Public report — Bulk-Crap-Uninstaller, published 5 Aug 2026.
Concrete security findings (CVE IDs, secret matches, dependency versions) are hidden in this version;
ask the repo owner for the full report.
178findings with an exact file:lineof 202 — the remainder are repo-wide signals (a dimension-level measurement, not a single line); open any file:line and verify
50/97dimensions across the health lenses94731 LoC · 18 projects — wide & deep
Executive summary
Read through the Production lens — the standard calibration. *Green* means good enough to run in production. The score is absolute and comparable across repos.
BCUninstaller/Bulk-Crap-Uninstaller is sound in substance but carries real gaps (52%). It is not in crisis, but the issues below raise the cost of changing it — friction its consumers ultimately inherit.
It is strongest in Architecture (95%) — the structure is clean and changes stay contained.
The area that most needs attention is Readiness (47%) — releases are harder to depend on — versioning, release notes and dependency hygiene are thin, so consumers can't easily tell what changed or trust an upgrade. Security (49%) is the next concern — exposure to security and compliance incidents is elevated.
Leadership focus, highest impact first: SAST step to CI running what this repository's stack ships (Security & performance tooling); Nothing pauses a release for a human (Deployment & Rollback); Keep a changelog (e.g. Keep-a-Changelog) recording what shipped… (Release Hygiene).
For scale: Medium (~94,731 production lines); rebuilding it from scratch would take roughly ~1.3 person-years (~1–3 engineers). Approximate, ±~30%.
It builds on a genuinely strong Architecture foundation (95%); the priorities above are the highest-leverage way to bring the rest up to that level.
How the score is built — each lens's share of the headlineWidth is the lens's weight in the worst-heaviest fold (the weakest area pulls hardest); colour is that lens's own band. A lens fixes the score in proportion to its width.
A full-fidelity diff against the previous run's complete recorded findings — line-move tolerant: a finding that only shifted line counts as unchanged, only genuinely new titles/files surface here.
This codebase represents roughly ~1.3 person-years of build effort (about ~€190,000 to rebuild). Its weakest lens is Readiness at 47% — the part of that asset most exposed by the findings below.
How we model this: boilerplate at a scaffolding rate + logic × domain Standard (×1.1) — desktop/game × a 0.7× quality factor, at €60–95/h; indicative, ±~30%. Indicative only — most sensitive to the hourly rate and the domain tier (both tunable in config).
Top priorities
The highest-leverage moves; the full ranked list is in the Roadmap below.
1
Add a SAST step to CI running what this repository's stack ships: CodeQL's csharp pack (it analyses VB.NET too), or a security analyzer package — or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language — so a security regression fails the build instead of landing.
Nothing pauses a release for a human: publish as a draft release (or gate the release job on a protected tag/manual dispatch) so a bad build can be stopped before users can download it.
Value concentrated against a weak lens · Medium · Value at risk
This is a Medium asset (~1.3 person-years to rebuild), and its weakest lens is Readiness at 47%. The operational and business risk on an asset this size concentrates there — that's where remediation buys the most protection.
→ Direct remediation budget at Readiness first — highest risk-reduction per euro on an asset this size.
Highest-leverage move · Medium · Leverage
Of everything flagged, the best return on effort is: Add a SAST step to CI running what this repository's stack ships: CodeQL's csharp pack (it analyses VB.NET too), or a security analyzer package — or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language — so a security regression fails the build instead of landing. The rest can wait behind it.
Evidence: priority ranking: top of 5 ranked by impact/effort
→ Add a SAST step to CI running what this repository's stack ships: CodeQL's csharp pack (it analyses VB.NET too), or a security analyzer package — or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language — so a security regression fails the build instead of landing.
Architecture — module dependency graph
Project dependencies, layered top-to-bottom; arrows show direction. Any dashed red edge points upward or sideways — a layering smell or cycle. A clean layered graph has none.
Architecture — module dependency matrix
91 modules, 186 dependencies — 2 dependency cycles, shown as the red cell(s) above the diagonal. Rows and columns are the same modules, ordered so that a module only depends on ones above it. A cell means the row depends on the column, and its number is how many type pairs create that dependency. Read one thing: is anything above the diagonal? A mark there is a dependency cycle. (A cycle is all this shows — an unusual but cycle-free dependency sits below the diagonal like any other.)
At a glance — Code Health · 55% · Adequate · gated by X5
Findings mapped to OWASP categories; the specific CVEs/secrets are in the Security dimension cards below and findings.md (redacted only on the public version of this report).
OWASP category
Findings
Severity
A03:2021 — Injection
6
High / Critical
A04:2021 — Insecure Design
2
High / Critical
Roadmap
First, integrate a static application security testing step into the CI pipeline to automatically fail the build on security regressions. Next, implement a draft release or approval gate to prevent bad builds from reaching users, while maintaining a clear changelog for each release. Additionally, extend structured logging across all projects and provide a diagnostics seam for library consumers. Finally, strengthen data protection by vaulting keys and encrypting sensitive columns to eliminate security gaps.
Ranked by impact ÷ effort. "Helps" is the estimated gain on the 0–100 health score.
Do this
Helps
Effort
Dimension
Add a SAST step to CI running what this repository's stack ships: CodeQL's csharp pack (it analyses VB.NET too), or a security analyzer package — or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language — so a security regression fails the build instead of landing.
Nothing pauses a release for a human: publish as a draft release (or gate the release job on a protected tag/manual dispatch) so a bad build can be stopped before users can download it.
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.
Complete the data-lifecycle story: an expiry limit (a declared maximum age for the stored data — a retention-age setting, or a store-level TTL where your storage offers one), a scheduled purge/cleanup job that enforces it, and a documented retention period covering the personal data.
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. 47 of 50 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); 3 documentation/naming judgement(s) are LLM-assisted and labelled advisory. Overall confidence is 0.6 — 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 — 50 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, 178 of 202 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.
D24 Comment Value — LLM provider failed — The model provider returned an unusable result, so this LLM-assisted dimension fell back to a measurement gap (confidence 0) rather than a penalty. Re-run with a reachable provider to score it.
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 (jscpd) — 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.
D20 ADR Quality: ADR quality is an LLM read of the decision records present — it cannot know about decisions made and never recorded, and its verdict is sampled and advisory.
D21 Naming Consistency: Naming quality is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it assesses clarity/consistency of the names it sees, not domain-correctness, and is advisory.
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").
D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR): PII/GDPR signals are heuristic pattern matches in code — they flag likely handling concerns, not legal compliance, and cannot trace where data actually flows at runtime.
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.
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.
C4 Data Retention: This control is scored from in-repo evidence only — its real-world effectiveness, exercised only at runtime, is outside a static scan.
C5 Data-Subject Rights: This control is scored from in-repo evidence only — absence of evidence here means the scan found no in-repo trace, not that the control does not exist.
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 (4): D19, D20, D21, M4 (model: Local LLM). For these, a model reads a bounded sample and sets the numeric score (documentation, ADR quality, naming, comment value, onboarding) — D25 sets the ADR-conformance fraction over sampled code, D22 judges API accuracy over a sample. These 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.
22 method(s) exceeded the cyclomatic complexity threshold of 15; the worst was BulkUninstallEntry.UninstallThread at 51. A further 3 method(s) were over the threshold but excluded as flat dispatchers (a long switch/match over independent cases: many branches, almost no nesting), the largest being Hresult.ConvertHresultToDetails at 259 — they are counted neither in the figure above nor in this dimension's score.
+ 17 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.
What to do
Resolve the 1 BulkUninstallEntry.UninstallThread (cyclomatic 51) finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with BulkUninstallEntry.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 Sift4.CommonDistance (cyclomatic 27) finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with Sift4.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 ApplicationEntryTools.AreEntriesRelated (cyclomatic 25) finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with ApplicationEntryTools.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Enforce Cyclomatic Complexity in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Detailed fixes: d1_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
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.
+ 61 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.
What to do
Resolve the 1 BulkUninstallEntry.UninstallThread (cognitive 81) finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with BulkUninstallEntry.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 ComScanner.FindJunk (cognitive 75) finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with ComScanner.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 Sift4.CommonDistance (cognitive 60) finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with Sift4.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
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 Classes9.9 / 10Exemplary✓ 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.
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.
+ 4 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.
✓ On the Gold path — maintain.
Detailed fixes: d4_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D5 · Coupling7.8 / 10Strong✓ 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: PortableSettingsProvider · ×5
What to do
Resolve the 5 Off the main sequence finding(s) in Coupling. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (5 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.
Detailed fixes: d6_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
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.
53 test methods: 53 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 / 10Exemplary✓ 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Detailed fixes: d15_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D16 · Bus Factor8.3 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified
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.
37 source file(s) have their living knowledge concentrated in one author (≥90% of recent, decayed contribution). The largest is source/ObjectListView/ObjectListView.cs.
Off-boarding risk: anonymized user #1 · ×3
What to do
Resolve the 3 Off-boarding risk finding(s) in Bus Factor. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 recommendation-level).
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.
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.
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.
The Bulk Crap Uninstaller project has strong documentation: one README and a full HTML manual (BCU_manual.html) covering every listed module with a table of contents. The README is concise but mentions the GitHub maintainers issue tracker and links to release, license, and an online help page; it also lists download hosts and points readers toward the manual for questions. The manual itself is a complete reference that covers installation, main window layout, uninstallation variants, concurrent/unstoppable uninstallation, advanced filtering, custom scripts, command-line options, and more, with each section named in its outline. Coverage across modules is high (e.g., 84% XML-doc coverage for ObjectListView), but the README alone provides only a thin overview of what the project does.
Improve Documentation Quality — currently 8.0/10. — The Bulk Crap Uninstaller project has strong documentation: one README and a full HTML manual (BCU_manual.html) covering every listed module with a table of contents. The README is concise but mentions the GitHub maintainers issue tracker and links to release, license, and an online help page; it also lists download hosts and points readers toward the manual for questions. The manual itself is a complete reference that covers installation, main window layout, uninstallation variants, concurrent/unstoppable uninstallation, advanced filtering, custom scripts, command-line options, and more, with each section named in its outline. Coverage across modules is high (e.g., 84% XML-doc coverage for ObjectListView), but the README alone provides only a thin overview of what the project does.
Detailed fixes: d19_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: Whether architecture decisions are recorded well (context, decision, consequences).
Method: Per-ADR judgment by language model at low temperature with two-pass stability; confidence is share of ADRs evaluated; enforcement-field presence detected deterministically. Advisory.
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.
What it measures: How far you must trace to follow a call — low indirection and co-located slices read easier.
Method: Call indirection (interface hops, cross-namespace calls, slice-locality scaled) over a sampled set of method invocations, size-aware baseline. Sampled; confidence discounted by symbol-resolution gaps.
Coverage: Slice locality from the first namespace segments, SAMPLED (≤400 methods) — not exhaustive.
96 % of calls cross a namespace and 2 % go through an interface, but 98 % of collaborators are co-located — so a call's collaborators sit together and tracing stays easy. Baseline: large — vertical-slice locality expected.
What it measures: Whether any secrets were ever committed — scanned across the full git history, not just now.
Method: Git-history secret scan via gitleaks detect over full history in an isolated checkout; each match flagged High. Exhaustive; degrades cleanly when tool absent.
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).
High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag · ×4.github/workflows/ci.yaml:15detected by semgrep finding
Medium: unsafe-path-combine · ×2source/UninstallTools/Startup/Normal/StartupEntryManager.cs:177detected by semgrep finding
What to do
Resolve the 4 High finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with ci.yaml (3), winget.yml. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 issue-level).
Resolve the 2 Medium finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with StartupEntryManager.cs, TaskEntry.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
Detailed fixes: d29_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR)5.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified
What it measures: Likely personal-data (PII / GDPR) handling concerns — logging or storing data without safeguards.
Method: Heuristic PII/GDPR pattern scan via semgrep across the repo, using Watchdog's own ruleset (personal data reaching log/console sinks, URLs and query strings, or unprotected browser storage); matches map to severity and a 0-10 wide normalizer. NotApplicable when the scan runs and detects no PII/GDPR surface (no unearned 10); reported LOUDLY as a measurement gap, never as not-applicable, if the ruleset is missing from the analyzer image. Exhaustive, advisory-leaning; degrades on parse failure.
High: watchdog-sensitive-personal-data-in-log · ×2source/OculusHelper/OculusManager.cs:225detected by semgrep finding
What to do
Resolve the 2 High finding(s) in Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — start with OculusManager.cs, UninstallHandler.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 issue-level).
Detailed fixes: d32_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
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; coupling through a build step, config, or non-source file isn't seen.
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.
Resolve the 1 Unpinned build actions finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 Workflow token permissions not restricted finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 No build provenance finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Detailed fixes: d36_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
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.
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 — check that business logic isn't leaking into the application/infrastructure layers (a thin domain is the anemic-domain smell).
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.
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 member counts; fat-interface threshold (over 15 members) flagged per type. Deterministic, type-level.
Do you agree with this assessment?
AX8 · Test isolation10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified
Other · Architecture — Whether production projects stay free of references to test projects — tests may depend on production, never the reverse.
Method: Csproj graph: each production project checked for references to test projects (identified by test-framework presence, not name). Zero violations is clean. Deterministic.
Do you agree with this assessment?
C1 · Data Protection3.5 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified
Other · Security — Whether sensitive data is encrypted at rest and in transit and keys are vaulted.
Method: Roslyn plus filesystem scan: encryption presence (EF ColumnEncryption, key-vault references, HTTPS enforcement) and key-derivation KDF detection. Deterministic.
What to do
Strengthen data-at-rest protection: vault your keys (Azure Key Vault / AWS KMS / IDataProtector key ring) and encrypt the most sensitive columns (EF HasConversion encryption or provider-native column encryption) — partial coverage still leaves gaps.
Enforce HTTPS (UseHttpsRedirection / RequireHttpsMetadata) so data in transit is always encrypted.
Do you agree with this assessment?
C4 · Data Retention5.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified
Other · Security — Whether data has a defined lifetime — retention periods, TTLs, cleanup jobs (storage limitation).
Method: Roslyn scan: retention/TTL configuration presence in schema; CascadeDelete detected but not scored as retention control. Deterministic, gated by PII presence.
A retention mechanism is present, but the data-lifecycle is not yet complete — missing: an expiry limit — a declared maximum age / TTL after which the data is no longer kept, a scheduled purge / cleanup job (PurgeOlderThan / CleanupJob).
What to do
Complete the data-lifecycle story: an expiry limit (a declared maximum age for the stored data — a retention-age setting, or a store-level TTL where your storage offers one), a scheduled purge/cleanup job that enforces it, and a documented retention period covering the personal data.
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.
A shipped member still throws NotImplementedException — generated scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface. (×7) — InfoAdderManager.cs:151, DynamicStringArrayConverter.cs:86, PowerShellDateTimeOffsetConverter.cs:48, …
What to do
Finish or delete NotImplementedException stubs and replace placeholder literals before shipping.
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.
`InsertObjects` is a shipped member whose whole body throws NotImplementedException — scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface. — TreeListView.cs:1641
`TryAddFieldInformation` is a shipped member whose whole body throws NotImplementedException — scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface. — InfoAdderManager.cs:141
`Write` is a shipped member whose whole body throws NotImplementedException — scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface. (×2) — DynamicStringArrayConverter.cs:84, PowerShellDateTimeOffsetConverter.cs:46
`Pause` is a shipped member whose whole body throws NotImplementedException — scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface. — UninstallHandler.cs:34
`Resume` is a shipped member whose whole body throws NotImplementedException — scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface. — UninstallHandler.cs:39
A line of code has been commented out rather than removed — dead weight that rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers). (×24) — AdvancedFilters.cs:247, EntryPoint.cs:162, EntryPoint.cs:166, …
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
Add a 'Testing' section to the root README — 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 18 of 18 project(s) that lack one — worth up to 2 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 `NNNN-title.md` documents and nothing ADR-shaped by content. Design rationale recorded elsewhere (a design-notes tree, a mailing list, pull-request discussion) is not visible to this check and is not re-findable per decision, so a future maintainer cannot ask why one choice was made and get an answer.
What to do
Record significant decisions one document per decision — dated, stating the context, the decision and its consequences — and keep them together wherever your design docs already live (a conventional `docs/adr/` tree with `NNNN-title.md` names is the most discoverable form).
Maturity · Maturity — Whether the repo is organised deliberately — src/test separation and consistent project naming.
Method: Filesystem scan: src/test folder separation and namespace-prefix consistency (majority RootNamespace agreement). Exhaustive across projects, deterministic.
Tests aren't grouped in a dedicated test folder — the test surface isn't separable from production code at a glance.
Only 2/18 projects share a common root namespace — the code's module identity is inconsistent.
What to do
Group tests in the folder your build system expects (tests/, test/, spec/, or your module's test source set) so the test surface is discoverable and CI can scope it.
Adopt a consistent root-namespace convention (a shared prefix, e.g. Acme.*); short project-file/directory names are fine as long as the RootNamespace is uniform.
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.
Do you agree with this assessment?
P1 · CI/CD gates8.5 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified
Readiness · Readiness — Whether an automated pipeline builds and tests every change.
Method: Filesystem scan: CI workflow files (.github/workflows, .gitlab-ci.yml, etc.) for build and test stages. Exhaustive, deterministic.
A CI pipeline exists and the word "test" appears, but no explicit test-runner invocation (your stack's test command, or a test job) was matched — so either the gate runs tests through a step this pass could not recognise, or "test" is incidental here (a path, "latest", a reporter). Check the coverage dimensions first: if this repo has no test suite yet, that is the finding and this row follows from it. If a suite does exist, make the runner step explicit so the gate is unambiguous.
What to do
Run the test suite in CI via an explicit runner step for your stack, and gate merges on it.
Do you agree with this assessment?
P2 · Observability5.1 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified
Readiness · Readiness — Whether the code is diagnosable in production — structured logging, tracing/metrics, health checks.
Only 6/17 service-like projects use logging (pure contract/DTO projects are excluded — they have nothing to log). Of those 17, 10 ship a process this repository operates; the rest are libraries their consumer hosts, where the logging decision belongs to the host.
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.
Consider OpenTelemetry tracing/metrics and a health-check endpoint for operability.
Readiness · Readiness — Whether SAST, secret/dependency scanning and performance benchmarking are wired in (presence, not runtime).
Method: Filesystem scan: SAST configuration, dependency-update automation, secret scanning, and a benchmark harness or benchmark step — in this repository's own ecosystem. Exhaustive, deterministic.
No static application security testing detected. For this repository's stack, add CodeQL's csharp pack (it analyses VB.NET too), or a security analyzer package (or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language) as a CI step.
What to do
Add a SAST step to CI running what this repository's stack ships: CodeQL's csharp pack (it analyses VB.NET too), or a security analyzer package — or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language — so a security regression fails the build instead of landing.
Enable Dependabot/Renovate or a dependency-review gate.
Add gitleaks/trufflehog in CI to block PRs that introduce committed secrets.
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.
What to do
Nothing pauses a release for a human: publish as a draft release (or gate the release job on a protected tag/manual dispatch) so a bad build can be stopped before users can download it.
Readiness · Readiness — Whether releases are traceable — a maintained changelog and explicit version stamping.
Method: Filesystem scan: changelog file presence and version tags in csproj or git tags. Exhaustive, deterministic.
No CHANGELOG/HISTORY/RELEASES file — what shipped when isn't easy to reconstruct for support or audit. (Versioning/tagging makes releases traceable, but a changelog records the what.)
What to do
Keep a changelog (e.g. Keep-a-Changelog) recording what shipped in each release.
Other · Security — Cryptographic hygiene (weak hash/cipher, password key-derivation). This codebase has no web surface, so transport/header/cookie/CSRF controls are N/A and only crypto is scored.
MD5/SHA1 is constructed here, and both are collision-broken. If this digest protects anything — a signature, an integrity or tamper check, a credential, or any value an attacker can influence — that is a real weakness: use SHA-256+ for content integrity, or a KDF (PBKDF2/Argon2/BCrypt) for password storage. If it only derives a non-security identifier (a cache key, a file or mutex name), collision resistance carries no security consequence here; make that intent explicit instead — a non-cryptographic hash such as `System.IO.Hashing.XxHash64`/`Crc32` says it in code — since the algorithm alone cannot distinguish the two uses. — UninstallerRatingManager.Utils.cs:57
What to do
Review each MD5/SHA1 use by what it protects: replace it with SHA-256+ (or a KDF for passwords) where the digest is security-relevant, and switch it to a non-cryptographic hash (`System.IO.Hashing.XxHash64`/`Crc32`) where it only derives an identifier such as a cache key or a mutex name.
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.
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.
Only 0/1 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. — FastSizeGenerator.cs:97
What to do
Thread a CancellationToken through async methods so work stops promptly on cancellation.
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. (×9) — RegistryFactory.cs:224, BulkUninstallTask.cs:221, ObservedList.cs:99, …
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.
0/17 NRT-eligible project(s) enable <Nullable>enable</Nullable> (projects targeting a pre-C#-8 framework are excluded — NRTs aren't available there). NRTs catch a whole class of null-deref bugs at compile time.
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.
Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Not included — 47 check(s) not relevant to this codebase
These checks had nothing to measure here (no tests, no git history, the codebase is small, or the architecture style doesn't apply), so they're omitted above rather than scored low.
AC1 Text alternatives — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC2 Forms & labels — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC3 Page structure — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC4 Keyboard semantics — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC5 ARIA correctness — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC6 Visual & motion safety — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC7 A11y enforcement — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AX1 Captive dependencies — no DI registrations detected
AX2 Stateful singletons — no singleton implementations detected
AX7 Slice cohesion — not applicable — not a vertical-slice architecture
AX9 CQS / query purity — no CQRS query handlers detected — query purity is not applicable to this codebase
AXB2 Runtime readiness — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
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 — Repo shows no audit-logging mechanism (IAuditable, an immutable audit log, an EF SaveChanges interceptor) for sensitive changes — absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control. Record an audit trail in code (or document where it lives) so this dimension can be scored.
D11 Test Reliability — Test reliability not measured — no test run produced results
D22 Internal API Consistency — No exposed public API
D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — Bounded contexts not declared
D24 Comment Value — LLM evaluation failed
D25 ADR Conformance — no ADRs to check
D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities — the solution did not restore on the analyzer's .NET SDK (an SDK/target-framework/restore mismatch, common for an older codebase), so there was no restored dependency graph to scan for NuGet CVEs — excluded rather than scored; re-run on an SDK that can restore this solution
D31 IaC & Container Security — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation); nothing to scan.
D33 JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities — No JS/npm manifest or lockfile found outside build output (package.json, package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); no JS dependencies to scan.
D34 Knowledge Freshness — knowledge concentrated in recent work — freshness signal contradicted by repo activity
D37 Vulnerability-disclosure Policy — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.
D38 OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities — No supported non-.NET dependency lockfile found outside build output (npm package-lock/yarn/pnpm/bun, Go go.mod, Rust Cargo.lock, Maven pom.xml, Gradle lockfiles, Python requirements.txt/poetry.lock/Pipfile.lock/pdm.lock, PHP composer.lock, Ruby Gemfile.lock, Elixir mix.lock, Dart pubspec.lock, Swift Package.resolved); nothing for OSV to scan. A NuGet-only repo stays NotApplicable — .NET CVEs are D30's domain.
D39 IL Efficiency — The target did not build, so no IL was available to measure.
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.
D7 Architectural Integrity — no checkable ADRs and no dependency cycles — architectural integrity not assessed
D8 Code Coverage — Coverage not measured — analyzer environment
DM1 Domain Modelling — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this check looks for
ED1 Event-Driven — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this check 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 check looks for
P12 CI test-gate honesty — Reported, not scored — and nothing was matched here. The coverage check applies to any stack, but the checks for excluded tests, skipped tests and sleep-based synchronisation currently recognise only some ecosystems' test-runner idioms, so on a repository built with another stack the zeros below mean 'not checked', not 'clean'.
P5 DR & Backup — not evidenced — repo shows no backup/RTO/RPO controls; absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control
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) into the repo working tree before the scan — a CI step is the usual place, since the artefact is commonly gitignored, or wire coverage collection into CI, to enable this cross-layer check
PF1 Benchmark discipline — Performance is assessed only for perf-relevant repos — a packaged library, one that ships benchmarks, or one already using allocation-aware APIs. This repo isn't one, so the Performance lens is not applicable and is excluded from the score.
PF2 Allocation hygiene — Performance is assessed only for perf-relevant repos — a packaged library, one that ships benchmarks, or one already using allocation-aware APIs. This repo isn't one, so the Performance lens is not applicable and is excluded from the score.
PF3 Async & latency hygiene — Performance is assessed only for perf-relevant repos — a packaged library, one that ships benchmarks, or one already using allocation-aware APIs. This repo isn't one, so the Performance lens is not applicable and is excluded from the score.
SC1 Supply-chain hygiene — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
X4 Structured logging — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X6 Hand-rolled structured-format parsing — Reported, not scored — this card publishes what it found rather than grading it. Its content is the findings and the key metric above.
X7 Silent fallback defaults — Reported, not scored — this card publishes what it found rather than grading it. Its content is the findings and the key metric above.
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.
EmptyCatchBlock source/BCU-console/Program.cs:65— empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Narrow the catch to the exception you actually expect, record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or — where swallowing really is correct, as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — write down WHY in a comment on the catch. The comment has to give the reason: a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all and leaves this row in place. Any of the three makes the decision reviewable; all three clear this row.
EmptyCatchBlock source/KlocTools/Collections/ObservedList.cs:99— empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Narrow the catch to the exception you actually expect, record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or — where swallowing really is correct, as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — write down WHY in a comment on the catch. The comment has to give the reason: a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all and leaves this row in place. Any of the three makes the decision reviewable; all three clear this row.
EmptyCatchBlock source/KlocTools/Tools/PathTools.cs:361— empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Narrow the catch to the exception you actually expect, record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or — where swallowing really is correct, as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — write down WHY in a comment on the catch. The comment has to give the reason: a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all and leaves this row in place. Any of the three makes the decision reviewable; all three clear this row.
EmptyCatchBlock source/KlocTools/Tools/PathTools.cs:370— empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Narrow the catch to the exception you actually expect, record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or — where swallowing really is correct, as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — write down WHY in a comment on the catch. The comment has to give the reason: a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all and leaves this row in place. Any of the three makes the decision reviewable; all three clear this row.
EmptyCatchBlock source/KlocTools/Tools/ProcessTools.cs:329— empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Narrow the catch to the exception you actually expect, record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or — where swallowing really is correct, as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — write down WHY in a comment on the catch. The comment has to give the reason: a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all and leaves this row in place. Any of the three makes the decision reviewable; all three clear this row.
EmptyCatchBlock source/UninstallTools/Factory/RegistryFactory.cs:224— empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Narrow the catch to the exception you actually expect, record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or — where swallowing really is correct, as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — write down WHY in a comment on the catch. The comment has to give the reason: a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all and leaves this row in place. Any of the three makes the decision reviewable; all three clear this row.
EmptyCatchBlock source/UninstallTools/Uninstaller/BulkUninstallTask.cs:221— empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Narrow the catch to the exception you actually expect, record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or — where swallowing really is correct, as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — write down WHY in a comment on the catch. The comment has to give the reason: a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all and leaves this row in place. Any of the three makes the decision reviewable; all three clear this row.
High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/ci.yaml:15— GitHub Actions step uses a mutable tag or branch reference. Tags and branch names can be silently repointed by the action owner, enabling supply-chain attacks — as seen in the trivy-action and kics-github-action compromises. Pin the reference to a full 40-character commit SHA instead, e.g. `uses: actions/checkout@<40-character SHA>`. This step references `actions/checkout@v4`; resolve the SHA it points at today with `gh api repos/actions/checkout/commits/v4 --jq .sha`.
High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/ci.yaml:17— GitHub Actions step uses a mutable tag or branch reference. Tags and branch names can be silently repointed by the action owner, enabling supply-chain attacks — as seen in the trivy-action and kics-github-action compromises. Pin the reference to a full 40-character commit SHA instead, e.g. `uses: microsoft/setup-msbuild@<40-character SHA>`. This step references `microsoft/setup-msbuild@v2`; resolve the SHA it points at today with `gh api repos/microsoft/setup-msbuild/commits/v2 --jq .sha`.
High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/ci.yaml:32— GitHub Actions step uses a mutable tag or branch reference. Tags and branch names can be silently repointed by the action owner, enabling supply-chain attacks — as seen in the trivy-action and kics-github-action compromises. Pin the reference to a full 40-character commit SHA instead, e.g. `uses: actions/upload-artifact@<40-character SHA>`. This step references `actions/upload-artifact@v4`; resolve the SHA it points at today with `gh api repos/actions/upload-artifact/commits/v4 --jq .sha`.
High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/winget.yml:15— GitHub Actions step uses a mutable tag or branch reference. Tags and branch names can be silently repointed by the action owner, enabling supply-chain attacks — as seen in the trivy-action and kics-github-action compromises. Pin the reference to a full 40-character commit SHA instead, e.g. `uses: vedantmgoyal9/winget-releaser@<40-character SHA>`. This step references `vedantmgoyal9/winget-releaser@main`; resolve the SHA it points at today with `gh api repos/vedantmgoyal9/winget-releaser/commits/main --jq .sha`.
High: watchdog-sensitive-personal-data-in-log source/OculusHelper/OculusManager.cs:225— Special-category or directly-identifying personal data appears to be written to a log or console sink. Logs are copied, shipped to third parties and retained far longer than the data itself is lawfully needed. Log a stable pseudonymous reference instead of the value.
High: watchdog-sensitive-personal-data-in-log source/UninstallerAutomatizer/Automation/UninstallHandler.cs:159— Special-category or directly-identifying personal data appears to be written to a log or console sink. Logs are copied, shipped to third parties and retained far longer than the data itself is lawfully needed. Log a stable pseudonymous reference instead of the value.
TodoComment source/BulkCrapUninstaller/Forms/Wizards/BeginUninstallTaskWizard.cs:119— //todo show greeen text all closed? or skip when clicking next? slow — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment source/BulkCrapUninstaller/Functions/Ratings/RatingManagerWrapper.cs:45— //TODO: Handle this better? — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment source/BulkCrapUninstaller/Program.cs:28— //TODO This is a leftover class, extract the self installed detection logic and get rid of it — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment source/KlocTools/Controls/EditableCheckedListView.cs:115— //TODO fires before change happens — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment source/KlocTools/IO/MsiTools.cs:125— // TODO also include source? — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment source/KlocTools/IO/MsiTools.cs:177— // TODO: Might not be required? HKCR is virtualized and shows both 64 and 32 keys. Some 32bit apps might manage to put their keys in root too? — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment source/KlocTools/IO/MsiTools.cs:208— // TODO This is slow, on the order of ~8 seconds (4 with AsParallel) on an SSD. It could use caching of GetProductCode and _componentPathLookup — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment source/KlocTools/IO/MsiTools.cs:231— // TODO Use the lookups instead? Some products don't have any components though. — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment source/KlocTools/Subsystems/GlobalHotkeys.cs:155— //TODO does not work very well, need to ask for description at hotkey creation — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment source/KlocTools/Subsystems/GlobalHotkeys.cs:170— //TODO does not work very well, need to ask for description at hotkey creation — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment source/SimpleTreeMap/TreeMap.cs:167— // todo draw whole thing based on input, input is set by populate — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment source/UninstallTools/Factory/InfoAdders/InfoAdderManager.cs:40— // TODO Better sorting logic? If names change or props are added without uninstall in name they'll slip through — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment source/UninstallTools/Factory/InfoAdders/InfoAdderManager.cs:58— // TODO is this filtering neccessary? — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment source/UninstallTools/Factory/InfoAdders/InfoAdderManager.cs:104— //TODO prioritize ones with all values existing from same priority tier? — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment source/UninstallTools/Factory/InfoAdders/InfoAdderManager.cs:143— // TODO — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment source/UninstallTools/Factory/InfoAdders/MsiInfoAdder.cs:43— //nameof(ApplicationUninstallerEntry.SortedExecutables) // TODO: This works but is much too slow to run for every entry — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment source/UninstallTools/Junk/Finders/JunkCreatorBase.cs:49— // TODO overhaul — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment source/UninstallTools/Junk/Finders/Registry/SoftwareRegKeyScanner.cs:146— // TODO Add extra confidence if the key is, or will be empty after junk removal — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment source/UninstallTools/Startup/Normal/StartupEntry.cs:142— //TODO temporary hack — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment source/UninstallTools/Startup/Normal/StartupEntry.cs:148— //TODO temporary hack — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment source/UninstallerAutomatizer/Automation/AutomatedUninstallManager.cs:412— //todo check if this works — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment source/UninstallerAutomatizer/Automation/UninstallHandler.cs:227— // todo grace period / move to window? — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
Low cohesion: MainWindow (LCOM4 15) source/BulkCrapUninstaller/Forms/Windows/MainWindow.cs:41— MainWindow's methods form 15 groups that share no state and don't call each other — a sign it may have several responsibilities. Review whether it splits into focused classes.
Low cohesion: JunkRemoveWindow (LCOM4 7) source/BulkCrapUninstaller/Forms/Windows/JunkRemoveWindow.cs:27— JunkRemoveWindow's methods form 7 groups that share no state and don't call each other — a sign it may have several responsibilities. Review whether it splits into focused classes.
Low cohesion: LoadingDialog (LCOM4 4) source/KlocTools/Forms/LoadingDialog.cs:15— LoadingDialog's methods form 4 groups that share no state and don't call each other — a sign it may have several responsibilities. Review whether it splits into focused classes.
Low cohesion: ApplicationUninstallerEntry (LCOM4 4) source/UninstallTools/ApplicationUninstallerEntry.cs:27— ApplicationUninstallerEntry's methods form 4 groups that share no state and don't call each other — a sign it may have several responsibilities. Review whether it splits into focused classes.
Low cohesion: StartupEntry (LCOM4 4) source/UninstallTools/Startup/Normal/StartupEntry.cs:16— StartupEntry's methods form 4 groups that share no state and don't call each other — a sign it may have several responsibilities. Review whether it splits into focused classes.
Low cohesion: MainWindow (LCOM4 4) source/UninstallerAutomatizer/Forms/MainWindow.cs:15— MainWindow's methods form 4 groups that share no state and don't call each other — a sign it may have several responsibilities. Review whether it splits into focused classes.
Off the main sequence: PortableSettingsProvider — PortableSettingsProvider: abstractness 0.00, instability 0.00, distance 1.00 — zone of pain — concrete and depended on by 1 project(s), so it's rigid to change.
Off the main sequence: KlocTools — KlocTools: abstractness 0.03, instability 0.00, distance 0.97 — zone of pain — concrete and depended on by 8 project(s), so it's rigid to change.
Off the main sequence: NBug — NBug: abstractness 0.04, instability 0.00, distance 0.96 — zone of pain — concrete and depended on by 1 project(s), so it's rigid to change.
Off the main sequence: ObjectListView — ObjectListView: abstractness 0.10, instability 0.00, distance 0.90 — zone of pain — concrete and depended on by 7 project(s), so it's rigid to change.
Off the main sequence: NetSettingBinder — NetSettingBinder: abstractness 0.11, instability 0.00, distance 0.89 — zone of pain — concrete and depended on by 1 project(s), so it's rigid to change.
Hotspot: source/BulkCrapUninstaller/Functions/ApplicationList/UninstallerListConfigurator.cs source/BulkCrapUninstaller/Functions/ApplicationList/UninstallerListConfigurator.cs— source/BulkCrapUninstaller/Functions/ApplicationList/UninstallerListConfigurator.cs changed 2 times in last 90 days, max complexity 21. 1 of those changes was a fix/bug commit, so the churn is repair rather than feature work. Before the next change lands here, cover the area it touches with tests, then split that area out of the file so the following change is smaller than this one — a file this often edited pays the complexity back every time.
Hotspot: source/KlocTools/IO/MsiTools.cs source/KlocTools/IO/MsiTools.cs— source/KlocTools/IO/MsiTools.cs changed 2 times in last 90 days, max complexity 17. Frequent change and high complexity in one file compound: schedule the next change to it to include carving out the part being edited, behind tests written first.
Hotspot: source/UninstallTools/Factory/ScoopFactory.cs source/UninstallTools/Factory/ScoopFactory.cs— source/UninstallTools/Factory/ScoopFactory.cs changed 2 times in last 90 days, max complexity 17. Frequent change and high complexity in one file compound: schedule the next change to it to include carving out the part being edited, behind tests written first.
BareSuppressMessage source/BulkCrapUninstaller/Functions/ApplicationList/UninstallerListConfigurator.cs:66— System.Diagnostics.CodeAnalysis.SuppressMessage — the suppression records no reason: either it carries no justification argument at all, or one that states nothing a reader can weigh ("OK", "By design"). 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. Write what makes this site legitimately different — the invariant that holds, the framework contract that forces the shape — or remove the suppression and fix what it hides.
BareSuppressMessage source/KlocTools/Forms/LoadingDialogInterface.cs:10— System.Diagnostics.CodeAnalysis.SuppressMessage — the suppression records no reason: either it carries no justification argument at all, or one that states nothing a reader can weigh ("OK", "By design"). 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. Write what makes this site legitimately different — the invariant that holds, the framework contract that forces the shape — or remove the suppression and fix what it hides.
BareSuppressMessage source/KlocTools/Forms/SplashScreen.cs:27— System.Diagnostics.CodeAnalysis.SuppressMessage — the suppression records no reason: either it carries no justification argument at all, or one that states nothing a reader can weigh ("OK", "By design"). 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. Write what makes this site legitimately different — the invariant that holds, the framework contract that forces the shape — or remove the suppression and fix what it hides.
BarePragmaDisable source/BulkCrapUninstaller/Functions/Tools/LocalizedX509Certificate.cs:49— #pragma warning disable SYSLIB0027 — the disable has no matching restore, 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. Close it with the matching restore directive immediately after the construct it covers, or fix the cause and drop the directive entirely.
BarePragmaDisable source/BulkCrapUninstaller/Functions/Tools/LocalizedX509Certificate.cs:50— #pragma warning disable SYSLIB0028 — the disable has no matching restore, 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. Close it with the matching restore directive immediately after the construct it covers, or fix the cause and drop the directive entirely.
Medium: unsafe-path-combine source/UninstallTools/Startup/Normal/StartupEntryManager.cs:177— String argument backupPath is used to read or write data from a file via Path.Combine without direct sanitization via Path.GetFileName. If the path is user-supplied data this can lead to path traversal.
Medium: unsafe-path-combine source/UninstallTools/Startup/Task/TaskEntry.cs:74— String argument backupPath is used to read or write data from a file via Path.Combine without direct sanitization via Path.GetFileName. If the path is user-supplied data this can lead to path traversal.
Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) source/KlocTools/Controls/TwitterButton.cs:43— source/KlocTools/Controls/TwitterButton.cs:43-57 | source/KlocTools/Controls/TwitterStatusButton.cs:36-50 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory: extract the block into a single shared function in that directory and call it from each site, so a change lands once. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `source/KlocTools/Controls/TwitterButton.cs:43` 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 (15 lines × 2) source/SteamHelper/Program.cs:110— source/SteamHelper/Program.cs:110-124 | source/ScriptHelper/Program.cs:66-80 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `source/SteamHelper/Program.cs:110` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) source/BulkCrapUninstaller/Forms/Windows/UninstallProgressWindow.cs:342— source/BulkCrapUninstaller/Forms/Windows/UninstallProgressWindow.cs:342-350 | source/BulkCrapUninstaller/Forms/Windows/UninstallProgressWindow.cs:401-409 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) source/UninstallTools/Junk/Finders/Registry/ComScanner.cs:197— source/UninstallTools/Junk/Finders/Registry/ComScanner.cs:197-205 | source/UninstallTools/Junk/Finders/Registry/ComScanner.cs:253-261 — 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 `source/UninstallTools/Junk/Finders/Registry/ComScanner.cs:197` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
BulkUninstallEntry.UninstallThread (cyclomatic 51) source/UninstallTools/Uninstaller/BulkUninstallEntry.cs:283— BulkUninstallEntry.UninstallThread has cyclomatic complexity 51 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
Sift4.CommonDistance (cyclomatic 27) source/KlocTools/Tools/Sift4.cs:165— Sift4.CommonDistance has cyclomatic complexity 27 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
ApplicationEntryTools.AreEntriesRelated (cyclomatic 25) source/UninstallTools/Factory/ApplicationEntryTools.cs:32— ApplicationEntryTools.AreEntriesRelated has cyclomatic complexity 25 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
ProcessTools.SeparateArgsFromCommand (cyclomatic 25) source/KlocTools/Tools/ProcessTools.cs:135— ProcessTools.SeparateArgsFromCommand has cyclomatic complexity 25 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
Sift4.GeneralDistance (cyclomatic 25) source/KlocTools/Tools/Sift4.cs:54— Sift4.GeneralDistance has cyclomatic complexity 25 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
Program.ProcessCommandlineArguments (cyclomatic 25) source/SteamHelper/Program.cs:109— Program.ProcessCommandlineArguments has cyclomatic complexity 25 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
ComScanner.FindJunk (cyclomatic 23) source/UninstallTools/Junk/Finders/Registry/ComScanner.cs:34— ComScanner.FindJunk has cyclomatic complexity 23 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
UninstallerListConfigurator.ListViewFilter (cyclomatic 21) source/BulkCrapUninstaller/Functions/ApplicationList/UninstallerListConfigurator.cs:121— UninstallerListConfigurator.ListViewFilter has cyclomatic complexity 21 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
AppUninstaller.RunUninstall (cyclomatic 21) source/BulkCrapUninstaller/Functions/AppUninstaller.cs:179— AppUninstaller.RunUninstall has cyclomatic complexity 21 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
ProgramFilesOrphans.FindJunkRecursively (cyclomatic 21) source/UninstallTools/Junk/ProgramFilesOrphans.cs:42— ProgramFilesOrphans.FindJunkRecursively has cyclomatic complexity 21 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
MainWindow.UpdateUninstallListContextMenuStrip (cyclomatic 20) source/BulkCrapUninstaller/Forms/Windows/MainWindow.cs:1305— MainWindow.UpdateUninstallListContextMenuStrip has cyclomatic complexity 20 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
OldStartupDisable.AddDisableInfo (cyclomatic 20) source/UninstallTools/Startup/Normal/OldStartupDisable.cs:50— OldStartupDisable.AddDisableInfo has cyclomatic complexity 20 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
UninstallManager.RunUninstaller (cyclomatic 20) source/UninstallTools/Uninstaller/UninstallManager.cs:70— UninstallManager.RunUninstaller has cyclomatic complexity 20 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
RegistryTools.GetKeyRoot (cyclomatic 20) source/KlocTools/Tools/RegistryTools.cs:284— RegistryTools.GetKeyRoot has cyclomatic complexity 20 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
UninstallerTypeAdder.GetUninstallerType (cyclomatic 19) source/UninstallTools/Factory/InfoAdders/UninstallerTypeAdder.cs:55— UninstallerTypeAdder.GetUninstallerType has cyclomatic complexity 19 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
WindowsUpdateFactory.GetUninstallerEntries (cyclomatic 19) source/UninstallTools/Factory/WindowsUpdateFactory.cs:22— WindowsUpdateFactory.GetUninstallerEntries has cyclomatic complexity 19 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
BulkUninstallTask.UninstallWorkerThread (cyclomatic 18) source/UninstallTools/Uninstaller/BulkUninstallTask.cs:133— BulkUninstallTask.UninstallWorkerThread has cyclomatic complexity 18 (threshold 15). Of this number, 12 points are the body's own statements and 6 belong to 2 function literals inside it that branch. To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
AppUninstaller.UninstallFromDirectory (cyclomatic 17) source/BulkCrapUninstaller/Functions/AppUninstaller.cs:527— AppUninstaller.UninstallFromDirectory has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
InfoAdderManager.CopyMissingInformation (cyclomatic 17) source/UninstallTools/Factory/InfoAdders/InfoAdderManager.cs:159— InfoAdderManager.CopyMissingInformation has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, name the conditions: bind each compound test to a well-named local or a small predicate function, so the body reads as a sequence of named decisions rather than a chain of operators.
ScoopFactory.CreateUninstallerEntry (cyclomatic 17) source/UninstallTools/Factory/ScoopFactory.cs:288— ScoopFactory.CreateUninstallerEntry has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15). Of this number, 16 points are the body's own statements and 1 belongs to one function literal inside it that branches. To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
MsiTools.GetInstalledComponentPaths (cyclomatic 17) source/KlocTools/IO/MsiTools.cs:137— MsiTools.GetInstalledComponentPaths has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
Sift4.SimplestDistance (cyclomatic 16) source/KlocTools/Tools/Sift4.cs:272— Sift4.SimplestDistance has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
D11 · Test Reliability· Test reliability not measured · ×1
Test reliability not measured — no test run produced results — 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.
BulkUninstallEntry.UninstallThread (cognitive 81) source/UninstallTools/Uninstaller/BulkUninstallEntry.cs:283— BulkUninstallEntry.UninstallThread has cognitive complexity 81 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
ComScanner.FindJunk (cognitive 75) source/UninstallTools/Junk/Finders/Registry/ComScanner.cs:34— ComScanner.FindJunk has cognitive complexity 75 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Sift4.CommonDistance (cognitive 60) source/KlocTools/Tools/Sift4.cs:165— Sift4.CommonDistance has cognitive complexity 60 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Sift4.GeneralDistance (cognitive 58) source/KlocTools/Tools/Sift4.cs:54— Sift4.GeneralDistance has cognitive complexity 58 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
ProcessTools.SeparateArgsFromCommand (cognitive 50) source/KlocTools/Tools/ProcessTools.cs:135— ProcessTools.SeparateArgsFromCommand has cognitive complexity 50 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
AppUninstaller.UninstallFromDirectory (cognitive 38) source/BulkCrapUninstaller/Functions/AppUninstaller.cs:527— AppUninstaller.UninstallFromDirectory has cognitive complexity 38 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
MainWindow.UpdateUninstallListContextMenuStrip (cognitive 36) source/BulkCrapUninstaller/Forms/Windows/MainWindow.cs:1305— MainWindow.UpdateUninstallListContextMenuStrip has cognitive complexity 36 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
ProgramFilesOrphans.FindJunkRecursively (cognitive 36) source/UninstallTools/Junk/ProgramFilesOrphans.cs:42— ProgramFilesOrphans.FindJunkRecursively has cognitive complexity 36 (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.
ScoopFactory.CreateUninstallerEntry (cognitive 34) source/UninstallTools/Factory/ScoopFactory.cs:288— ScoopFactory.CreateUninstallerEntry has cognitive complexity 34 (threshold 15). Of this number, 33 points are the body's own statements and 1 belongs to one function literal inside it that branches. To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
JunkRemoveWindow.buttonAccept_Click (cognitive 32) source/BulkCrapUninstaller/Forms/Windows/JunkRemoveWindow.cs:63— JunkRemoveWindow.buttonAccept_Click has cognitive complexity 32 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
MsiInfoAdder.ApplyMsiInfo (cognitive 31) source/UninstallTools/Factory/InfoAdders/MsiInfoAdder.cs:50— MsiInfoAdder.ApplyMsiInfo has cognitive complexity 31 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
AppUninstaller.RunUninstall (cognitive 30) source/BulkCrapUninstaller/Functions/AppUninstaller.cs:179— AppUninstaller.RunUninstall has cognitive complexity 30 (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.
Program.ProcessCommandlineArguments (cognitive 30) source/SteamHelper/Program.cs:109— Program.ProcessCommandlineArguments has cognitive complexity 30 (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.
FileTargeter.ProcessFiles (cognitive 29) source/BulkCrapUninstaller/Controls/FileTargeter.cs:27— FileTargeter.ProcessFiles has cognitive complexity 29 (threshold 15). Of this number, 27 points are the body's own statements and 2 belong to 2 function literals inside it that branch. 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.
RegisteredApplicationsFinder.FindJunk (cognitive 29) source/UninstallTools/Junk/Finders/Registry/RegisteredApplicationsFinder.cs:85— RegisteredApplicationsFinder.FindJunk has cognitive complexity 29 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
CommonDriveJunkScanner.FindJunkRecursively (cognitive 27) source/UninstallTools/Junk/Finders/Drive/CommonDriveJunkScanner.cs:43— CommonDriveJunkScanner.FindJunkRecursively has cognitive complexity 27 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Sift4.SimplestDistance (cognitive 27) source/KlocTools/Tools/Sift4.cs:272— Sift4.SimplestDistance has cognitive complexity 27 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
ApplicationEntrySerializer.SanitizeForXmlExport (cognitive 26) source/UninstallTools/ApplicationEntrySerializer.cs:59— ApplicationEntrySerializer.SanitizeForXmlExport has cognitive complexity 26 (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.
ChocolateyFactory.GetUninstallerEntries (cognitive 26) source/UninstallTools/Factory/ChocolateyFactory.cs:38— ChocolateyFactory.GetUninstallerEntries has cognitive complexity 26 (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.
InfoAdderManager.AddMissingInformation (cognitive 26) source/UninstallTools/Factory/InfoAdders/InfoAdderManager.cs:76— InfoAdderManager.AddMissingInformation has cognitive complexity 26 (threshold 15). Of this number, 25 points are the body's own statements and 1 belongs to one function literal inside it that branches. To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
UninstallerTypeAdder.GetUninstallerType (cognitive 26) source/UninstallTools/Factory/InfoAdders/UninstallerTypeAdder.cs:55— UninstallerTypeAdder.GetUninstallerType has cognitive complexity 26 (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.
WindowsUpdateFactory.GetUninstallerEntries (cognitive 26) source/UninstallTools/Factory/WindowsUpdateFactory.cs:22— WindowsUpdateFactory.GetUninstallerEntries has cognitive complexity 26 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
OldStartupDisable.AddDisableInfo (cognitive 26) source/UninstallTools/Startup/Normal/OldStartupDisable.cs:50— OldStartupDisable.AddDisableInfo has cognitive complexity 26 (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.
UninstallHandler.DaemonThread (cognitive 26) source/UninstallerAutomatizer/Automation/UninstallHandler.cs:116— UninstallHandler.DaemonThread has cognitive complexity 26 (threshold 15). Of this number, 23 points are the body's own statements and 3 belong to one function literal inside it that branches. 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.
UninstallManager.RunUninstaller (cognitive 25) source/UninstallTools/Uninstaller/UninstallManager.cs:70— UninstallManager.RunUninstaller has cognitive complexity 25 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — so group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function. Some of it IS depth: where a check sits inside another whose only job is to reach it, merge the two into one condition, and where an else follows a branch that already returns, drop the trailing else and let the rest of the body continue at one level.
ScoopFactory.GetUninstallerEntries (cognitive 23) source/UninstallTools/Factory/ScoopFactory.cs:174— ScoopFactory.GetUninstallerEntries has cognitive complexity 23 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
BulkUninstallTask.UninstallWorkerThread (cognitive 23) source/UninstallTools/Uninstaller/BulkUninstallTask.cs:133— BulkUninstallTask.UninstallWorkerThread has cognitive complexity 23 (threshold 15). Of this number, 14 points are the body's own statements and 9 belong to 2 function literals inside it that branch. 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.
OculusManager.QueryOculusApps (cognitive 23) source/OculusHelper/OculusManager.cs:78— OculusManager.QueryOculusApps has cognitive complexity 23 (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.
RatingRenderer.Render (cognitive 22) source/BulkCrapUninstaller/Functions/Ratings/RatingRenderer.cs:27— RatingRenderer.Render has cognitive complexity 22 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Misc.SeparateArgsFromCommand (cognitive 22) source/SteamHelper/Misc.cs:17— Misc.SeparateArgsFromCommand has cognitive complexity 22 (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.
OculusManager.FindOculusLibraryLocations (cognitive 22) source/OculusHelper/OculusManager.cs:27— OculusManager.FindOculusLibraryLocations has cognitive complexity 22 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
MainWindow.listView_ListRefreshIsRunningChanged (cognitive 21) source/BulkCrapUninstaller/Forms/Windows/MainWindow.cs:1417— MainWindow.listView_ListRefreshIsRunningChanged has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15). Of this number, 16 points are the body's own statements and 5 belong to one function literal inside it that branches. 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.
ApplicationEntryTools.AreEntriesRelated (cognitive 21) source/UninstallTools/Factory/ApplicationEntryTools.cs:32— ApplicationEntryTools.AreEntriesRelated has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — so group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function. Some of it IS depth: where a check sits inside another whose only job is to reach it, merge the two into one condition.
ExecutableAttributeExtractor.FillInformationFromFileAttribs (cognitive 21) source/UninstallTools/Factory/InfoAdders/ExecutableAttributeExtractor.cs:44— ExecutableAttributeExtractor.FillInformationFromFileAttribs 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.
DebugTracingScanner.FindJunk (cognitive 21) source/UninstallTools/Junk/Finders/Registry/DebugTracingScanner.cs:25— DebugTracingScanner.FindJunk has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15). Of this number, 20 points are the body's own statements and 1 belongs to one function literal inside it that branches. 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.
StringExtensions.ExtendedTrim (cognitive 21) source/KlocTools/Extensions/StringExtensions.cs:231— StringExtensions.ExtendedTrim has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
ProcessWaiterControl.updateTimer_Tick (cognitive 21) source/KlocTools/Forms/ProcessWaiterControl.cs:170— ProcessWaiterControl.updateTimer_Tick has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
MsiTools.GetInstalledComponentPaths (cognitive 21) source/KlocTools/IO/MsiTools.cs:137— MsiTools.GetInstalledComponentPaths has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
StartupManagerWindow.contextMenuStrip1_Opening (cognitive 20) source/UninstallTools/Dialogs/StartupManagerWindow.cs:89— StartupManagerWindow.contextMenuStrip1_Opening has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
StartupManager.AssignStartupEntries (cognitive 20) source/UninstallTools/Startup/StartupManager.cs:35— StartupManager.AssignStartupEntries has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Most of this is not in the body itself: 4 of the 20 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to one function literal inside it that branches (line 49). The decisions are inside the literal, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literal's work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have the literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest.
Program.Main (cognitive 20) source/SteamHelper/Program.cs:36— Program.Main has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Of this number, 16 points are the body's own statements and 4 belong to one function literal inside it that branches. To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Program.RunUninstall (cognitive 20) source/BCU-console/Program.cs:210— Program.RunUninstall has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Of this number, 15 points are the body's own statements and 5 belong to 3 function literals inside it that branch. 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.
UninstallerListConfigurator.ListViewFilter (cognitive 19) source/BulkCrapUninstaller/Functions/ApplicationList/UninstallerListConfigurator.cs:121— UninstallerListConfigurator.ListViewFilter has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: this score is breadth rather than depth — many checks laid out side by side rather than nested inside one another, so inverting conditions into early returns has nothing left to flatten. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
CustomMessageBox.CustomMessageBox.ctor (cognitive 19) source/KlocTools/Forms/CustomMessageBox.cs:24— CustomMessageBox.CustomMessageBox.ctor has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — so group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function. Some of it IS depth: where a check sits inside another whose only job is to reach it, merge the two into one condition, and where an else follows a branch that already returns, drop the trailing else and let the rest of the body continue at one level.
AppPropertiesGatherer.ConvertPropertiesIntoDataTable (cognitive 18) source/BulkCrapUninstaller/Functions/AppPropertiesGatherer.cs:63— AppPropertiesGatherer.ConvertPropertiesIntoDataTable has cognitive complexity 18 (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.
DirectoryFactory.GetDirectoriesToScan (cognitive 18) source/UninstallTools/Factory/DirectoryFactory.cs:43— DirectoryFactory.GetDirectoriesToScan has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). Of this number, 17 points are the body's own statements and 1 belongs to one function literal inside it that branches. To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
DirectoryFactory.CreateFromDirectoryHelper (cognitive 18) source/UninstallTools/Factory/DirectoryFactory.cs:193— DirectoryFactory.CreateFromDirectoryHelper has cognitive complexity 18 (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.
AppExecutablesSearcher.ScanDirectory (cognitive 18) source/UninstallTools/Factory/InfoAdders/AppExecutablesSearcher.cs:78— AppExecutablesSearcher.ScanDirectory has cognitive complexity 18 (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.
StoreAppFactory.GetUninstallerEntries (cognitive 18) source/UninstallTools/Factory/StoreAppFactory.cs:38— StoreAppFactory.GetUninstallerEntries has cognitive complexity 18 (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.
BulkUninstallEntry.TestUninstallerForStalls (cognitive 18) source/UninstallTools/Uninstaller/BulkUninstallEntry.cs:205— BulkUninstallEntry.TestUninstallerForStalls has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Program.ProcessCommandlineArguments (cognitive 18) source/WinUpdateHelper/Program.cs:70— Program.ProcessCommandlineArguments has cognitive complexity 18 (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.
ScriptFactory.GetUninstallerEntries (cognitive 17) source/UninstallTools/Factory/ScriptFactory.cs:39— ScriptFactory.GetUninstallerEntries has cognitive complexity 17 (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.
FirewallRuleScanner.FindJunk (cognitive 17) source/UninstallTools/Junk/Finders/Registry/FirewallRuleScanner.cs:21— FirewallRuleScanner.FindJunk has cognitive complexity 17 (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.
SoftwareRegKeyScanner.FindJunkRecursively (cognitive 17) source/UninstallTools/Junk/Finders/Registry/SoftwareRegKeyScanner.cs:126— SoftwareRegKeyScanner.FindJunkRecursively has cognitive complexity 17 (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.
ProcessWaiterControl.SetNodes (cognitive 17) source/KlocTools/Forms/ProcessWaiterControl.cs:52— ProcessWaiterControl.SetNodes has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Of this number, 15 points are the body's own statements and 2 belong to one function literal inside it that branches. 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.
UninstallProgressWindow.UninstallProgressWindow.ctor (cognitive 16) source/BulkCrapUninstaller/Forms/Windows/UninstallProgressWindow.cs:63— UninstallProgressWindow.UninstallProgressWindow.ctor has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Most of this is not in the body itself: 1 of the 16 points is its own statement and the rest belongs to 4 function literals inside it that branch (lines 126, 116, 79, …). The decisions are inside those literals, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literals' work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have each literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest.
ApplicationUninstallerFactory.GetUninstallerEntries (cognitive 16) source/UninstallTools/Factory/ApplicationUninstallerFactory.cs:25— ApplicationUninstallerFactory.GetUninstallerEntries has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: this score is breadth rather than depth — many checks laid out side by side rather than nested inside one another, so inverting conditions into early returns has nothing left to flatten. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
BasicIconGetter.AddMissingInformation (cognitive 16) source/UninstallTools/Factory/InfoAdders/BasicIconGetter.cs:13— BasicIconGetter.AddMissingInformation has cognitive complexity 16 (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.
InfoAdderManager.CopyMissingInformation (cognitive 16) source/UninstallTools/Factory/InfoAdders/InfoAdderManager.cs:159— InfoAdderManager.CopyMissingInformation has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
ComScanner.GetClsidEntries (cognitive 16) source/UninstallTools/Junk/Finders/Registry/ComScanner.cs:177— ComScanner.GetClsidEntries has cognitive complexity 16 (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.
FormsExtensions.SafeInvoke (cognitive 16) source/KlocTools/Extensions/FormsExtensions.cs:140— FormsExtensions.SafeInvoke has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
LoadingDialogInterface.SetProgressInt (cognitive 16) source/KlocTools/Forms/LoadingDialogInterface.cs:106— LoadingDialogInterface.SetProgressInt has cognitive complexity 16 (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.
NetFrameworkTools.GetNetFromKey (cognitive 16) source/KlocTools/IO/NetFrameworkTools.cs:36— NetFrameworkTools.GetNetFromKey has cognitive complexity 16 (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.
WmiQueries.GetWindowsFeatures (cognitive 16) source/KlocTools/IO/WmiQueries.cs:18— WmiQueries.GetWindowsFeatures has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
RandomFilePicker.GetNextFolder (cognitive 16) source/KlocTools/Subsystems/RandomFilePicker.cs:115— RandomFilePicker.GetNextFolder has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
AutomatedUninstallManager.ProcessRadioButtons (cognitive 16) source/UninstallerAutomatizer/Automation/AutomatedUninstallManager.cs:350— AutomatedUninstallManager.ProcessRadioButtons has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Of this number, 15 points are the body's own statements and 1 belongs to one function literal inside it that branches. To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
LLM evaluation failed — JSON parse error: Expected depth to be zero at the end of the JSON payload. There is an open JSON object or array that should be closed. Path: $.notable[4].suggestion | LineNumber: 0 | BytePositionInLine: 895.
TooManyMethods: MessageBoxes source/BulkCrapUninstaller/Functions/MessageBoxes.cs:0— TooManyMethods — 430 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 53 methods. 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.
ClassTooLong: AppUninstaller source/BulkCrapUninstaller/Functions/AppUninstaller.cs:0— ClassTooLong — 406 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 24 methods. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
Change coupling: CommonDriveJunkScanner.cs ↔ ProgramFilesOrphans.cs source/UninstallTools/Junk/Finders/Drive/CommonDriveJunkScanner.cs— `source/UninstallTools/Junk/Finders/Drive/CommonDriveJunkScanner.cs` and `source/UninstallTools/Junk/ProgramFilesOrphans.cs` change together 50% of the time (7 of the 14 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well). They sit in different directories, but in this ecosystem the namespace is declared in the FILE, not by the folder — so the two may well share one namespace and reference each other with no import for this pass to see. Read the pair before acting: if one derives from or overrides the other, the dependency is explicit in the type declaration and the co-change is definitional; if one registers itself into the other through a hook or an initialiser, the missing dependency is DELIBERATE and the thing to add is a comment saying so; if they simply belong together, co-locate them; if none of these holds, the coupling is hidden and worth breaking.
Unpinned build actions — CI references GitHub Actions by a floating ref (@main / @tag) rather than a pinned commit SHA, weakening build integrity. 4 floating ref(s) across 2 workflow file(s), 1 of them mutable BRANCH refs — pin those first. Each floating ref is itemized at file:line by the SAST (D29) lens.
Workflow token permissions not restricted — No workflow declares a `permissions:` block, so every job runs with the repository's default GITHUB_TOKEN scope (2 workflow file(s) checked). On a repository whose default is read/write, a compromised action or a malicious pull request inherits write access to code, issues, releases and packages. Declare a least-privilege `permissions:` block — `permissions: {contents: read}` at the top of each workflow, widened per job only where a job genuinely writes.
Duplicated block (17 lines × 2) source/UninstallTools/Junk/Finders/Registry/AudioPolicyConfigScanner.cs:30— source/UninstallTools/Junk/Finders/Registry/AudioPolicyConfigScanner.cs:30-46 | source/UninstallTools/Junk/Finders/Registry/DebugTracingScanner.cs:29-45 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory: extract the block into a single shared function in that directory and call it from each site, so a change lands once. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
Duplicated block (16 lines × 2) source/SteamHelper/Program.cs:89— source/SteamHelper/Program.cs:89-104 | source/ScriptHelper/Program.cs:45-60 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `source/SteamHelper/Program.cs:89` 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. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) source/BulkCrapUninstaller/Forms/Windows/MainWindow.cs:961— source/BulkCrapUninstaller/Forms/Windows/MainWindow.cs:961-975 | source/BulkCrapUninstaller/Forms/Windows/UninstallProgressWindow.cs:323-336 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory: extract the block into a single shared function in that directory and call it from each site, so a change lands once. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `source/BulkCrapUninstaller/Forms/Windows/MainWindow.cs:961` 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 (13 lines × 2) source/StoreAppHelper/Program.cs:29— source/StoreAppHelper/Program.cs:29-41 | source/OculusHelper/Program.cs:27-39 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `source/StoreAppHelper/Program.cs:29` 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. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 3) source/BulkCrapUninstaller/Forms/Windows/MainWindow.cs:1798— source/BulkCrapUninstaller/Forms/Windows/MainWindow.cs:1798-1808 | source/BulkCrapUninstaller/Forms/Windows/MainWindow.cs:1854-1864 | source/BulkCrapUninstaller/Forms/Windows/MainWindow.cs:1868-1878 — all 3 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `source/BulkCrapUninstaller/Forms/Windows/MainWindow.cs:1798` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) source/BulkCrapUninstaller/Forms/Windows/MainWindow.cs:736— source/BulkCrapUninstaller/Forms/Windows/MainWindow.cs:736-745 | source/BulkCrapUninstaller/Forms/Windows/MainWindow.cs:1099-1108 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) source/KlocTools/Tools/PathTools.cs:355— source/KlocTools/Tools/PathTools.cs:355-362 | source/KlocTools/Tools/PathTools.cs:364-371 — 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. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
Coverage not measured — analyzer environment — Coverage NOT MEASURED: the analyzer environment could not build/run the test suite (a target framework / SDK band or targeting pack the analyzer image doesn't carry). This is OUR limitation, not a defect in the repo — coverage is excluded from the score rather than counted as a near-zero. We track the analyzer-image gap so it can be closed; in the meantime, no coverage collector was found in your CI either, so there is no existing report to hand us — add a collector to your test run and commit (or publish into the working tree) its Cobertura/OpenCover/lcov output, and real coverage will be read.
Off-boarding risk: anonymized user #1 — If anonymized user #1 becomes unavailable, 24 significant file(s) lose their only recent owner: source/ObjectListView/ObjectListView.cs, source/BulkCrapUninstaller/Functions/MessageBoxes.cs, source/BulkCrapUninstaller/Functions/AppUninstaller.cs, source/KlocTools/Native/MsiWrapper.cs, source/KlocTools/Tools/WindowsTools.cs, source/BulkCrapUninstaller/Forms/Windows/JunkRemoveWindow.cs, source/UninstallTools/Dialogs/StartupManagerWindow.cs, source/UninstallTools/Factory/ApplicationUninstallerFactory.cs (+16 more). Pair on, review, or document these before any departure.
Off-boarding risk: anonymized user #2 — If anonymized user #2 becomes unavailable, 7 significant file(s) lose their only recent owner: source/UninstallTools/Factory/RegistryFactory.cs, source/BulkCrapUninstaller/Functions/ApplicationList/UninstallerListConfigurator.cs, source/UninstallTools/Lists/UninstallList.cs, source/KlocTools/Tools/DrawingTools.cs, source/UninstallTools/ApplicationEntrySerializer.cs, source/BulkCrapUninstaller/Functions/ApplicationList/ApplicationListConstants.cs, source/KlocTools/Tools/SerializationTools.cs. Pair on, review, or document these before any departure.
Off-boarding risk: anonymized user #3 — If anonymized user #3 becomes unavailable, 6 significant file(s) lose their only recent owner: source/KlocTools/Extensions/CollectionExtensions.cs, source/BulkCrapUninstaller/Functions/ApplicationList/ListViewDelegates.cs, source/UninstallTools/Startup/Normal/StartupEntry.cs, source/UninstallTools/Startup/Normal/NewStartupDisable.cs, source/UninstallTools/Factory/StoreAppFactory.cs, source/UninstallTools/Factory/Json/DynamicStringArrayConverter.cs. Pair on, review, or document these before any departure.
No ADRs found — No ADRs found at common paths; consider documenting architectural decisions in Docs/ADL/ or similar.
D23 · Boundary Type-Coupling· Bounded contexts not declared · ×1
Bounded contexts not declared — At 94731 LoC spread over 18 projects the codebase is large and multi-module, so explicit bounded contexts are needed. 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"]`.
Split UninstallTools — A 'Tools' catch-all at 24k LoC and 19 namespaces is large and sprawling. Suggested: by namespace: Uninstallers, Utilities, ThirdParty
Split NBug — Generic 'Bugs' name with 19k LoC across 17 namespaces is large and sprawling. Suggested: by namespace: BugTracking, CodeQuality, Analysis
D34 · Knowledge Freshness· knowledge concentrated in recent work · ×1
knowledge concentrated in recent work — freshness signal contradicted by repo activity — File-level freshness contradicts repo activity: 32 commits in the last 90 days, yet 225 of 272 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.
No build provenance — No SLSA provenance generation or build attestation found in CI — nothing binds a released artifact to the build that produced it, so a consumer cannot tell your artifact from a substituted one. On GitHub Actions, `actions/attest-build-provenance` (or slsa-github-generator) emits one from the job's own OIDC identity; elsewhere, run `cosign attest` over the released artifact from the release pipeline and publish the attestation beside it.
No artifact signing — No artifact signing found in CI — sign your released artifacts with whatever your ecosystem ships (a GPG/minisign detached signature — or `cosign sign-blob` — over the release archives, or over a checksum file published alongside them, Authenticode via signtool, or `dotnet nuget sign` for packages) so consumers can verify what you built.
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing· No SBOM · ×1
No SBOM — No SBOM generation or committed SBOM found — produce one with what your ecosystem ships (`sbom-tool generate` (install it with `dotnet tool install --global Microsoft.Sbom.DotNetTool`) or `dotnet CycloneDX` over the solution, `syft` (or `anchore/sbom-action` in CI) over the source tree or released image). Publish it as a release asset (`*.spdx.json` / `*.cdx.json`) so consumers can see what they are installing.
D18 · Solution Shape· Build did not complete in the analyzer · ×1
Build did not complete in the analyzer — `dotnet build` reported 3 error(s) but no C# compiler diagnostic, so this is a build-environment gap rather than a code defect. The usual causes are a project that targets a platform this run cannot build (a Windows-only target framework on a Linux worker) or a build step that shells out to a tool the image does not carry. Solution Shape is scored on structure and is NOT capped. Semantic analysis is independent of this build and covers every project that loaded — but a project whose restore did not complete has no resolved references, so treat its results as absent rather than clean. Worth checking on your side too: a build that needs undeclared host tooling, or that cannot run off its own platform, is the same wall a new contributor hits.
D22 · Internal API Consistency· No exposed public API · ×1
No exposed public API — No intentionally-exposed types (IsPackable or .Contracts) to evaluate.
Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail
Every external tool invocation behind a deep-scan dimension — the tool, its captured version, the exact command, how many findings it yielded, and a link to the retained raw output. To reproduce any finding: check out the same commit and run the command shown (repo-relative — never an absolute scratch path). The complete raw scanner output is retained verbatim under artifacts/raw/ (indexed in artifacts/raw/index.json); per-invocation exit codes and wall-clock durations are in sidecar.json — kept out of this table so the rendered report stays byte-identical across runs of the same commit.
dotnet: not applicable — the solution did not restore on the analyzer's .NET SDK (an SDK/target-framework/restore mismatch, common for an older codebase), so there was no restored dependency graph to scan for NuGet CVEs — excluded rather than scored; re-run on an SDK that can restore this solution
trivy: not applicable — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation); nothing to scan.
trivy: not applicable — No JS/npm manifest or lockfile found outside build output (package.json, package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); no JS dependencies to scan.
disclosure: not applicable — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.
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.
0
—
Run 019fd17c-5bd2-774d-8aa3-3ff08fc523b6 · every finding is also locatable in findings.md, and the complete scoring record (with exit codes + durations) in sidecar.json.
Appendix C — Personal-data map
Every field, property and record parameter whose name is conventional personal data — 7 field(s) across 3 categories, each with an exact repo-relative file:line. This is the data inventory a compliance review starts from — right-to-erasure, retention, minimisation. Detected by name with a deliberately specific classifier (the same one the GDPR dimensions use, so CardDefinition or FileName don't trip); informational — it feeds no score.
Issues: 13 · Warnings: 158 · Recommendations: 12 · Info: 19 — Appendix A · all findings · full markdown report.
Generated by Watchdog — deterministic code-health analysis. 05-08-2026 @ 10:33 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.