported as untested: it is not reported at all. The excluded lines leave the denominator, which means the percentage the team publishes goes UP when code stops being covered, and the gap is invisible in the artefact that would otherwise disclose it. Nothing here is written by a compiler or a build — the attribute is only ever typed by an author — so it is a standing decision, and the only record of it is this line. Test what it covers and delete the attribute; where the code genuinely cannot be exercised (a debugger display, a platform branch this build cannot reach), narrow the exclusion to the smallest declaration that is really untestable rather than the type around it, so members added later are not silently excluded too. If it is correct as it stands, say why — in the attribute's own Justification, or in a comment above it: that is what turns it from unexplained debt into a recorded decision, and it clears this row.
CoverageExclusion src/Polly/Bulkhead/BulkheadEngine.cs:38— ExcludeFromCodeCoverage — this shipped code is lifted out of the coverage measurement, so it is not that the code is reported as untested: it is not reported at all. The excluded lines leave the denominator, which means the percentage the team publishes goes UP when code stops being covered, and the gap is invisible in the artefact that would otherwise disclose it. Nothing here is written by a compiler or a build — the attribute is only ever typed by an author — so it is a standing decision, and the only record of it is this line. Test what it covers and delete the attribute; where the code genuinely cannot be exercised (a debugger display, a platform branch this build cannot reach), narrow the exclusion to the smallest declaration that is really untestable rather than the type around it, so members added later are not silently excluded too. If it is correct as it stands, say why — in the attribute's own Justification, or in a comment above it: that is what turns it from unexplained debt into a recorded decision, and it clears this row.
X2 · Cancellation propagation· Async method without CancellationToken · ×23
Async method without CancellationToken: Bulkhead_Asynchronous bench/Polly.Benchmarks/Bulkhead.cs:14— No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
Async method without CancellationToken: Bulkhead_Asynchronous_With_Result bench/Polly.Benchmarks/Bulkhead.cs:26— No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
Async method without CancellationToken: Fallback_Asynchronous_Succeeds bench/Polly.Benchmarks/Fallback.cs:14— No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
Async method without CancellationToken: Fallback_Asynchronous_Throws bench/Polly.Benchmarks/Fallback.cs:22— No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
Async method without CancellationToken: RateLimit_Asynchronous_Succeeds bench/Polly.Benchmarks/RateLimit.cs:14— No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
Async method without CancellationToken: RateLimit_Asynchronous_With_Result_Succeeds bench/Polly.Benchmarks/RateLimit.cs:22— No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
Async method without CancellationToken: Retry_Asynchronous_Succeeds bench/Polly.Benchmarks/Retry.cs:14— No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
Async method without CancellationToken: Retry_Asynchronous_With_Result_Succeeds bench/Polly.Benchmarks/Retry.cs:26— No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
Async method without CancellationToken: Retry_Asynchronous_Throws_Then_Succeeds bench/Polly.Benchmarks/Retry.cs:48— No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
Async method without CancellationToken: Timeout_Asynchronous_Succeeds bench/Polly.Benchmarks/Timeout.cs:14— No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
Async method without CancellationToken: Timeout_Asynchronous_With_Result_Succeeds bench/Polly.Benchmarks/Timeout.cs:26— No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
Async method without CancellationToken: NoOpAsync bench/Polly.Core.Benchmarks/BridgeBenchmark.cs:16— No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
Async method without CancellationToken: NullResiliencePipeline bench/Polly.Core.Benchmarks/BridgeBenchmark.cs:19— No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
Async method without CancellationToken: ExecuteAsync_Exception_V7 bench/Polly.Core.Benchmarks/CircuitBreakerOpenedBenchmark.cs:18— No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
Async method without CancellationToken: ExecuteAsync_Exception_V8 bench/Polly.Core.Benchmarks/CircuitBreakerOpenedBenchmark.cs:31— No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
Async method without CancellationToken: ExecuteAsync_Outcome_V8 bench/Polly.Core.Benchmarks/CircuitBreakerOpenedBenchmark.cs:44— No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
Async method without CancellationToken: ExecuteAsync_Generic bench/Polly.Core.Benchmarks/GenericOverheadBenchmark.cs:17— No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
Async method without CancellationToken: ExecuteAsync_NonGeneric bench/Polly.Core.Benchmarks/GenericOverheadBenchmark.cs:20— No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
Async method without CancellationToken: Hedging_Primary bench/Polly.Core.Benchmarks/HedgingBenchmark.cs:11— No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
Async method without CancellationToken: Hedging_Secondary bench/Polly.Core.Benchmarks/HedgingBenchmark.cs:15— No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
Async method without CancellationToken: Hedging_Primary_AsyncWork bench/Polly.Core.Benchmarks/HedgingBenchmark.cs:19— No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
Async method without CancellationToken: Hedging_Secondary_AsyncWork bench/Polly.Core.Benchmarks/HedgingBenchmark.cs:28— No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
Async method without CancellationToken: ExecuteStrategyPipeline_NonGeneric_V8 bench/Polly.Core.Benchmarks/MultipleStrategiesBenchmark.cs:38— No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
X18 · Disposal-pattern correctness· Disposable created and abandoned in the method that made it · ×11
Disposable created and abandoned in the method that made it src/Snippets/Docs/HttpClientIntegrations.cs:94— `flurlClient` is a `FlurlClient`, which implements `IDisposable`, and it is created here (line 94). Every use of it in `FlurlExample` reads a member through it — it is never returned, never stored, never handed to anything else, and never disposed — so this method both creates the value and is the last thing that can release it, and does not. Nothing announces the leak: the object holds its resource until finalization if its type has a finalizer, and until the process ends if it does not, so the cost accumulates once per CALL rather than showing up as a failure. Declare it with `using` (`using var flurlClient = …;`), which releases it at the end of the scope on every path including a throw.
Disposable created and abandoned in the method that made it src/Snippets/Docs/HttpClientIntegrations.cs:116— `restClient` is a `RestClient`, which implements `IDisposable`, and it is created here (line 116). Every use of it in `RestSharpExample` reads a member through it — it is never returned, never stored, never handed to anything else, and never disposed — so this method both creates the value and is the last thing that can release it, and does not. Nothing announces the leak: the object holds its resource until finalization if its type has a finalizer, and until the process ends if it does not, so the cost accumulates once per CALL rather than showing up as a failure. Declare it with `using` (`using var restClient = …;`), which releases it at the end of the scope on every path including a throw.
Disposable created and abandoned in the method that made it src/Snippets/Docs/Migration.Registry.cs:39— `registry` is a `ResiliencePipelineRegistry`, which implements `IDisposable`, and it is created here (line 39). Every use of it in `Registry_V8` reads a member through it — it is never returned, never stored, never handed to anything else, and never disposed — so this method both creates the value and is the last thing that can release it, and does not. Nothing announces the leak: the object holds its resource until finalization if its type has a finalizer, and until the process ends if it does not, so the cost accumulates once per CALL rather than showing up as a failure. Declare it with `using` (`using var registry = …;`), which releases it at the end of the scope on every path including a throw.
Disposable created and abandoned in the method that made it src/Snippets/Docs/ResiliencePipelineRegistry.cs:15— `registry` is a `ResiliencePipelineRegistry`, which implements `IDisposable`, and it is created here (line 15). Every use of it in `Usage` reads a member through it — it is never returned, never stored, never handed to anything else, and never disposed — so this method both creates the value and is the last thing that can release it, and does not. Nothing announces the leak: the object holds its resource until finalization if its type has a finalizer, and until the process ends if it does not, so the cost accumulates once per CALL rather than showing up as a failure. Declare it with `using` (`using var registry = …;`), which releases it at the end of the scope on every path including a throw.
Disposable created and abandoned in the method that made it src/Snippets/Docs/ResiliencePipelineRegistry.cs:58— `registry` is a `ResiliencePipelineRegistry`, which implements `IDisposable`, and it is created here (line 58). Every use of it in `UsageWithoutBuilders` reads a member through it — it is never returned, never stored, never handed to anything else, and never disposed — so this method both creates the value and is the last thing that can release it, and does not. Nothing announces the leak: the object holds its resource until finalization if its type has a finalizer, and until the process ends if it does not, so the cost accumulates once per CALL rather than showing up as a failure. Declare it with `using` (`using var registry = …;`), which releases it at the end of the scope on every path including a throw.
Disposable created and abandoned in the method that made it src/Snippets/Docs/ResiliencePipelineRegistry.cs:94— `registry` is a `ResiliencePipelineRegistry`, which implements `IDisposable`, and it is created here (line 94). Every use of it in `RegistryOptions` reads a member through it — it is never returned, never stored, never handed to anything else, and never disposed — so this method both creates the value and is the last thing that can release it, and does not. Nothing announces the leak: the object holds its resource until finalization if its type has a finalizer, and until the process ends if it does not, so the cost accumulates once per CALL rather than showing up as a failure. Declare it with `using` (`using var registry = …;`), which releases it at the end of the scope on every path including a throw.
Disposable created and abandoned in the method that made it src/Snippets/Docs/ResiliencePipelineRegistry.cs:105— `registry` is a `ResiliencePipelineRegistry`, which implements `IDisposable`, and it is created here (line 105). Every use of it in `DynamicReloads` reads a member through it — it is never returned, never stored, never handed to anything else, and never disposed — so this method both creates the value and is the last thing that can release it, and does not. Nothing announces the leak: the object holds its resource until finalization if its type has a finalizer, and until the process ends if it does not, so the cost accumulates once per CALL rather than showing up as a failure. Declare it with `using` (`using var registry = …;`), which releases it at the end of the scope on every path including a throw.
Disposable created and abandoned in the method that made it src/Snippets/Docs/ResiliencePipelineRegistry.cs:151— `registry` is a `ResiliencePipelineRegistry`, which implements `IDisposable`, and it is created here (line 151). Every use of it in `DynamicReloadsWithDispose` reads a member through it — it is never returned, never stored, never handed to anything else, and never disposed — so this method both creates the value and is the last thing that can release it, and does not. Nothing announces the leak: the object holds its resource until finalization if its type has a finalizer, and until the process ends if it does not, so the cost accumulates once per CALL rather than showing up as a failure. Declare it with `using` (`using var registry = …;`), which releases it at the end of the scope on every path including a throw.
Disposable created and abandoned in the method that made it src/Snippets/Docs/Retry.cs:271— `request` is a `HttpRequestMessage`, which implements `IDisposable`, and it is created here (line 271). Every use of it in `AntiPattern_BranchingByUrl` reads a member through it — it is never returned, never stored, never handed to anything else, and never disposed — so this method both creates the value and is the last thing that can release it, and does not. Nothing announces the leak: the object holds its resource until finalization if its type has a finalizer, and until the process ends if it does not, so the cost accumulates once per CALL rather than showing up as a failure. Declare it with `using` (`using var request = …;`), which releases it at the end of the scope on every path including a throw.
Disposable created and abandoned in the method that made it src/Snippets/Docs/Retry.cs:285— `request` is a `HttpRequestMessage`, which implements `IDisposable`, and it is created here (line 285). Every use of it in `Pattern_BranchingByUrl` reads a member through it — it is never returned, never stored, never handed to anything else, and never disposed — so this method both creates the value and is the last thing that can release it, and does not. Nothing announces the leak: the object holds its resource until finalization if its type has a finalizer, and until the process ends if it does not, so the cost accumulates once per CALL rather than showing up as a failure. Declare it with `using` (`using var request = …;`), which releases it at the end of the scope on every path including a throw.
Disposable created and abandoned in the method that made it src/Snippets/Docs/Timeout.cs:50— `httpClient` is a `HttpClient`, which implements `IDisposable`, and it is created here (line 50). Every use of it in `Usage` reads a member through it — it is never returned, never stored, never handed to anything else, and never disposed — so this method both creates the value and is the last thing that can release it, and does not. Nothing announces the leak: the object holds its resource until finalization if its type has a finalizer, and until the process ends if it does not, so the cost accumulates once per CALL rather than showing up as a failure. Declare it with `using` (`using var httpClient = …;`), which releases it at the end of the scope on every path including a throw.
Sync-over-async blocking — 8 blocking call(s) on async work (.Wait()/.GetAwaiter().GetResult()) — these waste a thread and can deadlock wherever a synchronization context is in play (a UI thread, or a caller that has one).
Sync-over-async blocking bench/Polly.Core.Benchmarks/Utils/Helper.CircuitBreaker.cs:24— `.GetAwaiter().GetResult()` blocks this thread until the async work completes — it wastes a thread-pool thread for as long as the work runs and can deadlock wherever a synchronization context is in play (a UI thread, or a caller that has one).
Sync-over-async blocking src/Polly.Core/CircuitBreaker/CircuitBreakerManualControl.cs:45— `.GetAwaiter().GetResult()` blocks this thread until the async work completes — it wastes a thread-pool thread for as long as the work runs and can deadlock wherever a synchronization context is in play (a UI thread, or a caller that has one).
Sync-over-async blocking src/Polly.Core/CircuitBreaker/Controller/CircuitStateController.cs:174— `.GetAwaiter().GetResult()` blocks this thread until the async work completes — it wastes a thread-pool thread for as long as the work runs and can deadlock wherever a synchronization context is in play (a UI thread, or a caller that has one).
Sync-over-async blocking src/Polly.Core/CircuitBreaker/Controller/CircuitStateController.cs:253— `.GetAwaiter().GetResult()` blocks this thread until the async work completes — it wastes a thread-pool thread for as long as the work runs and can deadlock wherever a synchronization context is in play (a UI thread, or a caller that has one).
Sync-over-async blocking src/Polly.Core/CircuitBreaker/Controller/CircuitStateController.cs:343— `.GetAwaiter().GetResult()` blocks this thread until the async work completes — it wastes a thread-pool thread for as long as the work runs and can deadlock wherever a synchronization context is in play (a UI thread, or a caller that has one).
Sync-over-async blocking src/Polly.Core/Registry/ResiliencePipelineRegistry.cs:219— `.GetAwaiter().GetResult()` blocks this thread until the async work completes — it wastes a thread-pool thread for as long as the work runs and can deadlock wherever a synchronization context is in play (a UI thread, or a caller that has one).
Sync-over-async blocking src/Polly.Core/Utils/TaskHelper.cs:20— `.GetAwaiter().GetResult()` blocks this thread until the async work completes — it wastes a thread-pool thread for as long as the work runs and can deadlock wherever a synchronization context is in play (a UI thread, or a caller that has one).
Sync-over-async blocking src/Polly.Core/Utils/TimeProviderExtensions.cs:39— `.GetAwaiter().GetResult()` blocks this thread until the async work completes — it wastes a thread-pool thread for as long as the work runs and can deadlock wherever a synchronization context is in play (a UI thread, or a caller that has one).
Sync-over-async (deadlock risk) bench/Polly.Core.Benchmarks/Utils/Helper.CircuitBreaker.cs:24— Blocking on a Task with `.Wait()`/`.GetAwaiter().GetResult()` can deadlock (and wastes a thread). Prefer awaiting it: make the caller `async` and `await` instead. Where a synchronous entry point must stay — a public sync API you cannot break, or a process entry point that must not return until the work finishes — the block belongs in ONE documented bridge and never inside code that is already async; and where it already is that bridge, give the wait a TIMEOUT so a hung task fails the call instead of hanging the process.
Sync-over-async (deadlock risk) src/Polly.Core/CircuitBreaker/CircuitBreakerManualControl.cs:45— Blocking on a Task with `.Wait()`/`.GetAwaiter().GetResult()` can deadlock (and wastes a thread). Prefer awaiting it: make the caller `async` and `await` instead. Where a synchronous entry point must stay — a public sync API you cannot break, or a process entry point that must not return until the work finishes — the block belongs in ONE documented bridge and never inside code that is already async; and where it already is that bridge, give the wait a TIMEOUT so a hung task fails the call instead of hanging the process.
Sync-over-async (deadlock risk) src/Polly.Core/CircuitBreaker/Controller/CircuitStateController.cs:343— Blocking on a Task with `.Wait()`/`.GetAwaiter().GetResult()` can deadlock (and wastes a thread). Prefer awaiting it: make the caller `async` and `await` instead. Where a synchronous entry point must stay — a public sync API you cannot break, or a process entry point that must not return until the work finishes — the block belongs in ONE documented bridge and never inside code that is already async; and where it already is that bridge, give the wait a TIMEOUT so a hung task fails the call instead of hanging the process.
Sync-over-async (deadlock risk) src/Polly.Core/Registry/ResiliencePipelineRegistry.cs:219— Blocking on a Task with `.Wait()`/`.GetAwaiter().GetResult()` wastes a thread and, if the task needs a context this one is holding, deadlocks. `Dispose()` returns void by contract, so it cannot simply `await`: signal the work to stop first (cancel its token, set its stop flag) so the wait is short, give the wait a TIMEOUT so a hung task cannot hang shutdown, and — where callers can use it — add an awaitable teardown (`DisposeAsync`/`StopAsync`) beside the synchronous one and let `Dispose()` remain the bounded fallback.
Sync-over-async (deadlock risk) src/Polly.Core/Utils/TaskHelper.cs:20— Blocking on a Task with `.Wait()`/`.GetAwaiter().GetResult()` can deadlock (and wastes a thread). Prefer awaiting it: make the caller `async` and `await` instead. Where a synchronous entry point must stay — a public sync API you cannot break, or a process entry point that must not return until the work finishes — the block belongs in ONE documented bridge and never inside code that is already async; and where it already is that bridge, give the wait a TIMEOUT so a hung task fails the call instead of hanging the process.
Dead code: PositiveInteger test/Polly.Core.Tests/Retry/RetryHelperTests.cs:332— Method PositiveInteger — Roslyn's SymbolFinder walked every project the solution loads, including Polly.Core.Tests(net10.0), and found no reference to it. That walk cannot see three kinds of caller, so check them before removing it: code outside the solution file (a solution is a curated list, not the repository — a sibling test tree with its own .sln is invisible), a call resolved by reflection or dependency injection from the symbol's name, and any project the workspace could not load. This is 'no caller found by this walk', not a verdict that the symbol is unused.
Dead code: PositiveTimeSpan test/Polly.Core.Tests/Retry/RetryHelperTests.cs:341— Method PositiveTimeSpan — Roslyn's SymbolFinder walked every project the solution loads, including Polly.Core.Tests(net10.0), and found no reference to it. That walk cannot see three kinds of caller, so check them before removing it: code outside the solution file (a solution is a curated list, not the repository — a sibling test tree with its own .sln is invisible), a call resolved by reflection or dependency injection from the symbol's name, and any project the workspace could not load. This is 'no caller found by this walk', not a verdict that the symbol is unused.
Dead code: OnTimeoutArguments test/Polly.Core.Tests/Timeout/TimeoutTestUtils.cs:7— Method OnTimeoutArguments — Roslyn's SymbolFinder walked every project the solution loads, including Polly.Core.Tests(net10.0), and found no reference to it. That walk cannot see three kinds of caller, so check them before removing it: code outside the solution file (a solution is a curated list, not the repository — a sibling test tree with its own .sln is invisible), a call resolved by reflection or dependency injection from the symbol's name, and any project the workspace could not load. This is 'no caller found by this walk', not a verdict that the symbol is unused.
Dead code: TimeoutGeneratorArguments test/Polly.Core.Tests/Timeout/TimeoutTestUtils.cs:10— Method TimeoutGeneratorArguments — Roslyn's SymbolFinder walked every project the solution loads, including Polly.Core.Tests(net10.0), and found no reference to it. That walk cannot see three kinds of caller, so check them before removing it: code outside the solution file (a solution is a curated list, not the repository — a sibling test tree with its own .sln is invisible), a call resolved by reflection or dependency injection from the symbol's name, and any project the workspace could not load. This is 'no caller found by this walk', not a verdict that the symbol is unused.
D10 · Test Quality· Fixed-sleep synchronisation · ×3
Fixed-sleep synchronisation: DisposeAsync_PendingOperations_Delayed test/Polly.Core.Tests/Utils/Pipeline/ExecutionTrackingComponentTests.cs:10— This test starts a background task and then orders itself against it with `Thread.Sleep(1)` — a fixed wait, not a signal that the work is done. Whether it passes depends on how loaded the machine is, which is why a test written this way is green on a developer's box and random in CI. Wait for the event itself instead: the process's own exit or output, a completion handle, or a condition polled to a timeout.
Fixed-sleep synchronisation: HasPendingExecutions_Ok test/Polly.Core.Tests/Utils/Pipeline/ExecutionTrackingComponentTests.cs:43— This test starts a background task and then orders itself against it with `Thread.Sleep(1)` — a fixed wait, not a signal that the work is done. Whether it passes depends on how loaded the machine is, which is why a test written this way is green on a developer's box and random in CI. Wait for the event itself instead: the process's own exit or output, a completion handle, or a condition polled to a timeout.
Fixed-sleep synchronisation: DisposeAsync_Timeout_Ok test/Polly.Core.Tests/Utils/Pipeline/ExecutionTrackingComponentTests.cs:69— This test starts a background task and then orders itself against it with `Thread.Sleep(1)` — a fixed wait, not a signal that the work is done. Whether it passes depends on how loaded the machine is, which is why a test written this way is green on a developer's box and random in CI. Wait for the event itself instead: the process's own exit or output, a completion handle, or a condition polled to a timeout.
Duplicated block (21 lines × 2) src/Polly/Utilities/Wrappers/ResiliencePipelineAsyncPolicy.TResult.cs:11— src/Polly/Utilities/Wrappers/ResiliencePipelineAsyncPolicy.TResult.cs:11-31 | src/Polly/Utilities/Wrappers/ResiliencePipelineAsyncPolicy.cs:43-63 — 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. Each matched range is the entire body of the declaration above it, so the region is already a complete unit: move that whole declaration to the shared location and have each site call it, rather than lifting the lines out of their bodies. Any `return` inside it is the body's own exit and keeps its meaning in the moved unit.
Duplicated block (21 lines × 2) src/Polly/Utilities/Wrappers/ResiliencePipelineSyncPolicy.TResult.cs:11— src/Polly/Utilities/Wrappers/ResiliencePipelineSyncPolicy.TResult.cs:11-31 | src/Polly/Utilities/Wrappers/ResiliencePipelineSyncPolicy.cs:35-55 — 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. Each matched range is the entire body of the declaration above it, so the region is already a complete unit: move that whole declaration to the shared location and have each site call it, rather than lifting the lines out of their bodies. Any `return` inside it is the body's own exit and keeps its meaning in the moved unit. Note first that the copies are not typed on the same thing: the declarations holding them bind `action` to `Func<Context, CancellationToken, TResult>` in one and `Action<Context, CancellationToken>` in another, and the duplicated lines use it. The extracted unit therefore needs a parameter type that fits BOTH — their common supertype where they have one, or a new abstraction over them where they do not — and settling that is the step that comes BEFORE the extraction above. Where the two types are deliberately unrelated, the duplication is the price of that separation and the honest resolution is to record the decision rather than to extract.
Duplicated block (21 lines × 2) bench/Polly.Benchmarks/Bulkhead.cs:11— bench/Polly.Benchmarks/Bulkhead.cs:11-31 | bench/Polly.Benchmarks/Timeout.cs:11-35 — 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. 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.
TooManyMethods: Policy src/Polly/Caching/AsyncCacheTResultSyntax.cs— TooManyMethods — 1573 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 260 methods, declared across 27 files: Caching/AsyncCacheTResultSyntax.cs (31), Caching/CacheTResultSyntax.cs (30), Timeout/AsyncTimeoutSyntax.cs (25), Timeout/AsyncTimeoutTResultSyntax.cs (25), +23 more file(s). The bar is 30 methods; this is 230 over it, 8.67× the bar. The type holds no instance state, so there is no shared data to group its members by. To reduce it, split it by area instead: give each cohesive family of members its own smaller type, so no one type has to be read whole to change one of them.
TooManyMethods: AsyncPolicy src/Polly/AsyncPolicy.ExecuteOverloads.cs— TooManyMethods — 202 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 48 methods, declared across 5 files: Polly/AsyncPolicy.ExecuteOverloads.cs (40), Polly/AsyncPolicy.ContextAndKeys.cs (2), Polly/AsyncPolicy.NonGenericImplementation.cs (2), Polly/AsyncPolicy.cs (2), +1 more file(s). The bar is 30 methods; this is 18 over it, 1.60× the bar. The type holds no instance state, so there is no shared data to group its members by. To reduce it, split it by area instead: give each cohesive family of members its own smaller type, so no one type has to be read whole to change one of them.
Change coupling: AsyncRetryTResultSyntax.cs ↔ RetrySyntax.cs src/Polly/Retry/AsyncRetryTResultSyntax.cs:1— `src/Polly/Retry/AsyncRetryTResultSyntax.cs` and `src/Polly/Retry/RetrySyntax.cs` change together 100% of the time (10 of the 10 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well — a repo-wide or module-wide sweep is evidence about the sweep rather than about any pair inside it and is left out of BOTH sides of this ratio, while a dependency bump, a formatter/rename sweep, or a commit whose edit to one of the two files was a tool directive such as //go:generate or whitespace only is left out of the shared count ONLY, so the two sides are not taken over identical commit sets). They sit in the same directory, and in this ecosystem sibling files there normally share one namespace/package — so a direct reference between them needs no import and this pass cannot see whether one exists. Read the pair before acting: if one file only DECLARES what the other consumes (a constants/types file beside its user), the co-change is definitional and the question is whether the split earns its keep; if they duplicate structure, extract the common part into a shared function or type they both call; if neither holds, the coupling is hidden and worth breaking. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 10 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are `4469d839` Add missing mutations (#2508); `ae5447b0` Update documentation on sleepDurationProvider (at that commit the files were still `src/Polly.Shared/Retry/RetryTResultSyntaxAsync.cs` and `src/Polly.Shared/Retry/RetrySyntax.cs`); `285957ce` Tidy PR471 overloads (at that commit the files were still `src/Polly.Shared/Retry/RetryTResultSyntaxAsync.cs` and `src/Polly.Shared/Retry/RetrySyntax.cs`) — run `git show` on any of them.
Change coupling: CircuitBreaker.cs ↔ Fallback.cs src/Snippets/Docs/CircuitBreaker.cs:1— `src/Snippets/Docs/CircuitBreaker.cs` and `src/Snippets/Docs/Fallback.cs` change together 64% of the time (7 of the 11 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well — a repo-wide or module-wide sweep is evidence about the sweep rather than about any pair inside it and is left out of BOTH sides of this ratio, while a dependency bump, a formatter/rename sweep, or a commit whose edit to one of the two files was a tool directive such as //go:generate or whitespace only is left out of the shared count ONLY, so the two sides are not taken over identical commit sets). They sit in the same directory, and in this ecosystem sibling files there normally share one namespace/package — so a direct reference between them needs no import and this pass cannot see whether one exists. Read the pair before acting: if one file only DECLARES what the other consumes (a constants/types file beside its user), the co-change is definitional and the question is whether the split earns its keep; if they duplicate structure, extract the common part into a shared function or type they both call; if neither holds, the coupling is hidden and worth breaking. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 7 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are `65983195` Simplify code (#2740); `708b02b0` Fix documentation for ExecuteOutcomeAsync (#2710); `2384117c` [Docs] Minor cleanups (#1768) — run `git show` on any of them.
Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) src/Polly.Core/CircuitBreaker/CircuitBreakerManualControl.cs:75— src/Polly.Core/CircuitBreaker/CircuitBreakerManualControl.cs:75-88 | src/Polly.Core/CircuitBreaker/CircuitBreakerManualControl.cs:105-118 — 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 `src/Polly.Core/CircuitBreaker/CircuitBreakerManualControl.cs:75` 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.
Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) src/Polly/AsyncPolicy.TResult.ExecuteOverloads.cs:255— src/Polly/AsyncPolicy.TResult.ExecuteOverloads.cs:255-268 | src/Polly/Policy.TResult.ExecuteOverloads.cs:163-176 — 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 `src/Polly/AsyncPolicy.TResult.ExecuteOverloads.cs:255` 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.
Prerelease dependency: StyleCop.Analyzers — StyleCop.Analyzers resolves to 1.2.0-beta.556, a prerelease build. Prerelease packages carry no support policy, may change breaking between previews and can be unlisted — pin a stable release before shipping, or record the reason this preview is required.
D17 · Explicit Debt· BarePragmaDisable repeated 13 times in 9 files · ×1
BarePragmaDisable repeated 13 times in 9 files src/Polly.Core/CircuitBreaker/CircuitBreakerResilienceStrategy.cs:42— The identical BarePragmaDisable (`#pragma warning disable CA1031`) appears 13 times in 9 files — one decision applied repeatedly (e.g. the same rule silenced on every overload of a fluent API), not 13 independent debts. Decide it once — at the type or project level, or by fixing the underlying pattern — rather than occurrence-by-occurrence. (Every occurrence still counts toward the score and metrics.)
D17 · Explicit Debt· BarePragmaDisable repeated 25 times in 5 files · ×1
BarePragmaDisable repeated 25 times in 5 files src/Polly/AsyncPolicy.GenericImplementation.cs:5— The identical BarePragmaDisable (`#pragma warning disable CA1068`) appears 25 times in 5 files — one decision applied repeatedly (e.g. the same rule silenced on every overload of a fluent API), not 25 independent debts. Decide it once — at the type or project level, or by fixing the underlying pattern — rather than occurrence-by-occurrence. (Every occurrence still counts toward the score and metrics.)
D17 · Explicit Debt· BarePragmaDisable repeated 12 times in 2 files · ×1
BarePragmaDisable repeated 12 times in 2 files src/Polly/Timeout/TimeoutSyntax.cs:102— The identical BarePragmaDisable (`#pragma warning disable S3872`) appears 12 times in 2 files — one decision applied repeatedly (e.g. the same rule silenced on every overload of a fluent API), not 12 independent debts. Decide it once — at the type or project level, or by fixing the underlying pattern — rather than occurrence-by-occurrence. (Every occurrence still counts toward the score and metrics.)
BarePragmaDisable repeated across 12 files test/Polly.Core.Tests/CircuitBreaker/CircuitBreakerResiliencePipelineBuilderTests.cs:10— The identical BarePragmaDisable (`#pragma warning disable IDE0028`) appears in 12 files (12 occurrences) — a single repo-wide policy (e.g. a Directory.Build.props decision or an idiomatic suppression), not 12 independent debts. Decide it once centrally rather than file-by-file. (Every occurrence still counts toward the score and metrics.)
RetryResilienceStrategy.ExecuteCore (cognitive 25) src/Polly.Core/Retry/RetryResilienceStrategy.cs:46— RetryResilienceStrategy.ExecuteCore has cognitive complexity 25 (threshold 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.
AsyncRetryEngine.ImplementationAsync (cognitive 21) src/Polly/Retry/AsyncRetryEngine.cs:6— AsyncRetryEngine.ImplementationAsync has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 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.
RetryEngine.Implementation (cognitive 21) src/Polly/Retry/RetryEngine.cs:6— RetryEngine.Implementation has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 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.
Duplicated block (26 lines × 2) src/Polly/Retry/AsyncRetryEngine.cs:49— src/Polly/Retry/AsyncRetryEngine.cs:49-74 | src/Polly/Retry/RetryEngine.cs:48-73 — 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 `src/Polly/Retry/AsyncRetryEngine.cs:49` 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 (20 lines × 2) src/Polly/CircuitBreaker/AsyncCircuitBreakerEngine.cs:23— src/Polly/CircuitBreaker/AsyncCircuitBreakerEngine.cs:23-42 | src/Polly/CircuitBreaker/CircuitBreakerEngine.cs:24-43 — 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 `src/Polly/CircuitBreaker/AsyncCircuitBreakerEngine.cs:23` 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.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) src/Polly/Caching/AsyncCachePolicy.cs:10— src/Polly/Caching/AsyncCachePolicy.cs:10-17 | src/Polly/Caching/CachePolicy.cs:10-17 — 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 (7 lines × 3) src/Polly/Caching/AsyncCachePolicy.cs:11— src/Polly/Caching/AsyncCachePolicy.cs:11-17 | src/Polly/Caching/AsyncCachePolicy.cs:92-98 | src/Polly/Caching/CachePolicy.cs:11-17 — there are 3 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 3 sites; resolving a subset leaves the remainder to drift apart.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) src/Polly.Core/Simmy/ChaosStrategy.TResult.cs:22— src/Polly.Core/Simmy/ChaosStrategy.TResult.cs:22-28 | src/Polly.Core/Simmy/ChaosStrategy.cs:18-24 — 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. Each matched range is the entire body of the declaration above it, so the region is already a complete unit: move that whole declaration to the shared location and have each site call it, rather than lifting the lines out of their bodies. Any `return` inside it is the body's own exit and keeps its meaning in the moved unit.
Duplicated block (18 lines × 2) src/Polly/Wrap/AsyncPolicyWrap.ContextAndKeys.cs:27— src/Polly/Wrap/AsyncPolicyWrap.ContextAndKeys.cs:27-44 | src/Polly/Wrap/PolicyWrap.ContextAndKeys.cs:27-44 — before extracting anything, compare `src/Polly/Wrap/AsyncPolicyWrap.ContextAndKeys.cs` and `src/Polly/Wrap/PolicyWrap.ContextAndKeys.cs` as WHOLE FILES: 88% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 1 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. 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 (11 lines × 2) src/Polly/AsyncPolicy.ExecuteOverloads.cs:491— src/Polly/AsyncPolicy.ExecuteOverloads.cs:491-501 | src/Polly/AsyncPolicy.TResult.ExecuteOverloads.cs:233-243 — before extracting anything, compare `src/Polly/AsyncPolicy.ExecuteOverloads.cs` and `src/Polly/AsyncPolicy.TResult.ExecuteOverloads.cs` as WHOLE FILES: 84% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 1 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. 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. Each matched range is the entire body of the declaration above it, so the region is already a complete unit: move that whole declaration to the shared location and have each site call it, rather than lifting the lines out of their bodies. Any `return` inside it is the body's own exit and keeps its meaning in the moved unit. Note first that the copies are not typed on the same thing: the declarations holding them bind `action` to `Func<Context, CancellationToken, Task>` in one and `Func<Context, CancellationToken, Task<TResult>>` in another, and the duplicated lines use it. The extracted unit therefore needs a parameter type that fits BOTH — their common supertype where they have one, or a new abstraction over them where they do not — and settling that is the step that comes BEFORE the extraction above. Where the two types are deliberately unrelated, the duplication is the price of that separation and the honest resolution is to record the decision rather than to extract.
Duplicated block (16 lines × 2) src/Polly/Policy.ExecuteOverloads.cs:150— src/Polly/Policy.ExecuteOverloads.cs:150-165 | src/Polly/Policy.TResult.ExecuteOverloads.cs:70-85 — before extracting anything, compare `src/Polly/Policy.ExecuteOverloads.cs` and `src/Polly/Policy.TResult.ExecuteOverloads.cs` as WHOLE FILES: 86% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 1 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. 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. Each matched range is the entire body of the declaration above it, so the region is already a complete unit: move that whole declaration to the shared location and have each site call it, rather than lifting the lines out of their bodies. Any `return` inside it is the body's own exit and keeps its meaning in the moved unit. Note first that the copies are not typed on the same thing: the declarations holding them bind `action` to `Action<Context, CancellationToken>` in one and `Func<Context, CancellationToken, TResult>` in another, and the duplicated lines use it. The extracted unit therefore needs a parameter type that fits BOTH — their common supertype where they have one, or a new abstraction over them where they do not — and settling that is the step that comes BEFORE the extraction above. Where the two types are deliberately unrelated, the duplication is the price of that separation and the honest resolution is to record the decision rather than to extract.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) src/Snippets/Docs/Migration.Wrap.cs:22— src/Snippets/Docs/Migration.Wrap.cs:22-40 | src/Snippets/Docs/ResiliencePipelines.cs:87-96 — 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 (13 lines × 5) bench/Polly.Benchmarks/Bulkhead.cs:11— bench/Polly.Benchmarks/Bulkhead.cs:11-31 | bench/Polly.Benchmarks/CircuitBreaker.cs:11-23 | bench/Polly.Benchmarks/NoOp.cs:11-23 | bench/Polly.Benchmarks/PolicyWrap.cs:20-32 | bench/Polly.Benchmarks/Timeout.cs:11-35 — 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 5 call sites, so a change lands once. 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.
Off the main sequence: Polly.Core(net8.0) src/Polly.Core/Polly.Core.csproj:1— Polly.Core(net8.0): abstractness 0.13, instability 0.00, distance 0.88 — zone of pain — concrete and depended on by 3 project(s), so it's rigid to change.
Hollow method — returns a constant without doing the work src/Polly/Timeout/AsyncTimeoutTResultSyntax.cs:423— `EmptyHandlerOfT` looks like it should compute a result but its body just returns a constant — a placeholder return that was never filled in.
P12 · CI test-gate honesty· Coverage collected but not gated · ×1
Coverage collected but not gated — CI collects a coverage report but no step enforces a minimum — coverage could halve and CI stays green. Add a step that fails the build when coverage drops below a floor (your coverage tool's minimum-threshold flag, or a coverage-gate action) so the number guards something. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: this repository's CI files AND its coverage configuration — the well-known coverage and test-runner config files, read at the repository root and inside workspace package directories two levels down, so a floor declared beside the tests rather than in the pipeline is credited — matched against the threshold settings this check knows by name. A floor set in your coverage service's web UI rather than in a committed file, or under a setting whose name is not one of those, is not seen here.
Sync-over-async (deadlock risk) through `.Wait(…)` src/Polly/Timeout/TimeoutEngine.cs:48— `.Wait(…)` blocks this thread until the task completes or the bound expires — sync-over-async: it can deadlock under a synchronization context and it parks a thread while it waits. `await` the task (with `.WaitAsync(timeout, token)` where the bound matters).
Swallowed exception (empty catch) src/Polly.Core/Utils/DisposeHelper.cs:35— An empty catch block silently discards the error — failures vanish with no log and no rethrow. Log it, handle it, or don't catch it.
Duplicated predicate src/Polly/Policy.HandleSyntax.cs:64— `(!Equals(r, default(TResult)) && r.Equals(result)) || (Equals(r, default(TResult)) && Equals(result, default(TResult)))` appears character-identically in 2 files — src/Polly/Policy.HandleSyntax.cs, src/Polly/PolicyBuilder.OrSyntax.cs. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
Duplicated predicate src/Polly/Timeout/AsyncTimeoutEngine.cs:46— `ex is OperationCanceledException && timeoutCancellationTokenSource.IsCancellationRequested` appears character-identically in 2 files — src/Polly/Timeout/AsyncTimeoutEngine.cs, src/Polly/Timeout/TimeoutEngine.cs. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
Duplicated predicate src/Polly/Policy.HandleSyntax.cs:45— `ex is TException texception && exceptionPredicate(texception)` appears character-identically in 2 files — src/Polly/Policy.HandleSyntax.cs, src/Polly/PolicyBuilder.OrSyntax.cs. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
Duplicated predicate src/Polly/Policy.HandleSyntax.cs:24— `exception is TException texception && exceptionPredicate(texception)` appears character-identically in 2 files — src/Polly/Policy.HandleSyntax.cs, src/Polly/PolicyBuilder.OrSyntax.cs. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
Duplicated predicate src/Polly/Retry/AsyncRetryEngine.cs:40— `tryCount < permittedRetryCount && (sleepDurationsEnumerator == null || sleepDurationsEnumerator.MoveNext())` appears character-identically in 2 files — src/Polly/Retry/AsyncRetryEngine.cs, src/Polly/Retry/RetryEngine.cs. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
Fat interface: IAsyncPolicy (37 members) src/Polly/IAsyncPolicy.cs:6— `IAsyncPolicy` declares 37 members under just 3 distinct name(s): `WithPolicyKey`, `ExecuteAsync`, `ExecuteAsync`, `ExecuteAsync`, `ExecuteAsync`, `ExecuteAsync`, `ExecuteAsync`, `ExecuteAsync`, `ExecuteAsync`, `ExecuteAsync`, `ExecuteAsync`, `ExecuteAsync`, `ExecuteAsync`, `ExecuteAsync`, `ExecuteAsync`, `ExecuteAsync`, `ExecuteAsync`, `ExecuteAsync`, `ExecuteAsync`, `ExecuteAndCaptureAsync`, `ExecuteAndCaptureAsync`, `ExecuteAndCaptureAsync`, `ExecuteAndCaptureAsync`, `ExecuteAndCaptureAsync`, `ExecuteAndCaptureAsync`, `ExecuteAndCaptureAsync`, `ExecuteAndCaptureAsync`, `ExecuteAndCaptureAsync`, `ExecuteAndCaptureAsync`, `ExecuteAndCaptureAsync`, `ExecuteAndCaptureAsync`, `ExecuteAndCaptureAsync`, `ExecuteAndCaptureAsync`, `ExecuteAndCaptureAsync`, `ExecuteAndCaptureAsync`, `ExecuteAndCaptureAsync`, `ExecuteAndCaptureAsync`. Counted as the author wrote them — a property is ONE member and its get/set accessors are not counted separately, and an event counts once. That is an OVERLOAD SET, not 37 separate responsibilities: a caller binds to 3 operation(s) and uses the overload it selected, so the Interface-Segregation harm does NOT apply on the caller's side and splitting this into role-interfaces would scatter one operation without relieving anything. The burden that does remain is the IMPLEMENTER's — all 37 signatures must be written and kept in step. Reduce it by collapsing overloads (optional or default parameters, or an options object) rather than by segregating the interface.
Fat interface: IAsyncPolicy<TResult> (19 members) src/Polly/IAsyncPolicy.TResult.cs:7— `IAsyncPolicy<TResult>` declares 19 members under just 3 distinct name(s): `WithPolicyKey`, `ExecuteAsync`, `ExecuteAsync`, `ExecuteAsync`, `ExecuteAsync`, `ExecuteAsync`, `ExecuteAsync`, `ExecuteAsync`, `ExecuteAsync`, `ExecuteAsync`, `ExecuteAndCaptureAsync`, `ExecuteAndCaptureAsync`, `ExecuteAndCaptureAsync`, `ExecuteAndCaptureAsync`, `ExecuteAndCaptureAsync`, `ExecuteAndCaptureAsync`, `ExecuteAndCaptureAsync`, `ExecuteAndCaptureAsync`, `ExecuteAndCaptureAsync`. Counted as the author wrote them — a property is ONE member and its get/set accessors are not counted separately, and an event counts once. That is an OVERLOAD SET, not 19 separate responsibilities: a caller binds to 3 operation(s) and uses the overload it selected, so the Interface-Segregation harm does NOT apply on the caller's side and splitting this into role-interfaces would scatter one operation without relieving anything. The burden that does remain is the IMPLEMENTER's — all 19 signatures must be written and kept in step. Reduce it by collapsing overloads (optional or default parameters, or an options object) rather than by segregating the interface.
Fat interface: ISyncPolicy (25 members) src/Polly/ISyncPolicy.cs:6— `ISyncPolicy` declares 25 members under just 3 distinct name(s): `WithPolicyKey`, `Execute`, `Execute`, `Execute`, `Execute`, `Execute`, `Execute`, `Execute`, `Execute`, `Execute`, `Execute`, `Execute`, `Execute`, `ExecuteAndCapture`, `ExecuteAndCapture`, `ExecuteAndCapture`, `ExecuteAndCapture`, `ExecuteAndCapture`, `ExecuteAndCapture`, `ExecuteAndCapture`, `ExecuteAndCapture`, `ExecuteAndCapture`, `ExecuteAndCapture`, `ExecuteAndCapture`, `ExecuteAndCapture`. Counted as the author wrote them — a property is ONE member and its get/set accessors are not counted separately, and an event counts once. That is an OVERLOAD SET, not 25 separate responsibilities: a caller binds to 3 operation(s) and uses the overload it selected, so the Interface-Segregation harm does NOT apply on the caller's side and splitting this into role-interfaces would scatter one operation without relieving anything. The burden that does remain is the IMPLEMENTER's — all 25 signatures must be written and kept in step. Reduce it by collapsing overloads (optional or default parameters, or an options object) rather than by segregating the interface.
P2 · Observability· Console output used as the logging channel · ×3
Console output used as the logging channel src/Snippets/Docs/Hedging.cs:31— `src/Snippets/Docs/Hedging.cs` reports through `Console.Write…` at line 31 although other files in its project log through a logger. Console lines carry no level, category or structured properties and never reach the log pipeline or its exporters.
Console output used as the logging channel src/Snippets/Docs/Hedging.cs:44— `src/Snippets/Docs/Hedging.cs` reports through `Console.Write…` at line 44 although other files in its project log through a logger. Console lines carry no level, category or structured properties and never reach the log pipeline or its exporters.
Console output used as the logging channel src/Snippets/Docs/Hedging.cs:92— `src/Snippets/Docs/Hedging.cs` reports through `Console.Write…` at line 92 although other files in its project log through a logger. Console lines carry no level, category or structured properties and never reach the log pipeline or its exporters.
Mock-dominated test: Dispose_EnsureStrategyDisposed test/Polly.Core.Tests/Utils/Pipeline/BridgePipelineComponentTests.cs:68— This test sets up 3 test doubles (for example `Substitute.For<ResilienceStrategy, IDisposable>()`) against 0 real object(s) of its own, and its only verification is 2 check(s) that the doubles were called. It pins how the code is wired, not what it does: it passes with a wrong result and fails when a call is harmlessly reordered or merged. Assert the outcome instead (the value returned, the state left behind), build collaborators and value objects for real or with a small hand-written fake, and keep doubles for the boundaries the test cannot own — the network, the clock, the file system.
Mock-dominated test: Dispose_Generic_EnsureStrategyDisposed test/Polly.Core.Tests/Utils/Pipeline/BridgePipelineComponentTests.cs:80— This test sets up 3 test doubles (for example `Substitute.For<ResilienceStrategy<string>, IDisposable>()`) against 0 real object(s) of its own, and its only verification is 2 check(s) that the doubles were called. It pins how the code is wired, not what it does: it passes with a wrong result and fails when a call is harmlessly reordered or merged. Assert the outcome instead (the value returned, the state left behind), build collaborators and value objects for real or with a small hand-written fake, and keep doubles for the boundaries the test cannot own — the network, the clock, the file system.
Pass-through layer src/Polly.Core/ResiliencePipelineT.Async.cs:5— ResiliencePipeline: all 5 public methods forward their arguments unchanged to Pipeline and add no behaviour — an extra hop (and usually an extra interface) to trace through. Call Pipeline directly, or give the layer a job.
Pass-through layer src/Polly.Core/ResiliencePipelineT.Sync.cs:5— ResiliencePipeline: all 6 public methods forward their arguments unchanged to Pipeline and add no behaviour — an extra hop (and usually an extra interface) to trace through. Call Pipeline directly, or give the layer a job.
Off-boarding risk: anonymized user #1 — If anonymized user #1 becomes unavailable, 1 significant file(s) lose their only recent owner: src/Polly.Core/Retry/RetryHelper.cs. Pair on, review, or document these before any departure.
D16 · Bus Factor· Further sole-owners (lower concentration) · ×1
Further sole-owners (lower concentration) — 1 other contributor(s) are each the sole owner of a small amount of code below the off-boarding threshold — folded into the bus-factor score and metrics (4 single-owned of 151 analysed files in total, counted over production source files of roughly 2,400 bytes or more, excluding vendored, generated and example/demo trees and test files identified by path convention, largest first; 151 of the 416 production source files in this repository met that bar). They are anonymized user #2 (1 file(s)) — spread or document their files in the same way, at lower priority than the named off-boarding risks above. The files folded here: src/Polly.Core/Simmy/Fault/FaultGenerator.cs.
Thin analysable surface across projects: Intro.VisualBasic samples/Intro.VisualBasic/Intro.VisualBasic.vbproj— 1 project(s) carry only a thin slice of real code; `Intro.VisualBasic` has 33 significant line(s). The mean analysable-surface weight is 99 %; this project lowers Solution Shape by about 0.12 point(s). Consolidate it or grow it into a substantial, well-scoped assembly.
D26 · Project Cohesion· Projects may be oversized for their cohesion · ×1
Projects may be oversized for their cohesion — 2 of 22 project(s) overshoot their size bounds, lowering Project Cohesion to 8.4/10. The most over is `Polly(net6.0)` (19599 LoC, 132 public types across 12 namespaces). Review these for cohesion — draw the boundary inside the assembly first (group each responsibility into its own namespace/folder and keep the cross-boundary members internal), since splitting a published assembly moves types between packages and breaks consumers.
Scattered collaborators — 82 % of calls cross a namespace and only 52 % of collaborators are co-located — group each feature's code into a vertical slice so a call's collaborators sit together.
Blanket warning suppression src/Shared/DebuggerDisableUserUnhandledExceptionsAttribute.cs:1— A `#pragma warning disable` with no error codes silences every warning for the rest of the file — hidden debt. Suppress specific codes with a justification instead.
Disabled test test/Polly.RateLimiting.Tests/RateLimiterResiliencePipelineBuilderExtensionsTests.cs:47— A test is skipped ("https://github.com/stryker-mutator/stryker-net/issues/2144") — coverage that looks present but never runs in any gate. If it's an opt-in suite, document how it runs; otherwise re-enable or delete it.
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.
README/code drift docs/chaos/index.md:134— docs/chaos/index.md names the project `Polly.Contrib.Simmy`, but no project, folder or namespace of that name exists. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong.
P12 · CI test-gate honesty· Sleep-based test synchronization · ×1
Sleep-based test synchronization — 15 Task.Delay/Thread.Sleep call(s) in test code synchronize with background work by sleeping — a known flakiness precursor on slow runners. Prefer polling with a deadline or completion signals.
Logging is not universal — Only 4/6 service-like projects use logging (pure contract/DTO projects are excluded — they have nothing to log). Of those 6, 2 ship a process this repository operates; the rest are libraries their consumer hosts, where the logging decision belongs to the host.
X2 · Cancellation propagation· Not all async methods take a CancellationToken · ×1
Not all async methods take a CancellationToken — Only 39/159 async methods accept a CancellationToken, so in-flight work can't be stopped early when the caller gives up — whatever ends it in your host (shutdown signal, timeout, abandoned request, user cancel). Thread a token through the call chain and honour it at each await and loop; where a method genuinely cannot be interrupted, omitting it is a deliberate choice — judge against your hosting model.
Null-forgiving operator (`!`) suppressions reduce the NRT score — ~1.1 `!` suppressions per 1k syntax nodes — 86 suppression(s) across the 75109 syntax node(s) in code where nullable warnings are ENABLED, which is the only code a `!` can suppress anything in (a `!` under `#nullable disable` is inert and is not counted, and its file's nodes are not in the denominator). Each one tells the compiler to trust you about null, suppressing the very safety NRTs provide.
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.
trivy: not applicable — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Docker Compose, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation, ARM, Bicep, Ansible); nothing to scan.
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. semgrep could not parse 9 file(s) — `bench/Polly.Benchmarks/Cache.cs`, `cake.cs`, `src/Polly.Core/CircuitBreaker/CircuitBreakerManualControl.cs`, `src/Polly.Core/Registry/RegistryPipelineComponentBuilder.cs`, `src/Polly.Core/ResilienceContext.cs`, … (+4 more) — so the PII/GDPR sweep did not cover the unparsed regions of them; rows reported elsewhere in those files are real.
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.
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.
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.
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 01a16601-78bd-7924-b54c-4982edcfe2d8 · every finding is also locatable in findings.md, and the complete scoring record (with exit codes + durations) in sidecar.json.
Issues: 125 · Warnings: 160 · Recommendations: 30 · Info: 27 — Appendix A · all findings · full markdown report.
Generated by Watchdog — deterministic code-health analysis. 22-10-2026 @ 23:45 UTC.
Downloadable artifacts
Machine-readable and reproducible from this commit + frozen rubric — drop them straight into a contract appendix, a CRA dossier, or a downstream SCA / VEX tool.