Revival Of Forests — Watchdog Audit

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.

Revival Of Forests carries serious gaps (47%). Several issues below can materially affect correctness, security, or the cost of changing it — and propagate to everything that depends on it.

The area that most needs attention is Maturity (31%) — onboarding is slow — key decisions and the architecture aren't written down, so contributors have to reverse-engineer the intent. Readiness (58%) is the next concern — 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.

Leadership focus, highest impact first: 50 Secret finding(s) (Secrets (history)); 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality (ADR Quality); Make the call chain async end-to-end and await it (Async & latency hygiene).

For scale: Medium (~51,270 production lines); rebuilding it from scratch would take roughly ~1.2 person-years (~1–3 engineers). Approximate, ±~30%.

Code Health 61% Fair · gated by D18, X1 Architecture 76% Fair · gated by AX5 Maturity 31% Poor · gated by M1, M2, M4 Readiness 58% Fair · gated by P1 Security 62% Fair · gated by D28 Performance 63% Fair

Code composition — where the lines go

Business logic 24%Plumbing 20%Tests 56%

Rebuild cost & value ~ Modeled — €57,000–€290,000

Cost to rebuild	€57,000–€290,000 (0.6–1.8 person-years (952–3,073 h), ~1–3 engineers)
Domain complexity	Standard — harder problems cost more per line
Quality factor	0.7× (at 47% quality) — the last 20% of quality is most of the work
Size & shape	Medium · 29% boilerplate · 15% straight-line · 55% branching logic

This codebase represents roughly ~1.2 person-years of build effort (about ~€170,000 to rebuild). Its weakest lens is Maturity at 31% — the part of that asset most exposed by the findings below.

How we model this: boilerplate at a scaffolding rate + logic × domain Standard (×1.0) — library/CLI, high decision density × 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.

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

+3.3 pts · Low effort · ADR Quality

Resolve the 50 Secret finding(s) in Secrets (history) — start with Corporation building.tscn (13), Stone large 2.tscn (4), Stone small 3.tscn (4).

+5.4 pts · Medium effort · Secrets (history)

Make the call chain async end-to-end and await it — never block on a Task with .Wait()/.GetAwaiter().GetResult() in library code.

+3.1 pts · Medium effort · Async & latency hygiene

Diagnosis — what's actually going on

Highest-leverage move: fix the build · Critical · Leverage

The solution doesn't compile, so every Roslyn-derived dimension (complexity, duplication, cohesion, dead code, API surface) ran on incomplete models and is PROVISIONAL. Fixing the build is the single change that makes the rest of the report trustworthy — do it first. The compiler reported: CS0117: 'UnitDefinitionData' does not contain a definition for 'UnitType'; CS1503: Argument 2: cannot convert from 'string' to 'Canine.TacticalBattleEngine.Core.UnitType'; CS0029: Cannot implicitly convert type 'Canine.TacticalBattleEngine.Core.UnitType' to 'string'.

Evidence: D18 build: The compiler reported: CS0117: 'UnitDefinitionData' does not contain a definition for 'UnitType'; CS1503: Argument 2: cannot convert from 'string' to 'Canine.TacticalBattleEngine.Core.UnitType'; CS0029: Cannot implicitly convert type 'Canine.TacticalBattleEngine.Core.UnitType' to 'string'.

→ Fix the build, then re-run for a reliable grade.

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

This is a Medium asset (~1.2 person-years to rebuild), and its weakest lens is Maturity at 31%. The operational and business risk on an asset this size concentrates there — that's where remediation buys the most protection.

Evidence: valuation: Medium, ~1.2 person-years rebuild (51,270 LoC) · weakest lens: Maturity 31%

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

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.

At a glance — Code Health · 61% · Fair · gated by D18, X1

The Good

D3 · .NET / C# God Classes 9.1 D4 · .NET / C# Code Duplication 9.7 D17 · .NET / C# Explicit Debt 9.1 GD1 · Repo Unfinished & placeholder code 10.0 IC1 · Repo Incompleteness & stubs 10.0 X3 · Repo Exception handling 7.8 X4 · Repo Structured logging 10.0 X5 · Repo Nullable reference types 10.0

The Bad

D1 · .NET / C# Cyclomatic Complexity 6.7 D2 · .NET / C# Cognitive Complexity 5.0

The Ugly

D18 · .NET / C# Solution Shape 3.0 X1 · Repo Async correctness 3.7 X2 · Repo Cancellation propagation 4.0

At a glance — Architecture · 76% · Fair · gated by AX5

The Good

D5 · .NET / C# Coupling 10.0 D6 · .NET / C# Cohesion (LCOM4) 8.9 D22 · .NET / C# Internal API Consistency 10.0 D27 · .NET / C# Navigability 9.8 AX10 · Repo Code composition 9.9 AX3 · Repo Project dependency cycles 10.0 AX4 · Repo Dependency direction 10.0 AX6 · Repo Interface segregation 10.0 AX8 · Repo Test isolation 10.0

The Ugly

AX5 · Repo Architecture & structure 3.0

At a glance — Maturity · 31% · Poor · gated by M1, M2, M4

The Good

D15 · .NET / C# Churn × Complexity Hotspots 10.0

The Bad

M3 · Repo Folder & project structure 6.0

The Ugly

D20 · .NET / C# ADR Quality 0.0 M1 · Repo Documentation (README) 1.2 M2 · Repo Architecture documentation 2.0 M4 · Repo Documentation accuracy 2.0

At a glance — Readiness · 58% · Fair · gated by P1

The Good

D9 · .NET / C# Test Distribution 10.0 D10 · .NET / C# Test Quality 9.9 D12 · .NET / C# Dependency Hygiene 10.0 D13 · .NET / C# Secret Scanning 10.0 D14 · .NET / C# License Compliance 10.0 P11 · Repo BDD / executable specs 10.0

The Bad

P3 · Repo Security & performance tooling 5.0

The Ugly

P1 · Repo CI/CD gates 0.0

At a glance — Security · 62% · Fair · gated by D28

The Good

D29 · .NET / C# Static Analysis (SAST) 10.0 D30 · .NET / C# Dependency Vulnerabilities 8.8

The Ugly

D28 · .NET / C# Secrets (history) 0.0

At a glance — Performance · 63% · Fair

The Good

PF1 · Repo Benchmark discipline 9.5

The Bad

PF2 · Repo Allocation hygiene 6.2

The Ugly

PF3 · Repo Async & latency hygiene 4.5

Security & Compliance — OWASP Top-10 mapping

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

OWASP category	Findings	Severity
A02:2021 — Cryptographic Failures	51	High / Critical
A06:2021 — Vulnerable & Outdated Components	2	High / Critical

Roadmap

Top priorities: Resolve the 50 Secret finding(s) in Secrets (history) — start with Corporation building.tscn (13), Stone large 2.tscn (4), Stone small 3.tscn (4); Resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality; Make the call chain async end-to-end and await it — never block on a Task with .Wait()/.GetAwaiter().GetResult() in library code.

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

Do this	Helps	Effort	Dimension
Resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality.	+3.3 pts	Low	ADR Quality
Resolve the 50 Secret finding(s) in Secrets (history) — start with Corporation building.tscn (13), Stone large 2.tscn (4), Stone small 3.tscn (4).	+5.4 pts	Medium	Secrets (history)
Make the call chain async end-to-end and await it — never block on a Task with .Wait()/.GetAwaiter().GetResult() in library code.	+3.1 pts	Medium	Async & latency hygiene
Add a root README: what the system is, how to build/run it, and a map of the projects.	+2.9 pts	Medium	Documentation (README)
Add a CI workflow that builds and runs the test suite on every push/PR.	+2.8 pts	Medium	CI/CD gates
Start an ADR log (docs/adr/) recording significant decisions and their rationale.	+2.7 pts	Medium	Architecture documentation
Add a README describing the system, how to build/run it, and keep it current.	+2.7 pts	Medium	Documentation accuracy
Resolve the 2 High CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities.	+1.1 pts	Low	Dependency Vulnerabilities

File quality

Per-file score 0–10 — a quality signature. Of 127 files carrying findings, judged against the Production bar: 0% slop · 61% mixed · 39% near-clean.

File	Score	Band	Worst signal
RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Assets/Buildings/Corporation Building 1.61/The packed scene/Corporation building.tscn	4.4	Mixed	Secrets (history): Secret: facebook-page-access-token
RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Assets/Buildings/Civilian houses/Stone small 3.tscn	4.8	Mixed	Secrets (history): Secret: aws-access-token
RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Assets/Buildings/Civilian houses/Stone large 2.tscn	4.8	Mixed	Secrets (history): Secret: aws-access-token
RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Assets/Buildings/Civilian houses/Stone large 1.tscn	5.1	Mixed	Secrets (history): Secret: aws-access-token
RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Assets/Buildings/Civilian houses/Water tower 1.tscn	5.1	Mixed	Secrets (history): Secret: aws-access-token
RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Assets/Buildings/Civilian houses/Bush 3.tscn	5.1	Mixed	Secrets (history): Secret: aws-access-token
RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Assets/Buildings/Civilian houses/Double street lamp.tscn	5.1	Mixed	Secrets (history): Secret: aws-access-token
RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Assets/Buildings/Civilian houses/Concrete fencing 3.tscn	5.8	Mixed	Secrets (history): Secret: aws-access-token
RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Assets/Buildings/Civilian houses/Concrete fencing 5.tscn	5.8	Mixed	Secrets (history): Secret: aws-access-token
RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Assets/Buildings/Civilian houses/Concrete fencing 2.tscn	5.8	Mixed	Secrets (history): Secret: aws-access-token
RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Assets/Buildings/Civilian houses/Stone small 1.tscn	5.8	Mixed	Secrets (history): Secret: aws-access-token
RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Assets/Buildings/Civilian houses/Stone large 3.tscn	5.8	Mixed	Secrets (history): Secret: aws-access-token
RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Assets/Buildings/Paved roads/road,_turn_left.tscn	5.8	Mixed	Secrets (history): Secret: aws-access-token
RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/Animation/AnimationLookupSystem.cs	6.0	Mixed	Explicit Debt: XxxComment
RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/Animation/AnimationFileLoader.cs	6.0	Mixed	Explicit Debt: XxxComment
Canine/Canine.TacticalBattleEngine/Animation/AnimationFilenameParser.cs	6.0	Mixed	Explicit Debt: XxxComment
Canine/Canine.TacticalBattleEngine/Simulation/TacticalSimulator.cs	6.0	Mixed	Explicit Debt: TodoComment
RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/Managers/UnitRegistry.cs	6.0	Mixed	Explicit Debt: XxxComment
Canine/Canine.TacticalBattleEngine/Navigation/CollisionAvoidanceSystem.cs	6.0	Mixed	Explicit Debt: Dead code: CalculateTangentialAvoidance
RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/UI/ModdingTools/UnitEditDialog/UnitEditDialog.Animation.cs	6.0	Mixed	Explicit Debt: BarePragmaDisable

Methodology & how to trust this report

Watchdog is a deep, periodic assessment — run each sprint, monthly, or quarterly, taking the time to go wider and deeper than a quick check and surfacing in one coherent report what you'd otherwise piece together from a dozen separate tools. It scores deterministically: the same commit yields the same score, every run. 43 of 43 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); none rely on LLM judgement. 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 — 43 dimensions across the health lenses

D1D2D3D4D5D6D9D10D12D13D14D15D17D18D20D22D27D28D29D30AX10AX3AX4AX5AX6AX8GD1IC1M1M2M3M4P1P11P3PF1PF2PF3X1X2X3X4X5

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, 418 of 449 do; the remainder are repo-wide signals — a dimension-level measurement, not a single line. (Every path in this report is repo-relative by construction: paths are normalized at the producer and the report is rejected if any rooted path leaks through.)
Is there a tool behind the number? Every score below names the method that produced it — Roslyn, git, a scanner, or (for a handful of documentation/naming dimensions) an LLM labelled sampled · advisory — not a narrative.
Does re-running give the same result? Run it again on the same commit and the score — and this report, byte for byte — is identical. A report whose numbers move between runs is describing the run, not the code.

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

Tools & methods

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

Method	Backs	Version	Evaluator
Roslyn static analysis	Complexity, cohesion, coupling, dead code, API surface, layering	5.3.0	✓ deterministic
Native secret scanner	Hardcoded secrets / credentials	1.0.0	✓ deterministic
jscpd	Code duplication	—	✓ deterministic
Coverage (coverlet / dotnet-coverage)	Line & branch coverage	10.0.301	✓ deterministic
NuGet / dotnet	Outdated, vulnerable & deprecated dependencies	10.0.301	✓ deterministic
git / LibGit2Sharp	Churn hotspots, knowledge concentration, history	2.43.0 · 0.31.0	✓ deterministic
gitleaks · semgrep · trivy · checkov	Secrets in history, SAST, CVEs, IaC & container, PII / GDPR	1.86.0 · 0.69.3	✓ deterministic
LLM (sampled · advisory)	Documentation quality, ADR conformance, naming — sampled over a bounded sample; advisory, never a deterministic measurement	openai-compatible	◐ LLM · sampled · advisory

Every finding is locatable in findings.md. Run 019edc7e-0894-7610-b527-12e8dbdad1aa.

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

Run transparency — what happened this run

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

D19 Documentation Quality — LLM provider failed — The model provider was unreachable or errored, 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.
D21 Naming Consistency — LLM provider failed — The model provider was unreachable or errored, 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.
D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — evaluation did not complete — Dimension evaluation failed — excluded from the score.
D24 Comment Value — LLM provider failed — The model provider was unreachable or errored, 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.
D26 Project Cohesion — evaluation did not complete — Dimension evaluation failed — excluded from the score.
D31 IaC & Container Security — scanner not present in this environment — The backing tool was not installed where this scan ran, so this dimension was not scored. Install the tool (or run in the hosted environment, where it is always present) for a graded result.
D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — scanner not present in this environment — The backing tool was not installed where this scan ran, so this dimension was not scored. Install the tool (or run in the hosted environment, where it is always present) for a graded result.
D33 JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities — scanner not present in this environment — The backing tool was not installed where this scan ran, so this dimension was not scored. Install the tool (or run in the hosted environment, where it is always present) for a graded result.
D36 Supply-chain Provenance & Signing — scanner not present in this environment — The backing tool was not installed where this scan ran, so this dimension was not scored. Install the tool (or run in the hosted environment, where it is always present) for a graded result.
D37 Vulnerability-disclosure Policy — scanner not present in this environment — The backing tool was not installed where this scan ran, so this dimension was not scored. Install the tool (or run in the hosted environment, where it is always present) for a graded result.
D38 OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities — scanner not present in this environment — The backing tool was not installed where this scan ran, so this dimension was not scored. Install the tool (or run in the hosted environment, where it is always present) for a graded result.

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 (EF migration scaffolds, *.Designer.cs, model snapshots) is EXCLUDED — its repetition is the tool's, not the team's — so the score reflects hand-written duplication only; the generated footprint is reported separately under Solution Shape.
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.
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 (EF migrations, designer files, snapshots) 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.
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.
D22 Internal API Consistency: API-surface coherence is an LLM judgement over a sample of the public surface — consistency of intent across the whole API is approximated, not exhaustively verified.
D27 Navigability: Indirection/navigability is structural — it measures hops to follow a call, not whether that indirection buys real flexibility or just ceremony.
D28 Secrets (history): Secret-history scanning sweeps the git log for known patterns — a secret that predates the available history, or never matched a signature, is not found (clean means "nothing matched in the history we can see").
D29 Static Analysis (SAST): SAST findings are pattern-based (semgrep) — it finds classes of bug it has rules for; logic flaws, auth/authorization gaps and issues needing runtime context are out of reach (and clean means "no rule matched").
D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities: CVE matching depends on accurate package/version metadata and the advisory database — a vulnerability with no published advisory, or in code not declared as a dependency, is not seen.
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 ADVISORY: an infrastructure-heavy design (a gateway, an ETL, a driver) is legitimately low without being unhealthy.
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.

The LLM boundary

LLM-set scores this run (3): D20, D22, M4 (model: openai-compatible). 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.

Dimensions

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity6.7 / 10Fair✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 6.7 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

36 method(s) exceeded the cyclomatic complexity threshold of 15; the worst was UnitAI.MakeOperationalDecision at 51.

UnitAI.MakeOperationalDecision (cyclomatic 51)Canine/Canine.TacticalBattleEngine/Simulation/UnitAI.cs:53

WaypointMovementSystem.ProcessMovementTick (cyclomatic 40)Canine/Canine.TacticalBattleEngine/Units/WaypointMovementSystem.cs:228

AnimationLookupSystem.FuzzyMatchAnimationType (cyclomatic 35)RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/Animation/AnimationLookupSystem.cs:171

ForestClusterGenerator.ValidatePathfinding (cyclomatic 35)Canine/Canine.TacticalBattleEngine/Environment/ForestClusterGenerator.cs:640

AnimationFileLoader.ParseAnimationFile (cyclomatic 34)RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/Animation/AnimationFileLoader.cs:92

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

What to do

Resolve the 1 UnitAI.MakeOperationalDecision (cyclomatic 51) finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with UnitAI.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 WaypointMovementSystem.ProcessMovementTick (cyclomatic 40) finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with WaypointMovementSystem.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 AnimationLookupSystem.FuzzyMatchAnimationType (cyclomatic 35) finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with AnimationLookupSystem.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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D2 · Cognitive Complexity5.0 / 10Fair✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 5.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

76 method(s) exceeded the cognitive complexity threshold of 15; the worst was UnitAI.MakeOperationalDecision at 111.

UnitAI.MakeOperationalDecision (cognitive 111)Canine/Canine.TacticalBattleEngine/Simulation/UnitAI.cs:53

CombatSystem.ProcessCombatTick (cognitive 86)Canine/Canine.TacticalBattleEngine/Combat/CombatSystem.cs:9

WaypointMovementSystem.ProcessMovementTick (cognitive 78)Canine/Canine.TacticalBattleEngine/Units/WaypointMovementSystem.cs:228

HumanoidAnimationController.PlayFallbackAnimation (cognitive 65)RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/Animation/HumanoidAnimationController.cs:393

AnimationFileLoader.ParseAnimationFile (cognitive 58)RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/Animation/AnimationFileLoader.cs:92

+ 71 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

What to do

Resolve the 1 UnitAI.MakeOperationalDecision (cognitive 111) finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with UnitAI.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 CombatSystem.ProcessCombatTick (cognitive 86) finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with CombatSystem.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 WaypointMovementSystem.ProcessMovementTick (cognitive 78) finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with WaypointMovementSystem.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 Classes9.1 / 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.

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

10 god class(es) detected.

TooManyMethods: BattlefieldManager · ×10RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/Managers/BattlefieldManager.cs:0

FileTooLong: Managers/BattlefieldManager.cs · ×4RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/Managers/BattlefieldManager.cs:0

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D4 · Code Duplication9.7 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 9.7 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

35 duplicated block group(s) detected.

Duplicated block (19 lines × 2) · ×3RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/Managers/GameResourcePreloader.cs:104

Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) · ×3RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/Managers/MilestoneManager.cs:220

Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) · ×3RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/Animation/HumanoidAnimationController.cs:511

Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) · ×3RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/Managers/MilestoneManager.cs:186

Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) · ×3RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/UI/Cutscenes/NightToDayCutscene.cs:221

+ 15 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 · Coupling10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

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

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

Off the main sequence: Canine.TacticalBattleEngine

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d5_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D6 · Cohesion (LCOM4)8.9 / 10Healthy✓ Tool-verified

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.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 8.9 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

10 of 112 classes have LCOM4 above 3.

Low cohesion: ResourceManager (LCOM4 8) · ×10RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/Resources/ResourceManager.cs:23

What to do

Resolve the 10 Low cohesion finding(s) in Cohesion (LCOM4) — start with BasicCardSystem.cs, BattlefieldManager.cs, GoldManaResourceSystem.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (10 warning-level).
Enforce Cohesion (LCOM4) in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.

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.

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

1966 test methods: 1966 unit, 0 integration, 0 BDD, 0 e2e.

Unit tests

Integration tests

BDD tests

E2E tests

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d9_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D10 · Test Quality9.9 / 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.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 9.9 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

6 skipped (6 with a documented reason), 6 zero-assertion, no mocking-framework packages referenced (hand-written doubles or no mocking) across 1966 tests.

No assertions: ReproduceBDDAmmunitionBug_WeaponSystemFiresButNoEventsSet · ×6Canine/Canine.TacticalBattleEngine.Tests/DebugTests/BDDAmmunitionBugTest.cs:17

Skipped (documented): Step3_ProcessCombatCacheFriendly_Should_Find_No_Engagements · ×6Canine/Canine.TacticalBattleEngine.Tests/UnitTests/IsolateRangeBugStepByStepTest.cs:112

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d10_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D12 · Dependency Hygiene10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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.

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

0 outdated, 0 vulnerable, 0 deprecated packages.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d12_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

Secret scan ran and found no leaked secrets.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d13_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

0 of 9 packages use a banned license.

Licenses scanned

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d14_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

No churn × complexity hotspots in the window.

git history depth insufficient

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d15_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D17 · Explicit Debt9.1 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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.

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

78 deducted debt markers + 15 dead symbols across 51270 LoC (0.4/KLoC) → score 9.1.

NoWarnInCsproj · ×2Canine/Canine.TacticalBattleEngine.Tests/Canine.TacticalBattleEngine.Tests.csproj:11

EmptyCatchBlockRevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/UI/ModdingTools/TreeSortingHelper.cs:190

TodoComment · ×44RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Assets/UI/UnitSelectButton.cs:210

BarePragmaDisable · ×21RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/Managers/BattlefieldManager.cs:1429

Dead code: UpdateTeamColor · ×14RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/Combat/ProjectileRenderer.cs:285

+ 5 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d17_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D18 · Solution Shape3.0 / 10Poor✓ Tool-verified

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.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 3.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

5 projects, 566 .cs files, 116991 hand-written lines of code (51270 production / 65721 test), 5 inter-project edges (build failed).

Build failed

Monorepo: only 1 of 2 solutions was scored

ROF (Production)RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/ROF.csproj

Canine.TacticalBattleEngine.Tests (Test)Canine/Canine.TacticalBattleEngine.Tests/Canine.TacticalBattleEngine.Tests.csproj

Canine.TacticalBattleEngine (Production)Canine/Canine.TacticalBattleEngine/Canine.TacticalBattleEngine.csproj

+ 2 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

What to do

Resolve the 1 Build failed finding(s) in Solution Shape. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 Monorepo finding(s) in Solution Shape. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).

Detailed fixes: d18_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D20 · ADR Quality / 10Critical◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

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

No architecture decision records were found.

No ADRs found

What to do

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D22 · Internal API Consistency / 10Exemplary◐ Sampled · advisory

What it measures: Whether the internal API surface is consistent and coherent.

Method: Judged by language model at low temperature over a sample of the public API surface (IsPackable or .Contracts types). Sampled, advisory; confidence discounted by model uncertainty.

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

No public API surface exposed; nothing to be inconsistent.

No exposed public API

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d22_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D27 · Navigability9.8 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 9.8 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

80 % of calls cross a namespace and 0 % 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.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d27_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D28 · Secrets (history)0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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.

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

3354 finding(s): 0 critical, 3354 high, 0 medium, 0 low. Remediation is credential rotation — the secrets remain in history regardless of later deletion.

Secret: aws-access-token · ×50RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Assets/Buildings/Civilian houses/Concrete fencing 3.tscn:23detected by gitleaks finding

Rotate the exposed credentials — git history can't be un-committed

What to do

Resolve the 50 Secret finding(s) in Secrets (history) — start with Corporation building.tscn (13), Stone large 2.tscn (4), Stone small 3.tscn (4). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (50 issue-level).
Resolve the 1 Rotate the exposed credentials finding(s) in Secrets (history). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

Detailed fixes: d28_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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

Method: Polyglot static analysis via semgrep --config auto across the repo; severity rules (ERROR/WARNING/INFO) map to a 0-10 wide normalizer. Exhaustive, deterministic; degrades on parse failure.

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

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

semgrep found no security issues.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d29_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities8.8 / 10Healthy✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether any dependencies have known published vulnerabilities (CVEs), direct or transitive.

Method: NuGet CVE scan via dotnet list package --vulnerable including transitive; severity tally (Critical/High/Medium/Low) to 0-10 tight normalizer. Exhaustive, deterministic; degrades when absent.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 8.8 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

2 vulnerable package(s): 0 critical, 2 high, 0 medium, 0 low.

High CVE: System.Net.Http 4.3.0 · ×2detected by dotnet list package --vulnerable

What to do

Resolve the 2 High CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 issue-level).

Detailed fixes: d30_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions

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

AX10 · Code composition9.9 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Architecture — How the codebase splits by code ROLE — domain, application, infrastructure, test, generated. The significance map behind the knowledge/coupling weighting, and a DDD signal in its own right: a thin domain core under fat infrastructure is the anemic-domain smell, quantified.

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).

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

AX5 · Architecture & structure3.0 / 10Poor✓ Tool-verified

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.

~51.3k production LoC (740 types) across 3 project(s) / 53 namespace(s) with no recognised architectural style or layering — at this size, deliberate module boundaries would help. No DDD/clean/vertical-slice/CQRS/transaction-script organisation was detected — code is likely organised ad hoc, which makes change and onboarding harder as it grows.

What to do

Introduce deliberate module boundaries — by feature (vertical slices) if your team prefers, or by layer (domain/application/infrastructure). Even splitting into a few cohesive projects with a clear dependency direction would help.

Do you agree with this assessment?

AX6 · Interface segregation10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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?

GD1 · Unfinished & placeholder code10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

IC1 · Incompleteness & stubs10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Unfinished work detected by code SHAPE, not keywords: members that only throw a "not implemented" exception, methods that take inputs and return a constant, async methods that never await, dead `if (false)` / `#if false` branches, and skeleton types most of whose members are holes. A real, objective slice of technical debt.

Method: Roslyn syntax scan: incompleteness by code shape (constant-returning methods, async-never-await, #if false branches, skeleton types), not keyword-gated. Deterministic, code-shape heuristic.

A test is skipped ("ProcessCombatCacheFriendly method was removed during refactoring. This behavior is covered by Step2 (CombatSystem level) and Step5 (full simulation level).") — coverage that looks present but never runs in any gate. If it's an opt-in suite, document how it runs; otherwise re-enable or delete it. — IsolateRangeBugStepByStepTest.cs:112
A test is skipped ("Obsolete: Wave-based spawning doesn't create default units for empty composition rules") — coverage that looks present but never runs in any gate. If it's an opt-in suite, document how it runs; otherwise re-enable or delete it. (×2) — SpawnAreaUnitFactoryTests.cs:15, SpawnAreaUnitFactoryTests.cs:21
A test is skipped ("Obsolete: CreateDefaultUnit method removed in wave-based spawning refactoring") — coverage that looks present but never runs in any gate. If it's an opt-in suite, document how it runs; otherwise re-enable or delete it. (×3) — SpawnAreaUnitFactoryTests.cs:129, SpawnAreaUnitFactoryTests.cs:135, SpawnAreaUnitFactoryTests.cs:141
A line of code has been commented out rather than removed — dead weight that rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers). (×9) — PineBranch.cs:10, PineBranch.cs:11, UnitSelectButton.cs:211, …

What to do

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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

M1 · Documentation (README)1.2 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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

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

No README at the repository root — newcomers have no entry point.

What to do

Add a root README: what the system is, how to build/run it, and a map of the projects.
Add a README to the 2 of 5 project(s) that lack one — worth up to 0.8 pts.

Do you agree with this assessment?

M2 · Architecture documentation2.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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

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

No Architecture Decision Records found — decisions aren't captured for future maintainers.

What to do

Start an ADR log (docs/adr/) recording significant decisions and their rationale.

Do you agree with this assessment?

M3 · Folder & project structure6.0 / 10Fair✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Projects aren't grouped under a src/ folder — production and tooling code are mixed at the root.
Test projects aren't grouped under a tests/ folder — the test surface isn't separable from production code at a glance.

What to do

Group production code under src/ (or split deliberately, e.g. backend/ + frontend/) so production and tooling code aren't mixed at the root.
Group test projects under tests/ (or test/, spec/) so the test surface is discoverable and CI can scope it.

Do you agree with this assessment?

M4 · Documentation accuracy2.0 / 10Critical◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

There is no README, so nothing documents what the system is or how it works.

What to do

Add a README describing the system, how to build/run it, and keep it current.

Do you agree with this assessment?

P1 · CI/CD gates0.0 / 10Critical✓ 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.

No CI workflow found (.github/workflows, azure-pipelines.yml, .gitlab-ci.yml, …) — changes aren't gated by an automated build/test.

What to do

Add a CI workflow that builds and runs the test suite on every push/PR.

Do you agree with this assessment?

P11 · BDD / executable specs10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Readiness · Readiness — Whether behaviour is captured as executable Gherkin specifications (a plus for shared understanding) — only assessed when a BDD framework is present.

Method: Filesystem scan: BDD framework presence (SpecFlow, Gherkin files) when a project references a BDD tool. Exhaustive, deterministic.

Do you agree with this assessment?

P3 · Security & performance tooling5.0 / 10Fair✓ Tool-verified

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

Method: Filesystem/Roslyn scan: CodeQL, Dependabot, secret-scanning, and BenchmarkDotNet presence in pipelines and projects. Exhaustive, deterministic.

What to do

Enable Dependabot/Renovate or a dependency-review gate.
Add gitleaks/trufflehog in CI to block PRs that introduce committed secrets.

Do you agree with this assessment?

PF1 · Benchmark discipline9.5 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Readiness · Performance — Whether the library protects its performance with benchmarks — a BenchmarkDotNet suite, an allocation MemoryDiagnoser, and (ideally) a CI gate. Presence is credited as a bonus, never a deduction.

Method: Repo + source scan: BenchmarkDotNet referenced (csproj/source), [Benchmark]/[MemoryDiagnoser] attribute counts, and a benchmark step in CI — scored as a bonus ladder (absence is neutral, never a deduction). Deterministic, presence detection.

Do you agree with this assessment?

PF2 · Allocation hygiene6.2 / 10Fair✓ Tool-verified

Readiness · Performance — Whether the code is written to minimise allocations so it doesn't pressure its host's GC — Span/Memory, pooling (ArrayPool/ObjectPool), stackalloc, ValueTask, value-type structs and buffer writers. Reward-only: credited where present, never penalised where a simpler style is fine.

Method: Production-source scan: density (per 1k LoC) of allocation-aware APIs — Span/Memory, ArrayPool/ObjectPool, stackalloc, ValueTask, value-type structs, IBufferWriter, string.Create, SkipLocalsInit. Reward-only. Deterministic, syntax/text detection.

What to do

Raise allocation-aware density on the hot paths — currently 24 use(s) across 51,341 production line(s) (~0.5/1k). More Span/Memory, pooling (ArrayPool/ObjectPool), stackalloc and ValueTask on the allocation-heavy paths climbs this toward 10.

Do you agree with this assessment?

PF3 · Async & latency hygiene4.5 / 10Poor✓ Tool-verified

Readiness · Performance — Whether asynchronous code keeps its host responsive — a library awaits with ConfigureAwait(false) (so it never captures and stalls the host's context) and avoids sync-over-async blocking (.Wait()/.GetAwaiter().GetResult()) that wastes threads and risks deadlock.

Method: Production-source scan: sync-over-async blocking (.Wait()/.GetAwaiter().GetResult()) counted everywhere, and — for a library with ≥5 awaits — the share of awaits using ConfigureAwait(false). Deterministic, syntax/text detection.

1 blocking call(s) on async work (.Wait()/.GetAwaiter().GetResult()) — these waste a thread and can deadlock in a consumer with a synchronization context.
Only 0/76 awaits use ConfigureAwait(false). A library that captures the caller's context can stall or deadlock its host — the classic way a dependency drags an app down.

What to do

Make the call chain async end-to-end and await it — never block on a Task with .Wait()/.GetAwaiter().GetResult() in library code.
In library code, append .ConfigureAwait(false) to every await (or set <ConfigureAwait>false</ConfigureAwait> / use the analyzer CA2007) so the library never captures the host's context.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X1 · Async correctness3.7 / 10Poor✓ Tool-verified

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.

`async void` can't be awaited and its exceptions crash the process instead of propagating. Return `Task` unless this is a top-level event handler. (×21) — GrassFieldManager.cs:118, TransitionManager.cs:250, TransitionManager.cs:386, …
Blocking on a Task with `.Wait()`/`.GetAwaiter().GetResult()` can deadlock (and wastes a thread). Make the caller `async` and `await` instead. — TacticalSimulator.cs:261

What to do

async void method: OnBriefingFullyRendered

Do you agree with this assessment?

X2 · Cancellation propagation4.0 / 10Poor✓ Tool-verified

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 0/48 async methods accept a CancellationToken, so requests can't be cancelled cleanly under load or on client disconnect. In Blazor Server circuits and other short-write hosts, omitting it can be an accepted convention — judge against your hosting model.
No CancellationToken parameter — work can't be cancelled cleanly on disconnect/shutdown. (×25) — GrassDataCache.cs:53, GrassFieldManager.cs:118, GrassFieldManager.cs:126, …

What to do

Thread a CancellationToken through async methods so work stops promptly on cancellation.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X3 · Exception handling7.8 / 10Healthy✓ Tool-verified

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. — TreeSortingHelper.cs:190

What to do

Swallowed exception (empty catch)

Do you agree with this assessment?

X4 · Structured logging10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether log calls use message templates (queryable) rather than interpolated strings.

Method: Roslyn syntax scan: every log call-site counted; interpolated-string first-argument violations flagged. Population is all log calls, not estimated. Deterministic.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X5 · Nullable reference types10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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.

~0.0 `!` suppressions per 1k syntax nodes — each one tells the compiler to trust you about null, suppressing the very safety NRTs provide.

What to do

Enable <Nullable>enable</Nullable> across all projects and resolve warnings rather than suppressing with `!`.

Do you agree with this assessment?

Reference — by lens

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

Lens	Score	Rating	Impact
Code Health	61%	Fair — gated by D18, X1	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Architecture	76%	Fair — gated by AX5	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Maturity	31%	Poor — gated by M1, M2, M4	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Readiness	58%	Fair — gated by P1	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Security	62%	Fair — gated by D28	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Performance	63%	Fair	Strongest area.

Not included — 49 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
C1 Data Protection — No personal data detected in the analyzed source — no PII-typed entity/column names (Email, FirstName, DateOfBirth, …), no ASP.NET Identity / user-account model, and no stored user credentials. GDPR data-protection controls are therefore N/A here. If this is intentional, record the no-PII posture in an ADR; if the app does process personal data, name those fields conventionally so this dimension activates.
C2 Access Controls — No access-control surface detected in the analyzed source — no web/app surface to authorize (no HTTP API or web-UI project) and no authorization code at all (no [Authorize]/policies, no imperative guard methods). Access control is therefore N/A here — this is a library/CLI, which is authorized by its CALLER, not by itself. If this codebase grows request handlers, the dimension reactivates and a default-deny posture is expected then.
C3 Audit Trail — No personal data detected in the analyzed source — no PII-typed entity/column names (Email, FirstName, DateOfBirth, …), no ASP.NET Identity / user-account model, and no stored user credentials. GDPR data-protection controls are therefore N/A here. If this is intentional, record the no-PII posture in an ADR; if the app does process personal data, name those fields conventionally so this dimension activates.
C4 Data Retention — No personal data detected in the analyzed source — no PII-typed entity/column names (Email, FirstName, DateOfBirth, …), no ASP.NET Identity / user-account model, and no stored user credentials. GDPR data-protection controls are therefore N/A here. If this is intentional, record the no-PII posture in an ADR; if the app does process personal data, name those fields conventionally so this dimension activates.
C5 Data-Subject Rights — No personal data detected in the analyzed source — no PII-typed entity/column names (Email, FirstName, DateOfBirth, …), no ASP.NET Identity / user-account model, and no stored user credentials. GDPR data-protection controls are therefore N/A here. If this is intentional, record the no-PII posture in an ADR; if the app does process personal data, name those fields conventionally so this dimension activates.
D11 Test Reliability — No tests discovered
D16 Bus Factor — single-maintainer — knowledge-concentration (bus factor) risk
D19 Documentation Quality — LLM evaluation failed
D21 Naming Consistency — LLM evaluation failed
D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — Dimension evaluation failed
D24 Comment Value — LLM evaluation failed
D25 ADR Conformance — no ADRs to check
D26 Project Cohesion — Dimension evaluation failed
D31 IaC & Container Security — Not applicable
D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — Not applicable
D33 JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities — Not applicable
D34 Knowledge Freshness — early-stage repository — too little history to judge knowledge freshness
D35 Change Coupling — no production change history to mine for change-coupling
D36 Supply-chain Provenance & Signing — Not applicable
D37 Vulnerability-disclosure Policy — Not applicable
D38 OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities — Not applicable
D7 Architectural Integrity — No checkable ADRs to assess
D8 Code Coverage — Coverage not measured
DM1 Domain Modelling — not run — only 2/3 markers (9 strongly-typed id(s); 11 value object(s))
ED1 Event-Driven — not run — 0/3 markers found
ED5 Idempotency — no mutating command handlers or message consumers detected — idempotency check not applicable
ES1 Event Sourcing — not run — 0/3 markers found
P12 CI test-gate honesty — no CI workflow found
P2 Observability — This repo is a library, not a deployed service — it has no process to operate, so production observability (structured logging, tracing/metrics, health checks) is N/A. A library may log via an injected ILogger, but the absence of operational telemetry is not a defect here. If it grows a host (web API, worker), the dimension reactivates.
P4 Deployment & Rollback — not evidenced — no deploy/rollback/approval signal in the repo; absence of evidence is not evidence of a manual release
P5 DR & Backup — not evidenced — repo shows no backup/RTO/RPO controls; absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control
P6 Release Hygiene — not evidenced — no changelog, version stamp or semver release tag in the repo
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 — run tests with `--collect:"XPlat Code Coverage"` (or in CI) to enable this cross-layer check
S1 Web-Security Posture — No web surface detected in the analyzed source — no HTTP API or web-UI project (no controllers/minimal-API endpoints, no Razor/Blazor views) and no web middleware (HTTPS redirection, HSTS, security headers, cookies). Transport security, security headers, secure cookies, CSRF/input-validation and middleware-order controls are therefore N/A here — this is a library/CLI/worker, not a web app. Crypto hygiene was still checked and found nothing to flag. If this codebase becomes web-facing, the dimension reactivates automatically.
X6 Hand-rolled structured-format parsing — no data
X7 Silent fallback defaults — no data

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.

Issue — 63 finding(s)

D28 · Secrets (history) · Secret · ×50

Secret: aws-access-token RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Assets/Buildings/Civilian houses/Concrete fencing 3.tscn:23 — matched rule 'aws-access-token'
Secret: aws-access-token RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Assets/Buildings/Civilian houses/Concrete fencing 3.tscn:65 — matched rule 'aws-access-token'
Secret: aws-access-token RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Assets/Buildings/Civilian houses/Concrete fencing 5.tscn:24 — matched rule 'aws-access-token'
Secret: aws-access-token RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Assets/Buildings/Civilian houses/Concrete fencing 5.tscn:24 — matched rule 'aws-access-token'
Secret: aws-access-token RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Assets/Buildings/Civilian houses/Concrete fencing 2.tscn:24 — matched rule 'aws-access-token'
Secret: aws-access-token RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Assets/Buildings/Civilian houses/Concrete fencing 2.tscn:65 — matched rule 'aws-access-token'
Secret: aws-access-token RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Assets/Buildings/Civilian houses/Stone small 3.tscn:33 — matched rule 'aws-access-token'
Secret: aws-access-token RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Assets/Buildings/Civilian houses/Stone small 3.tscn:33 — matched rule 'aws-access-token'
Secret: aws-access-token RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Assets/Buildings/Civilian houses/Stone small 3.tscn:63 — matched rule 'aws-access-token'
Secret: aws-access-token RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Assets/Buildings/Civilian houses/Stone small 3.tscn:63 — matched rule 'aws-access-token'
Secret: aws-access-token RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Assets/Buildings/Civilian houses/Stone small 1.tscn:33 — matched rule 'aws-access-token'
Secret: aws-access-token RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Assets/Buildings/Civilian houses/Stone small 1.tscn:63 — matched rule 'aws-access-token'
Secret: aws-access-token RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Assets/Buildings/Civilian houses/Stone large 3.tscn:24 — matched rule 'aws-access-token'
Secret: aws-access-token RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Assets/Buildings/Civilian houses/Stone large 3.tscn:34 — matched rule 'aws-access-token'
Secret: aws-access-token RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Assets/Buildings/Civilian houses/Bush 2.tscn:41 — matched rule 'aws-access-token'
Secret: aws-access-token RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Assets/Buildings/Civilian houses/Stone large 2.tscn:24 — matched rule 'aws-access-token'
Secret: aws-access-token RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Assets/Buildings/Civilian houses/Stone large 2.tscn:35 — matched rule 'aws-access-token'
Secret: aws-access-token RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Assets/Buildings/Civilian houses/Stone large 2.tscn:35 — matched rule 'aws-access-token'
Secret: aws-access-token RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Assets/Buildings/Civilian houses/Stone large 2.tscn:52 — matched rule 'aws-access-token'
Secret: aws-access-token RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Assets/Buildings/Civilian houses/Stone large 1.tscn:24 — matched rule 'aws-access-token'
Secret: aws-access-token RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Assets/Buildings/Civilian houses/Stone large 1.tscn:52 — matched rule 'aws-access-token'
Secret: aws-access-token RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Assets/Buildings/Civilian houses/Stone large 1.tscn:65 — matched rule 'aws-access-token'
Secret: aws-access-token RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Assets/Buildings/Civilian houses/House 2 floors private option 4.tscn:26 — matched rule 'aws-access-token'
Secret: aws-access-token RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Assets/Buildings/Civilian houses/Water tower 1.tscn:36 — matched rule 'aws-access-token'
Secret: aws-access-token RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Assets/Buildings/Civilian houses/Water tower 1.tscn:37 — matched rule 'aws-access-token'
+ 25 more in this group — see findings.md.

D10 · Test Quality · No assertions · ×6

No assertions: ReproduceBDDAmmunitionBug_WeaponSystemFiresButNoEventsSet Canine/Canine.TacticalBattleEngine.Tests/DebugTests/BDDAmmunitionBugTest.cs:17 — Test method has no assertions — it may not test anything.
No assertions: Forest_Movement_Speed_Calculation Canine/Canine.TacticalBattleEngine.Tests/UnitTests/ForestMovesToPOITest.cs:92 — Test method has no assertions — it may not test anything.
No assertions: PathfindingSystem_ShouldShowCoordinateMapping Canine/Canine.TacticalBattleEngine.Tests/UnitTests/PathfindingDebuggingTests.cs:90 — Test method has no assertions — it may not test anything.
No assertions: SetWalkable_ShouldHandleInvalidPositions Canine/Canine.TacticalBattleEngine.Tests/UnitTests/PathfindingGridTests.cs:180 — Test method has no assertions — it may not test anything.
No assertions: AddStaticObstacle_ShouldHandleEdgeCases Canine/Canine.TacticalBattleEngine.Tests/UnitTests/PathfindingGridTests.cs:211 — Test method has no assertions — it may not test anything.
No assertions: Check_What_MockWeapon_Properties_Are_Used Canine/Canine.TacticalBattleEngine.Tests/UnitTests/TargetSelectionRangeBugTest.cs:122 — Test method has no assertions — it may not test anything.

D17 · Explicit Debt · NoWarnInCsproj · ×2

NoWarnInCsproj Canine/Canine.TacticalBattleEngine.Tests/Canine.TacticalBattleEngine.Tests.csproj:11 — CS8785
NoWarnInCsproj Canine/Canine.TacticalBattleEngine.Tests/Canine.TacticalBattleEngine.Tests.csproj:11 — CA2000

D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities · High CVE · ×2

High CVE: System.Net.Http 4.3.0 — System.Net.Http 4.3.0 (transitive) has a High advisory; affects 2 projects — one upgrade fixes all. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
High CVE: System.Text.RegularExpressions 4.3.0 — System.Text.RegularExpressions 4.3.0 (transitive) has a High advisory; affects 2 projects — one upgrade fixes all. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]

D17 · Explicit Debt · EmptyCatchBlock · ×1

EmptyCatchBlock RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/UI/ModdingTools/TreeSortingHelper.cs:190 — empty catch block

D23 · Boundary Type-Coupling · Dimension evaluation failed · ×1

Dimension evaluation failed — Dimension threw: Name or service not known (canine-dgx1:80)

D26 · Project Cohesion · Dimension evaluation failed · ×1

Dimension evaluation failed — Dimension threw: Name or service not known (canine-dgx1:80)

Warning — 268 finding(s)

D17 · Explicit Debt · TodoComment · ×44

TodoComment RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Assets/UI/UnitSelectButton.cs:210 — // TODO: Economy integration - show cost from unit.PurchaseCost — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: PROJ-123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Assets/UI/UnitSelectButton.cs:452 — // TODO: Economy system integration — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: PROJ-123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Assets/UI/UnitSelectButton.cs:466 — // TODO: Show purchase confirmation dialog — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: PROJ-123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Assets/UI/UnitSelectButton.cs:467 — // TODO: Play purchase sound effect — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: PROJ-123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Assets/UI/UnitSelectButton.cs:468 — // TODO: Update player currency display — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: PROJ-123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Assets/UI/UnitSelectButton.cs:472 — // TODO: Show insufficient funds dialog — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: PROJ-123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Assets/UI/UnitSelectButton.cs:695 — // TODO: This should be moved to GameLogic layer with deterministic generation — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: PROJ-123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Assets/UI/UnitSelectButton.cs:748 — // TODO: Play unit placement sound — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: PROJ-123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Assets/UI/UnitSelectButton.cs:749 — // TODO: Show placement confirmation — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: PROJ-123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/Animation/AnimationCache.cs:95 — // TODO: Get from unit definition when multiple skeletons supported — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: PROJ-123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/Environment/NeutralUnitRenderer.cs:14 — // TODO: Load from GameSettings Resource when Resource loading system is implemented — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: PROJ-123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/Managers/BattlefieldManager.cs:2144 — // TODO: Store target priority on UnitLogicRenderer if needed — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: PROJ-123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/Resources/ResourceManager.cs:190 — // TODO: Load DeathEffect if needed — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: PROJ-123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/UI/MainMenuScene.cs:282 — // TODO: Implement save game functionality — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: PROJ-123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/UI/MainMenuScene.cs:301 — // TODO: Implement credits screen — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: PROJ-123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/UI/ModdingTools/ExperienceEditDialog.cs:133 — // TODO: Add Name field to ExperienceConfiguration — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: PROJ-123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/UI/ModdingTools/ExperienceEditDialog.cs:149 — // TODO: Add Name field to StatBonusConfiguration — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: PROJ-123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/UI/ModdingTools/ExperienceEditDialog.cs:151 — // TODO: Determine which bonus type is being edited — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: PROJ-123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/UI/ModdingTools/ExperienceEditDialog.cs:153 — // TODO: This should be per-level bonus — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: PROJ-123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/UI/ModdingTools/ExperienceEditDialog.cs:155 — // TODO: StatBonusConfiguration doesn't have a BonusType field - it has different bonus types as separate fields — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: PROJ-123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/UI/ModdingTools/ExperienceEditDialog.cs:240 — // TODO: Create new ExperienceConfiguration with updated values — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: PROJ-123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/UI/ModdingTools/ExperienceEditDialog.cs:248 — // TODO: Create new StatBonusConfiguration with updated values — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: PROJ-123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/UI/ModdingTools/GameSettingsOverview.cs:64 — // TODO: Implement game settings loading when ResourceManager supports it — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: PROJ-123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/UI/ModdingTools/GameSettingsOverview.cs:77 — // TODO: Implement settings panel population based on GameSettings structure — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: PROJ-123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/UI/ModdingTools/GameSettingsOverview.cs:96 — // TODO: Create controls for simulation settings — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: PROJ-123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
+ 19 more in this group — see findings.md.

D17 · Explicit Debt · BarePragmaDisable · ×21

BarePragmaDisable RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/Managers/BattlefieldManager.cs:1429 — #pragma warning disable CA2000
BarePragmaDisable RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/Managers/POINode.cs:129 — #pragma warning disable CA2000
BarePragmaDisable RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/Managers/ProceduralForestManager.cs:452 — #pragma warning disable CA2000
BarePragmaDisable RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/Managers/ProceduralForestManager.cs:495 — #pragma warning disable CA2000
BarePragmaDisable RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/UI/AchievementUIController.cs:208 — #pragma warning disable CA2000
BarePragmaDisable RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/UI/ModdingTools/AnimationBrowser/AnimationBrowser.Model.cs:405 — #pragma warning disable CA2000
BarePragmaDisable RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/UI/ModdingTools/AnimationBrowser/AnimationBrowser.Preview.cs:126 — #pragma warning disable CA2000
BarePragmaDisable RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/UI/ModdingTools/DefenceEditDialog/DefenceEditDialog.DragDrop.cs:22 — #pragma warning disable CA2000
BarePragmaDisable RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/UI/ModdingTools/DefenceEditDialog/DefenceEditDialog.DragDrop.cs:47 — #pragma warning disable CA2000
BarePragmaDisable RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/UI/ModdingTools/UnitEditDialog/UnitEditDialog.Animation.cs:157 — #pragma warning disable CA2000
BarePragmaDisable RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/UI/ModdingTools/UnitEditDialog/UnitEditDialog.DragDrop.cs:24 — #pragma warning disable CA2000
BarePragmaDisable RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/UI/ModdingTools/UnitEditDialog/UnitEditDialog.DragDrop.cs:49 — #pragma warning disable CA2000
BarePragmaDisable RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/UI/ModdingTools/UnitEditDialog/UnitEditDialog.DragDrop.cs:75 — #pragma warning disable CA2000
BarePragmaDisable RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/UI/ModdingTools/UnitEditDialog/UnitEditDialog.DragDrop.cs:98 — #pragma warning disable CA2000
BarePragmaDisable RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/UI/ModdingTools/UnitEditDialog/UnitEditDialog.Scene.cs:23 — #pragma warning disable CA2000
BarePragmaDisable RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/UI/ModdingTools/UnitEditDialog/UnitEditDialog.Scene.cs:70 — #pragma warning disable CA2000
BarePragmaDisable RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/UI/ModdingTools/Utilities/GltfAnimationExtractor.cs:43 — #pragma warning disable CA2000
BarePragmaDisable RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/UI/ModdingTools/WeaponEditDialog/WeaponEditDialog.DragDrop.cs:53 — #pragma warning disable CA2000
BarePragmaDisable RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/UI/ModdingTools/WeaponEditDialog/WeaponEditDialog.DragDrop.cs:78 — #pragma warning disable CA2000
BarePragmaDisable RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/UI/ModdingTools/WeaponEditDialog/WeaponEditDialog.DragDrop.cs:102 — #pragma warning disable CA2000
BarePragmaDisable RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/UI/SupportScene.cs:20 — #pragma warning disable CS0067

D17 · Explicit Debt · Dead code · ×14

Dead code: UpdateTeamColor RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/Combat/ProjectileRenderer.cs:285 — Method UpdateTeamColor — no references found in solution.
Dead code: DrawMovementPreview RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/Managers/BattlefieldManager.cs:988 — Method DrawMovementPreview — no references found in solution.
Dead code: RegisterTreeAsNeutralUnit RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/Managers/ProceduralForestManager.cs:236 — Method RegisterTreeAsNeutralUnit — no references found in solution.
Dead code: PopulateTree RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/UI/ModdingTools/DefenceOverview.cs:157 — Method PopulateTree — no references found in solution.
Dead code: PopulateTree RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/UI/ModdingTools/UnitsOverview.cs:169 — Method PopulateTree — no references found in solution.
Dead code: PopulateTree RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/UI/ModdingTools/WeaponsOverview.cs:136 — Method PopulateTree — no references found in solution.
Dead code: ConvertUnitStatesToUnitStates Canine/Canine.TacticalBattleEngine.Tests/BehaviorTests/UnitMovementBehaviorTests.cs:157 — Method ConvertUnitStatesToUnitStates — no references found in solution.
Dead code: UpdateUnitStatesFromUnitStates Canine/Canine.TacticalBattleEngine.Tests/BehaviorTests/UnitMovementBehaviorTests.cs:188 — Method UpdateUnitStatesFromUnitStates — no references found in solution.
Dead code: CreateComplexScenario Canine/Canine.TacticalBattleEngine.Tests/Integration/EndToEndSimulationTests.cs:268 — Method CreateComplexScenario — no references found in solution.
Dead code: CreateComplexCommands Canine/Canine.TacticalBattleEngine.Tests/Integration/EndToEndSimulationTests.cs:313 — Method CreateComplexCommands — no references found in solution.
Dead code: InvokePrivateMethod Canine/Canine.TacticalBattleEngine.Tests/UnitTests/RotationSystemTests.cs:371 — Method InvokePrivateMethod — no references found in solution.
Dead code: ApplySplashDamageToUnit Canine/Canine.TacticalBattleEngine/Combat/SplashDamageSystem.cs:60 — Method ApplySplashDamageToUnit — no references found in solution.
Dead code: DetermineHitResult Canine/Canine.TacticalBattleEngine/Combat/WeaponSystem.cs:218 — Method DetermineHitResult — no references found in solution.
Dead code: CalculateTangentialAvoidance Canine/Canine.TacticalBattleEngine/Navigation/CollisionAvoidanceSystem.cs:332 — Method CalculateTangentialAvoidance — no references found in solution.

D3 · God Classes · TooManyMethods · ×10

TooManyMethods: BattlefieldManager RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/Managers/BattlefieldManager.cs:0 — TooManyMethods — 1113 lines, 83 methods.
TooManyMethods: SelectionManager RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/Managers/SelectionManager.cs:0 — TooManyMethods — 591 lines, 44 methods.
TooManyMethods: ResourceManager RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/Resources/ResourceManager.cs:0 — TooManyMethods — 440 lines, 40 methods.
TooManyMethods: AchievementUIController RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/UI/AchievementUIController.cs:0 — TooManyMethods — 238 lines, 31 methods.
TooManyMethods: AnimationBrowser RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/UI/ModdingTools/AnimationBrowser/AnimationBrowser.cs:0 — TooManyMethods — 569 lines, 31 methods.
TooManyMethods: ProgressionOverview RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/UI/ModdingTools/ProgressionOverview.cs:0 — TooManyMethods — 227 lines, 33 methods.
TooManyMethods: UnitEditDialog RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/UI/ModdingTools/UnitEditDialog/UnitEditDialog.Animation.cs:0 — TooManyMethods — 1005 lines, 75 methods.
TooManyMethods: WeaponEditDialog RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/UI/ModdingTools/WeaponEditDialog/WeaponEditDialog.Assets.cs:0 — TooManyMethods — 505 lines, 35 methods.
TooManyMethods: SettingsMenuScene RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/UI/SettingsMenuScene.cs:0 — TooManyMethods — 498 lines, 36 methods.
TooManyMethods: UnitLogicRenderer RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/UnitLogicRenderer.cs:0 — TooManyMethods — 604 lines, 53 methods.

D6 · Cohesion (LCOM4) · Low cohesion · ×10

Low cohesion: ResourceManager (LCOM4 8) RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/Resources/ResourceManager.cs:23 — ResourceManager's methods form 8 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: UnitEditDialog (LCOM4 6) RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/UI/ModdingTools/UnitEditDialog/UnitEditDialog.cs:20 — UnitEditDialog's methods form 6 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: UnitLogicRenderer (LCOM4 5) RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/UnitLogicRenderer.cs:15 — UnitLogicRenderer's methods form 5 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: BasicCardSystem (LCOM4 5) Canine/Canine.TacticalBattleEngine/Modules/Cards/BasicCardSystem.cs:8 — BasicCardSystem's methods form 5 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: TowerfallConfiguration (LCOM4 5) TowerfallProtocol/Towerfall.Game/Scripts/Configuration/TowerfallConfiguration.cs:15 — TowerfallConfiguration's methods form 5 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: BattlefieldManager (LCOM4 4) RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/Managers/BattlefieldManager.cs:20 — BattlefieldManager'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: TeamBasedFactions (LCOM4 4) Canine/Canine.TacticalBattleEngine/Modules/Factions/TeamBasedFactions.cs:10 — TeamBasedFactions'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: GoldManaResourceSystem (LCOM4 4) Canine/Canine.TacticalBattleEngine/Modules/Resources/GoldManaResourceSystem.cs:8 — GoldManaResourceSystem'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: SimulationRngProvider (LCOM4 4) Canine/Canine.TacticalBattleEngine/Simulation/SimulationRngProvider.cs:7 — SimulationRngProvider'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: SinglePlayerLogic (LCOM4 4) Canine/Canine.TacticalBattleEngine/Simulation/SinglePlayerLogic.cs:9 — SinglePlayerLogic'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.

D17 · Explicit Debt · XxxComment · ×7

XxxComment RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/Animation/AnimationFileLoader.cs:135 — // Weapon format: WPN-XXX (contains hyphen, e.g., WPN-003, WPN-009) — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: PROJ-123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
XxxComment RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/Animation/AnimationFileLoader.cs:147 — // Unit format: MON-XXX or UNIT-XXX (contains hyphen) — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: PROJ-123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
XxxComment RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/Animation/AnimationLookupSystem.cs:82 — // Look for pattern "WPN XXX" at the start — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: PROJ-123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
XxxComment RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/Animation/AnimationLookupSystem.cs:150 — // Look for pattern ANM-XXX — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: PROJ-123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
XxxComment RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/Managers/UnitRegistry.cs:18 — // Maps HRO XXX to definitions — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: PROJ-123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
XxxComment RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/Managers/UnitRegistry.cs:19 — // Maps MST XXX to definitions — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: PROJ-123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
XxxComment Canine/Canine.TacticalBattleEngine/Animation/AnimationFilenameParser.cs:238 — // This marks the end of the ID section (SKL-XXX, WPN-XXX, UNIT-XXX, MON-XXX) — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: PROJ-123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.

D3 · God Classes · FileTooLong · ×4

FileTooLong: Managers/BattlefieldManager.cs RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/Managers/BattlefieldManager.cs:0 — FileTooLong — 1127 lines, 0 methods.
FileTooLong: Managers/SelectionManager.cs RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/Managers/SelectionManager.cs:0 — FileTooLong — 600 lines, 0 methods.
FileTooLong: UI/SettingsMenuScene.cs RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/UI/SettingsMenuScene.cs:0 — FileTooLong — 506 lines, 0 methods.
FileTooLong: Scripts/UnitLogicRenderer.cs RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/UnitLogicRenderer.cs:0 — FileTooLong — 613 lines, 0 methods.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (19 lines × 2) · ×3

Duplicated block (19 lines × 2) RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/Managers/GameResourcePreloader.cs:104 — RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/Managers/GameResourcePreloader.cs:104-117 | RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/Managers/GameResourcePreloader.cs:123-141
Duplicated block (19 lines × 2) RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/UI/ModdingTools/DefenceEditDialog/DefenceEditDialog.cs:88 — RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/UI/ModdingTools/DefenceEditDialog/DefenceEditDialog.cs:88-103 | RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/UI/ModdingTools/WeaponEditDialog/WeaponEditDialog.cs:145-163
Duplicated block (19 lines × 2) RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/UI/ModdingTools/UnitEditDialog/UnitEditDialog.Assets.cs:79 — RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/UI/ModdingTools/UnitEditDialog/UnitEditDialog.Assets.cs:79-97 | RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/UI/ModdingTools/WeaponEditDialog/WeaponEditDialog.DragDrop.cs:14-29

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) · ×3

Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/Managers/MilestoneManager.cs:220 — RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/Managers/MilestoneManager.cs:220-234 | RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/Managers/SimpleMilestoneManager.cs:253-266
Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/UI/ModdingTools/DefenceEditDialog/DefenceEditDialog.cs:73 — RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/UI/ModdingTools/DefenceEditDialog/DefenceEditDialog.cs:73-85 | RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/UI/ModdingTools/WeaponEditDialog/WeaponEditDialog.cs:126-140
Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/UI/ModdingTools/DefenceEditDialog/DefenceEditDialog.cs:143 — RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/UI/ModdingTools/DefenceEditDialog/DefenceEditDialog.cs:143-156 | RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/UI/ModdingTools/WeaponEditDialog/WeaponEditDialog.cs:225-239

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) · ×3

Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/Animation/HumanoidAnimationController.cs:511 — RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/Animation/HumanoidAnimationController.cs:511-524 | RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/Animation/HumanoidAnimationController.cs:538-551
Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/Managers/BattlefieldManager.cs:606 — RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/Managers/BattlefieldManager.cs:606-619 | RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/Managers/BattlefieldManager.cs:696-709
Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/Managers/UnitRegistry.cs:200 — RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/Managers/UnitRegistry.cs:200-213 | RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/Managers/UnitRegistry.cs:227-240

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) · ×3

Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/Managers/MilestoneManager.cs:186 — RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/Managers/MilestoneManager.cs:186-198 | RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/Managers/SimpleMilestoneManager.cs:224-236
Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/UI/ModdingTools/DefenceEditDialog/DefenceEditDialog.DragDrop.cs:44 — RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/UI/ModdingTools/DefenceEditDialog/DefenceEditDialog.DragDrop.cs:44-56 | RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/UI/ModdingTools/WeaponEditDialog/WeaponEditDialog.DragDrop.cs:75-87
Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) Canine/Canine.TacticalBattleEngine/Simulation/SpawnAreaSystem.cs:18 — Canine/Canine.TacticalBattleEngine/Simulation/SpawnAreaSystem.cs:18-30 | Canine/Canine.TacticalBattleEngine/Units/SpawnAreaUnitFactory.cs:17-29

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

Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/UI/Cutscenes/NightToDayCutscene.cs:221 — RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/UI/Cutscenes/NightToDayCutscene.cs:221-230 | RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/UI/Cutscenes/NightToDayCutscene.cs:285-294
Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/UI/ModdingTools/AnimationBrowser/AnimationBrowser.Model.cs:83 — RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/UI/ModdingTools/AnimationBrowser/AnimationBrowser.Model.cs:83-92 | RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/UI/ModdingTools/AnimationBrowser/AnimationBrowser.Model.cs:146-155
Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) Canine/Canine.TacticalBattleEngine/Simulation/UnitAI.cs:468 — Canine/Canine.TacticalBattleEngine/Simulation/UnitAI.cs:468-476 | Canine/Canine.TacticalBattleEngine/Simulation/UnitAI.cs:506-515

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

Duplicated block (21 lines × 2) RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/UI/Cutscenes/DefeatScene.cs:178 — RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/UI/Cutscenes/DefeatScene.cs:178-198 | RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/UI/Cutscenes/VictoryScene.cs:177-197
Duplicated block (21 lines × 2) RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/UI/ModdingTools/UnitsOverview.cs:332 — RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/UI/ModdingTools/UnitsOverview.cs:332-352 | RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/UI/UnitDefinitionEditor.cs:425-445

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

Duplicated block (17 lines × 2) RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/Camera/CameraController.cs:284 — RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/Camera/CameraController.cs:284-300 | RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/Camera/CameraController.cs:328-344
Duplicated block (17 lines × 2) RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/UI/ModdingTools/DefenceEditDialog/DefenceEditDialog.Assets.cs:161 — RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/UI/ModdingTools/DefenceEditDialog/DefenceEditDialog.Assets.cs:161-177 | RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/UI/ModdingTools/WeaponEditDialog/WeaponEditDialog.Assets.cs:154-170

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

Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/UI/ModdingTools/AnimationBrowser/AnimationBrowser.cs:166 — RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/UI/ModdingTools/AnimationBrowser/AnimationBrowser.cs:166-177 | RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/UI/ModdingTools/AnimationBrowser/AnimationBrowser.cs:187-198
Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/UI/ModdingTools/DefenceEditDialog/DefenceEditDialog.DragDrop.cs:120 — RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/UI/ModdingTools/DefenceEditDialog/DefenceEditDialog.DragDrop.cs:120-131 | RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/UI/ModdingTools/WeaponEditDialog/WeaponEditDialog.DragDrop.cs:191-202

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

Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/UI/ModdingTools/DefenceEditDialog/DefenceEditDialog.DragDrop.cs:75 — RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/UI/ModdingTools/DefenceEditDialog/DefenceEditDialog.DragDrop.cs:75-85 | RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/UI/ModdingTools/WeaponEditDialog/WeaponEditDialog.DragDrop.cs:135-145
Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) Canine/Canine.TacticalBattleEngine/Environment/ForestClusterGenerator.cs:465 — Canine/Canine.TacticalBattleEngine/Environment/ForestClusterGenerator.cs:465-475 | Canine/Canine.TacticalBattleEngine/Environment/ForestClusterGenerator.cs:520-526

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

Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/Managers/BattlefieldManager.cs:833 — RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/Managers/BattlefieldManager.cs:833-841 | RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/Managers/BattlefieldManager.cs:844-852
Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/UI/ModdingTools/AnimationBrowser/AnimationBrowser.Model.cs:63 — RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/UI/ModdingTools/AnimationBrowser/AnimationBrowser.Model.cs:63-71 | RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/UI/ModdingTools/AnimationBrowser/AnimationBrowser.Model.cs:115-123

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · UnitAI.MakeOperationalDecision (cyclomatic 51) · ×1

UnitAI.MakeOperationalDecision (cyclomatic 51) Canine/Canine.TacticalBattleEngine/Simulation/UnitAI.cs:53 — UnitAI.MakeOperationalDecision has cyclomatic complexity 51 (threshold 15).

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · WaypointMovementSystem.ProcessMovementTick (cyclomatic 40) · ×1

WaypointMovementSystem.ProcessMovementTick (cyclomatic 40) Canine/Canine.TacticalBattleEngine/Units/WaypointMovementSystem.cs:228 — WaypointMovementSystem.ProcessMovementTick has cyclomatic complexity 40 (threshold 15).

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · AnimationLookupSystem.FuzzyMatchAnimationType (cyclomatic 35) · ×1

AnimationLookupSystem.FuzzyMatchAnimationType (cyclomatic 35) RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/Animation/AnimationLookupSystem.cs:171 — AnimationLookupSystem.FuzzyMatchAnimationType has cyclomatic complexity 35 (threshold 15).

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · ForestClusterGenerator.ValidatePathfinding (cyclomatic 35) · ×1

ForestClusterGenerator.ValidatePathfinding (cyclomatic 35) Canine/Canine.TacticalBattleEngine/Environment/ForestClusterGenerator.cs:640 — ForestClusterGenerator.ValidatePathfinding has cyclomatic complexity 35 (threshold 15).

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · AnimationFileLoader.ParseAnimationFile (cyclomatic 34) · ×1

AnimationFileLoader.ParseAnimationFile (cyclomatic 34) RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/Animation/AnimationFileLoader.cs:92 — AnimationFileLoader.ParseAnimationFile has cyclomatic complexity 34 (threshold 15).

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · HumanoidAnimationController.PlayFallbackAnimation (cyclomatic 33) · ×1

HumanoidAnimationController.PlayFallbackAnimation (cyclomatic 33) RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/Animation/HumanoidAnimationController.cs:393 — HumanoidAnimationController.PlayFallbackAnimation has cyclomatic complexity 33 (threshold 15).

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · AnimationFilenameParser.Parse (cyclomatic 32) · ×1

AnimationFilenameParser.Parse (cyclomatic 32) Canine/Canine.TacticalBattleEngine/Animation/AnimationFilenameParser.cs:20 — AnimationFilenameParser.Parse has cyclomatic complexity 32 (threshold 15).

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · CameraController._Process (cyclomatic 28) · ×1

CameraController._Process (cyclomatic 28) RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/Camera/CameraController.cs:259 — CameraController._Process has cyclomatic complexity 28 (threshold 15).

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · UnitEditDialog.ClearFields (cyclomatic 27) · ×1

UnitEditDialog.ClearFields (cyclomatic 27) RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/UI/ModdingTools/UnitEditDialog/UnitEditDialog.UI.cs:153 — UnitEditDialog.ClearFields has cyclomatic complexity 27 (threshold 15).

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · UnitEditDialog.LoadUnitData (cyclomatic 27) · ×1

UnitEditDialog.LoadUnitData (cyclomatic 27) RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/UI/ModdingTools/UnitEditDialog/UnitEditDialog.UI.cs:186 — UnitEditDialog.LoadUnitData has cyclomatic complexity 27 (threshold 15).

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · AnimationIdMapping.GetAnimationTypeForState (cyclomatic 27) · ×1

AnimationIdMapping.GetAnimationTypeForState (cyclomatic 27) Canine/Canine.TacticalBattleEngine/Animation/AnimationIdMapping.cs:128 — AnimationIdMapping.GetAnimationTypeForState has cyclomatic complexity 27 (threshold 15).

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · CombatSystem.ProcessCombatTick (cyclomatic 27) · ×1

CombatSystem.ProcessCombatTick (cyclomatic 27) Canine/Canine.TacticalBattleEngine/Combat/CombatSystem.cs:9 — CombatSystem.ProcessCombatTick has cyclomatic complexity 27 (threshold 15).

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · SimulationManager.StartNightSimulation (cyclomatic 26) · ×1

SimulationManager.StartNightSimulation (cyclomatic 26) RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/Simulation/SimulationManager.cs:186 — SimulationManager.StartNightSimulation has cyclomatic complexity 26 (threshold 15).

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · JumpPointSearch.GetPrunedNeighbors (cyclomatic 25) · ×1

JumpPointSearch.GetPrunedNeighbors (cyclomatic 25) Canine/Canine.TacticalBattleEngine/Navigation/JumpPointSearch.cs:158 — JumpPointSearch.GetPrunedNeighbors has cyclomatic complexity 25 (threshold 15).

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · TacticalSimulator.SimulateNightPhase (cyclomatic 25) · ×1

TacticalSimulator.SimulateNightPhase (cyclomatic 25) Canine/Canine.TacticalBattleEngine/Simulation/TacticalSimulator.cs:76 — TacticalSimulator.SimulateNightPhase has cyclomatic complexity 25 (threshold 15).

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · BallisticTrajectory.CalculateBallisticArcTrajectory (cyclomatic 22) · ×1

BallisticTrajectory.CalculateBallisticArcTrajectory (cyclomatic 22) Canine/Canine.TacticalBattleEngine/Simulation/BallisticTrajectory.cs:141 — BallisticTrajectory.CalculateBallisticArcTrajectory has cyclomatic complexity 22 (threshold 15).

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · WeaponEditDialog.LoadWeaponData (cyclomatic 21) · ×1

WeaponEditDialog.LoadWeaponData (cyclomatic 21) RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/UI/ModdingTools/WeaponEditDialog/WeaponEditDialog.UI.cs:78 — WeaponEditDialog.LoadWeaponData has cyclomatic complexity 21 (threshold 15).

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · ProjectileSystem.ProcessProjectileTick (cyclomatic 20) · ×1

ProjectileSystem.ProcessProjectileTick (cyclomatic 20) Canine/Canine.TacticalBattleEngine/Simulation/ProjectileSystem.cs:78 — ProjectileSystem.ProcessProjectileTick has cyclomatic complexity 20 (threshold 15).

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · WeaponEditDialog.ClearFields (cyclomatic 19) · ×1

WeaponEditDialog.ClearFields (cyclomatic 19) RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/UI/ModdingTools/WeaponEditDialog/WeaponEditDialog.UI.cs:13 — WeaponEditDialog.ClearFields has cyclomatic complexity 19 (threshold 15).

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · AnimationMatcher.FindBestMatch (cyclomatic 19) · ×1

AnimationMatcher.FindBestMatch (cyclomatic 19) Canine/Canine.TacticalBattleEngine/Animation/AnimationMatcher.cs:27 — AnimationMatcher.FindBestMatch has cyclomatic complexity 19 (threshold 15).

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · UnitRegistry.ScanAndLoadUnitDefinitions (cyclomatic 18) · ×1

UnitRegistry.ScanAndLoadUnitDefinitions (cyclomatic 18) RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/Managers/UnitRegistry.cs:69 — UnitRegistry.ScanAndLoadUnitDefinitions has cyclomatic complexity 18 (threshold 15).

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · UnitRegistry.BuildCache (cyclomatic 18) · ×1

UnitRegistry.BuildCache (cyclomatic 18) RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/Managers/UnitRegistry.cs:188 — UnitRegistry.BuildCache has cyclomatic complexity 18 (threshold 15).

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · AudioStreamLoader.LoadWav (cyclomatic 18) · ×1

AudioStreamLoader.LoadWav (cyclomatic 18) RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/UI/ModdingTools/Utilities/AudioStreamLoader.cs:67 — AudioStreamLoader.LoadWav has cyclomatic complexity 18 (threshold 15).

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · CollisionAvoidanceSystem.CalculateAvoidanceVelocity (cyclomatic 18) · ×1

CollisionAvoidanceSystem.CalculateAvoidanceVelocity (cyclomatic 18) Canine/Canine.TacticalBattleEngine/Navigation/CollisionAvoidanceSystem.cs:74 — CollisionAvoidanceSystem.CalculateAvoidanceVelocity has cyclomatic complexity 18 (threshold 15).

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · UnitDefinitionData.MapUnitTypeFromString (cyclomatic 18) · ×1

UnitDefinitionData.MapUnitTypeFromString (cyclomatic 18) Canine/Canine.TacticalBattleEngine/Resources/UnitDefinitionData.cs:91 — UnitDefinitionData.MapUnitTypeFromString has cyclomatic complexity 18 (threshold 15).

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · UnitAI.SelectTargetFromState (cyclomatic 18) · ×1

UnitAI.SelectTargetFromState (cyclomatic 18) Canine/Canine.TacticalBattleEngine/Simulation/UnitAI.cs:531 — UnitAI.SelectTargetFromState has cyclomatic complexity 18 (threshold 15).

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · UnitEditDialog.UpdateAnimationPreview (cyclomatic 17) · ×1

UnitEditDialog.UpdateAnimationPreview (cyclomatic 17) RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/UI/ModdingTools/UnitEditDialog/UnitEditDialog.Animation.cs:96 — UnitEditDialog.UpdateAnimationPreview has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15).

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · UnitEditDialog.PopulateWeaponSelector (cyclomatic 17) · ×1

UnitEditDialog.PopulateWeaponSelector (cyclomatic 17) RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/UI/ModdingTools/UnitEditDialog/UnitEditDialog.Assets.cs:271 — UnitEditDialog.PopulateWeaponSelector has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15).

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · AnimationStateSystem.GetMovementAnimation (cyclomatic 17) · ×1

AnimationStateSystem.GetMovementAnimation (cyclomatic 17) Canine/Canine.TacticalBattleEngine/Animation/AnimationStateSystem.cs:60 — AnimationStateSystem.GetMovementAnimation has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15).

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · ModdingTool._on_main_tab_container_tab_changed (cyclomatic 16) · ×1

ModdingTool._on_main_tab_container_tab_changed (cyclomatic 16) RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/UI/ModdingTools/ModdingTool.cs:259 — ModdingTool._on_main_tab_container_tab_changed has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15).

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · AnimationLookupTable.LookupWithFallback (cyclomatic 16) · ×1

AnimationLookupTable.LookupWithFallback (cyclomatic 16) Canine/Canine.TacticalBattleEngine/Animation/AnimationLookupTable.cs:81 — AnimationLookupTable.LookupWithFallback has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15).

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · ForestClusterGenerator.FindNextCirclePosition (cyclomatic 16) · ×1

ForestClusterGenerator.FindNextCirclePosition (cyclomatic 16) Canine/Canine.TacticalBattleEngine/Environment/ForestClusterGenerator.cs:459 — ForestClusterGenerator.FindNextCirclePosition has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15).

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · JumpPointSearch.Jump (cyclomatic 16) · ×1

JumpPointSearch.Jump (cyclomatic 16) Canine/Canine.TacticalBattleEngine/Navigation/JumpPointSearch.cs:248 — JumpPointSearch.Jump has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15).

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · JumpPointSearch.HasForcedNeighbors (cyclomatic 16) · ×1

JumpPointSearch.HasForcedNeighbors (cyclomatic 16) Canine/Canine.TacticalBattleEngine/Navigation/JumpPointSearch.cs:320 — JumpPointSearch.HasForcedNeighbors has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15).

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · StanceSystem.GetStanceEffects (cyclomatic 16) · ×1

StanceSystem.GetStanceEffects (cyclomatic 16) Canine/Canine.TacticalBattleEngine/Simulation/StanceSystem.cs:85 — StanceSystem.GetStanceEffects has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15).

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · UnitAI.ApplyOperationalDecision (cyclomatic 16) · ×1

UnitAI.ApplyOperationalDecision (cyclomatic 16) Canine/Canine.TacticalBattleEngine/Simulation/UnitAI.cs:325 — UnitAI.ApplyOperationalDecision has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15).

D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots · git history depth insufficient · ×1

git history depth insufficient — git history depth insufficient — install a full clone for reliable trend signal.

D16 · Bus Factor · single-maintainer · ×1

single-maintainer — knowledge-concentration (bus factor) risk — single-maintainer — knowledge-concentration (bus factor) risk (0 author(s) across 0 commit(s) sampled).

D17 · Explicit Debt · CommentedOutCode · ×1

CommentedOutCode RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Assets/Trees/Pine tree/The packed scene/PineBranch.cs:9 — 3 consecutive commented-code lines

D17 · Explicit Debt · ObsoleteWithCallers · ×1

ObsoleteWithCallers Canine/Canine.TacticalBattleEngine/Units/UnitStateFactory.cs:156 — [Obsolete] CreateTreeUnitState

D18 · Solution Shape · Build failed · ×1

Build failed — The target solution did not build cleanly (errors: 35), which caps Solution Shape at 3/10 — the most basic shape signal is that it compiles. First errors: CS0117: 'UnitDefinitionData' does not contain a definition for 'UnitType'; CS1503: Argument 2: cannot convert from 'string' to 'Canine.TacticalBattleEngine.Core.UnitType'; CS0029: Cannot implicitly convert type 'Canine.TacticalBattleEngine.Core.UnitType' to 'string'.

D18 · Solution Shape · Monorepo · ×1

Monorepo: only 1 of 2 solutions was scored — This repository contains 2 .NET solutions, but a scan analyzes ONE. Every score, lens, and finding here reflects only `CanineStudio.sln` — the other 1 (`ROF.sln`) were not analyzed and are not represented in the headline. To cover them, scan each solution as its own target and group them in a Solution or Product for a portfolio roll-up. If a secondary solution is an archived or vendored tree, declare it — `.gitattributes` (`path/** linguist-vendored`) or `.editorconfig` (`[path/**] generated_code = true`) — to exclude it from discovery the same way generated code is.

D19 · Documentation Quality · LLM evaluation failed · ×1

LLM evaluation failed — documentation evaluation failed: Name or service not known (canine-dgx1:80)

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · UnitAI.MakeOperationalDecision (cognitive 111) · ×1

UnitAI.MakeOperationalDecision (cognitive 111) Canine/Canine.TacticalBattleEngine/Simulation/UnitAI.cs:53 — UnitAI.MakeOperationalDecision has cognitive complexity 111 (threshold 15).

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · CombatSystem.ProcessCombatTick (cognitive 86) · ×1

CombatSystem.ProcessCombatTick (cognitive 86) Canine/Canine.TacticalBattleEngine/Combat/CombatSystem.cs:9 — CombatSystem.ProcessCombatTick has cognitive complexity 86 (threshold 15).

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · WaypointMovementSystem.ProcessMovementTick (cognitive 78) · ×1

WaypointMovementSystem.ProcessMovementTick (cognitive 78) Canine/Canine.TacticalBattleEngine/Units/WaypointMovementSystem.cs:228 — WaypointMovementSystem.ProcessMovementTick has cognitive complexity 78 (threshold 15).

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · HumanoidAnimationController.PlayFallbackAnimation (cognitive 65) · ×1

HumanoidAnimationController.PlayFallbackAnimation (cognitive 65) RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/Animation/HumanoidAnimationController.cs:393 — HumanoidAnimationController.PlayFallbackAnimation has cognitive complexity 65 (threshold 15).

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · AnimationFileLoader.ParseAnimationFile (cognitive 58) · ×1

AnimationFileLoader.ParseAnimationFile (cognitive 58) RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/Animation/AnimationFileLoader.cs:92 — AnimationFileLoader.ParseAnimationFile has cognitive complexity 58 (threshold 15).

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · AnimationLookupSystem.FuzzyMatchAnimationType (cognitive 58) · ×1

AnimationLookupSystem.FuzzyMatchAnimationType (cognitive 58) RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/Animation/AnimationLookupSystem.cs:171 — AnimationLookupSystem.FuzzyMatchAnimationType has cognitive complexity 58 (threshold 15).

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · ForestClusterGenerator.ValidatePathfinding (cognitive 56) · ×1

ForestClusterGenerator.ValidatePathfinding (cognitive 56) Canine/Canine.TacticalBattleEngine/Environment/ForestClusterGenerator.cs:640 — ForestClusterGenerator.ValidatePathfinding has cognitive complexity 56 (threshold 15).

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · JumpPointSearch.GetPrunedNeighbors (cognitive 51) · ×1

JumpPointSearch.GetPrunedNeighbors (cognitive 51) Canine/Canine.TacticalBattleEngine/Navigation/JumpPointSearch.cs:158 — JumpPointSearch.GetPrunedNeighbors has cognitive complexity 51 (threshold 15).

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · ProjectileSystem.ProcessProjectileTick (cognitive 51) · ×1

ProjectileSystem.ProcessProjectileTick (cognitive 51) Canine/Canine.TacticalBattleEngine/Simulation/ProjectileSystem.cs:78 — ProjectileSystem.ProcessProjectileTick has cognitive complexity 51 (threshold 15).

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · UnitRegistry.BuildCache (cognitive 50) · ×1

UnitRegistry.BuildCache (cognitive 50) RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/Managers/UnitRegistry.cs:188 — UnitRegistry.BuildCache has cognitive complexity 50 (threshold 15).

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · AnimationFilenameParser.Parse (cognitive 46) · ×1

AnimationFilenameParser.Parse (cognitive 46) Canine/Canine.TacticalBattleEngine/Animation/AnimationFilenameParser.cs:20 — AnimationFilenameParser.Parse has cognitive complexity 46 (threshold 15).

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · SimulationManager.StartNightSimulation (cognitive 36) · ×1

SimulationManager.StartNightSimulation (cognitive 36) RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/Simulation/SimulationManager.cs:186 — SimulationManager.StartNightSimulation has cognitive complexity 36 (threshold 15).

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · CameraController._Process (cognitive 34) · ×1

CameraController._Process (cognitive 34) RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/Camera/CameraController.cs:259 — CameraController._Process has cognitive complexity 34 (threshold 15).

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · UnitRegistry.ScanAndLoadUnitDefinitions (cognitive 34) · ×1

UnitRegistry.ScanAndLoadUnitDefinitions (cognitive 34) RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/Managers/UnitRegistry.cs:69 — UnitRegistry.ScanAndLoadUnitDefinitions has cognitive complexity 34 (threshold 15).

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · ForestClusterGenerator.FindNextCirclePosition (cognitive 32) · ×1

ForestClusterGenerator.FindNextCirclePosition (cognitive 32) Canine/Canine.TacticalBattleEngine/Environment/ForestClusterGenerator.cs:459 — ForestClusterGenerator.FindNextCirclePosition has cognitive complexity 32 (threshold 15).

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · BallisticTrajectory.CalculateBallisticArcTrajectory (cognitive 31) · ×1

BallisticTrajectory.CalculateBallisticArcTrajectory (cognitive 31) Canine/Canine.TacticalBattleEngine/Simulation/BallisticTrajectory.cs:141 — BallisticTrajectory.CalculateBallisticArcTrajectory has cognitive complexity 31 (threshold 15).

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · TacticalSimulator.SimulateNightPhase (cognitive 30) · ×1

TacticalSimulator.SimulateNightPhase (cognitive 30) Canine/Canine.TacticalBattleEngine/Simulation/TacticalSimulator.cs:76 — TacticalSimulator.SimulateNightPhase has cognitive complexity 30 (threshold 15).

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · CollisionAvoidanceSystem.CalculateAvoidanceVelocity (cognitive 29) · ×1

CollisionAvoidanceSystem.CalculateAvoidanceVelocity (cognitive 29) Canine/Canine.TacticalBattleEngine/Navigation/CollisionAvoidanceSystem.cs:74 — CollisionAvoidanceSystem.CalculateAvoidanceVelocity has cognitive complexity 29 (threshold 15).

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · BackgroundMusicManager._Process (cognitive 28) · ×1

BackgroundMusicManager._Process (cognitive 28) RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/Managers/BackgroundMusicManager.cs:52 — BackgroundMusicManager._Process has cognitive complexity 28 (threshold 15).

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · UnitEditDialog.LoadUnitData (cognitive 28) · ×1

UnitEditDialog.LoadUnitData (cognitive 28) RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/UI/ModdingTools/UnitEditDialog/UnitEditDialog.UI.cs:186 — UnitEditDialog.LoadUnitData has cognitive complexity 28 (threshold 15).

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · CorporationBuildingController._Process (cognitive 27) · ×1

CorporationBuildingController._Process (cognitive 27) RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/Managers/CorporationBuildingController.cs:170 — CorporationBuildingController._Process has cognitive complexity 27 (threshold 15).

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · TransitionManager.FindCutsceneNodes (cognitive 26) · ×1

TransitionManager.FindCutsceneNodes (cognitive 26) RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/Managers/TransitionManager.cs:186 — TransitionManager.FindCutsceneNodes has cognitive complexity 26 (threshold 15).

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · UnitEditDialog.UpdateAnimationPreview (cognitive 26) · ×1

UnitEditDialog.UpdateAnimationPreview (cognitive 26) RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/UI/ModdingTools/UnitEditDialog/UnitEditDialog.Animation.cs:96 — UnitEditDialog.UpdateAnimationPreview has cognitive complexity 26 (threshold 15).

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · UnitEditDialog.ClearFields (cognitive 26) · ×1

UnitEditDialog.ClearFields (cognitive 26) RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/UI/ModdingTools/UnitEditDialog/UnitEditDialog.UI.cs:153 — UnitEditDialog.ClearFields has cognitive complexity 26 (threshold 15).

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · AStarPathfinder.FindPath (cognitive 26) · ×1

AStarPathfinder.FindPath (cognitive 26) Canine/Canine.TacticalBattleEngine/Navigation/AStarPathfinder.cs:21 — AStarPathfinder.FindPath has cognitive complexity 26 (threshold 15).

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · JumpPointSearch.Jump (cognitive 26) · ×1

JumpPointSearch.Jump (cognitive 26) Canine/Canine.TacticalBattleEngine/Navigation/JumpPointSearch.cs:248 — JumpPointSearch.Jump has cognitive complexity 26 (threshold 15).

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · BattlefieldManager.HandleUnitSelection (cognitive 25) · ×1

BattlefieldManager.HandleUnitSelection (cognitive 25) RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/Managers/BattlefieldManager.cs:156 — BattlefieldManager.HandleUnitSelection has cognitive complexity 25 (threshold 15).

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · AnimationLookupTable.LookupWithFallback (cognitive 25) · ×1

AnimationLookupTable.LookupWithFallback (cognitive 25) Canine/Canine.TacticalBattleEngine/Animation/AnimationLookupTable.cs:81 — AnimationLookupTable.LookupWithFallback has cognitive complexity 25 (threshold 15).

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · SelectionManager.SetWaypointEditorEnabled (cognitive 24) · ×1

SelectionManager.SetWaypointEditorEnabled (cognitive 24) RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/Managers/SelectionManager.cs:930 — SelectionManager.SetWaypointEditorEnabled has cognitive complexity 24 (threshold 15).

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · SelectionManager.UpdateCommandQueueDisplay (cognitive 24) · ×1

SelectionManager.UpdateCommandQueueDisplay (cognitive 24) RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/Managers/SelectionManager.cs:981 — SelectionManager.UpdateCommandQueueDisplay has cognitive complexity 24 (threshold 15).

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · AStarPathfinder.IsDirectPathClear (cognitive 24) · ×1

AStarPathfinder.IsDirectPathClear (cognitive 24) Canine/Canine.TacticalBattleEngine/Navigation/AStarPathfinder.cs:294 — AStarPathfinder.IsDirectPathClear has cognitive complexity 24 (threshold 15).

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · JumpPointSearch.FindPath (cognitive 24) · ×1

JumpPointSearch.FindPath (cognitive 24) Canine/Canine.TacticalBattleEngine/Navigation/JumpPointSearch.cs:27 — JumpPointSearch.FindPath has cognitive complexity 24 (threshold 15).

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · PathfindingSystem.InitializeStaticObstacles (cognitive 24) · ×1

PathfindingSystem.InitializeStaticObstacles (cognitive 24) Canine/Canine.TacticalBattleEngine/Navigation/PathfindingSystem.cs:38 — PathfindingSystem.InitializeStaticObstacles has cognitive complexity 24 (threshold 15).

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · BattlefieldManager.HandleUnitHover (cognitive 23) · ×1

BattlefieldManager.HandleUnitHover (cognitive 23) RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/Managers/BattlefieldManager.cs:229 — BattlefieldManager.HandleUnitHover has cognitive complexity 23 (threshold 15).

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · AnimationBrowser.SetDefaultDropdownSelections (cognitive 23) · ×1

AnimationBrowser.SetDefaultDropdownSelections (cognitive 23) RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/UI/ModdingTools/AnimationBrowser/AnimationBrowser.Dropdowns.cs:95 — AnimationBrowser.SetDefaultDropdownSelections has cognitive complexity 23 (threshold 15).

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · WeaponEditDialog.LoadWeaponData (cognitive 23) · ×1

WeaponEditDialog.LoadWeaponData (cognitive 23) RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/UI/ModdingTools/WeaponEditDialog/WeaponEditDialog.UI.cs:78 — WeaponEditDialog.LoadWeaponData has cognitive complexity 23 (threshold 15).

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · AnimationMatcher.FindBestMatch (cognitive 23) · ×1

AnimationMatcher.FindBestMatch (cognitive 23) Canine/Canine.TacticalBattleEngine/Animation/AnimationMatcher.cs:27 — AnimationMatcher.FindBestMatch has cognitive complexity 23 (threshold 15).

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · PathfindingGrid.UpdateDynamicObstacles (cognitive 23) · ×1

PathfindingGrid.UpdateDynamicObstacles (cognitive 23) Canine/Canine.TacticalBattleEngine/Navigation/PathfindingGrid.cs:148 — PathfindingGrid.UpdateDynamicObstacles has cognitive complexity 23 (threshold 15).

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · UnitAI.ApplyOperationalDecision (cognitive 23) · ×1

UnitAI.ApplyOperationalDecision (cognitive 23) Canine/Canine.TacticalBattleEngine/Simulation/UnitAI.cs:325 — UnitAI.ApplyOperationalDecision has cognitive complexity 23 (threshold 15).

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · CorporationBuildingController._Ready (cognitive 22) · ×1

CorporationBuildingController._Ready (cognitive 22) RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/Managers/CorporationBuildingController.cs:33 — CorporationBuildingController._Ready has cognitive complexity 22 (threshold 15).

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · ResourceManager.DiscoverAvailableWeapons (cognitive 22) · ×1

ResourceManager.DiscoverAvailableWeapons (cognitive 22) RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/Resources/ResourceManager.cs:457 — ResourceManager.DiscoverAvailableWeapons has cognitive complexity 22 (threshold 15).

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · WeaponEditDialog.LoadSounds (cognitive 22) · ×1

WeaponEditDialog.LoadSounds (cognitive 22) RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/UI/ModdingTools/WeaponEditDialog/WeaponEditDialog.UI.cs:153 — WeaponEditDialog.LoadSounds has cognitive complexity 22 (threshold 15).

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · POINode.GetNodeAABB (cognitive 21) · ×1

POINode.GetNodeAABB (cognitive 21) RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/Managers/POINode.cs:221 — POINode.GetNodeAABB has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15).

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · TransitionManager.ShowBasicResultsCutscene (cognitive 21) · ×1

TransitionManager.ShowBasicResultsCutscene (cognitive 21) RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/Managers/TransitionManager.cs:429 — TransitionManager.ShowBasicResultsCutscene has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15).

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · MilestoneEditDialog.LoadExistingMilestone (cognitive 21) · ×1

MilestoneEditDialog.LoadExistingMilestone (cognitive 21) RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/UI/ModdingTools/MilestoneEditDialog.cs:207 — MilestoneEditDialog.LoadExistingMilestone has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15).

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · AnimationLookupTable.PrewarmCache (cognitive 21) · ×1

AnimationLookupTable.PrewarmCache (cognitive 21) Canine/Canine.TacticalBattleEngine/Animation/AnimationLookupTable.cs:317 — AnimationLookupTable.PrewarmCache has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15).

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · NightToDayCutscene.ShowBasicHeroResults (cognitive 20) · ×1

NightToDayCutscene.ShowBasicHeroResults (cognitive 20) RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/UI/Cutscenes/NightToDayCutscene.cs:115 — NightToDayCutscene.ShowBasicHeroResults has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15).

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · UnitEditDialog.PopulateWeaponSelector (cognitive 20) · ×1

UnitEditDialog.PopulateWeaponSelector (cognitive 20) RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/UI/ModdingTools/UnitEditDialog/UnitEditDialog.Assets.cs:271 — UnitEditDialog.PopulateWeaponSelector has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15).

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · WaveEditDialog.UpdateSpawnPointSliders (cognitive 20) · ×1

WaveEditDialog.UpdateSpawnPointSliders (cognitive 20) RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/UI/ModdingTools/WaveEditDialog.cs:263 — WaveEditDialog.UpdateSpawnPointSliders has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15).

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · CorporationBuildingController.BreakGate (cognitive 19) · ×1

CorporationBuildingController.BreakGate (cognitive 19) RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/Managers/CorporationBuildingController.cs:264 — CorporationBuildingController.BreakGate has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15).

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · DefeatScene.ShowHeroCasualties (cognitive 19) · ×1

DefeatScene.ShowHeroCasualties (cognitive 19) RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/UI/Cutscenes/DefeatScene.cs:93 — DefeatScene.ShowHeroCasualties has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15).

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · VictoryScene.ShowHeroStatistics (cognitive 19) · ×1

VictoryScene.ShowHeroStatistics (cognitive 19) RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/UI/Cutscenes/VictoryScene.cs:92 — VictoryScene.ShowHeroStatistics has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15).

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · UnitEditDialog.GenerateNextUnitId (cognitive 19) · ×1

UnitEditDialog.GenerateNextUnitId (cognitive 19) RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/UI/ModdingTools/UnitEditDialog/UnitEditDialog.cs:408 — UnitEditDialog.GenerateNextUnitId has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15).

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · HierarchicalPathfindingGrid.FindAbstractPath (cognitive 19) · ×1

HierarchicalPathfindingGrid.FindAbstractPath (cognitive 19) Canine/Canine.TacticalBattleEngine/Navigation/HierarchicalPathfindingGrid.cs:307 — HierarchicalPathfindingGrid.FindAbstractPath has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15).

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · JumpPointSearch.HasForcedNeighbors (cognitive 19) · ×1

JumpPointSearch.HasForcedNeighbors (cognitive 19) Canine/Canine.TacticalBattleEngine/Navigation/JumpPointSearch.cs:320 — JumpPointSearch.HasForcedNeighbors has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15).

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · BattlefieldManager.RemoveAllDeadUnitsFromScene (cognitive 18) · ×1

BattlefieldManager.RemoveAllDeadUnitsFromScene (cognitive 18) RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/Managers/BattlefieldManager.cs:1690 — BattlefieldManager.RemoveAllDeadUnitsFromScene has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15).

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · BriefingScene.ShowBriefing (cognitive 18) · ×1

BriefingScene.ShowBriefing (cognitive 18) RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/UI/Cutscenes/BriefingScene.cs:80 — BriefingScene.ShowBriefing has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15).

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · DayToNightCutscene._Process (cognitive 18) · ×1

DayToNightCutscene._Process (cognitive 18) RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/UI/Cutscenes/DayToNightCutscene.cs:146 — DayToNightCutscene._Process has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15).

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · WeaponEditDialog.ClearFields (cognitive 18) · ×1

WeaponEditDialog.ClearFields (cognitive 18) RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/UI/ModdingTools/WeaponEditDialog/WeaponEditDialog.UI.cs:13 — WeaponEditDialog.ClearFields has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15).

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · TitleScene._Process (cognitive 18) · ×1

TitleScene._Process (cognitive 18) RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/UI/TitleScene.cs:79 — TitleScene._Process has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15).

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · ExperienceCalculationSystem.CheckSkillUnlocks (cognitive 18) · ×1

ExperienceCalculationSystem.CheckSkillUnlocks (cognitive 18) Canine/Canine.TacticalBattleEngine/Experience/ExperienceCalculationSystem.cs:136 — ExperienceCalculationSystem.CheckSkillUnlocks has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15).

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · VictoryConditionSystem.CheckVictoryConditions (cognitive 18) · ×1

VictoryConditionSystem.CheckVictoryConditions (cognitive 18) Canine/Canine.TacticalBattleEngine/Simulation/VictoryConditionSystem.cs:18 — VictoryConditionSystem.CheckVictoryConditions has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15).

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · AnimationBrowser.UpdateUnitDropdownForSkeleton (cognitive 17) · ×1

AnimationBrowser.UpdateUnitDropdownForSkeleton (cognitive 17) RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/UI/ModdingTools/AnimationBrowser/AnimationBrowser.Dropdowns.cs:286 — AnimationBrowser.UpdateUnitDropdownForSkeleton has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15).

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · UnitLogicRenderer.UpdateVisualState (cognitive 17) · ×1

UnitLogicRenderer.UpdateVisualState (cognitive 17) RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/UnitLogicRenderer.cs:361 — UnitLogicRenderer.UpdateVisualState has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15).

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · SafeResourceLoader.ValidateResource (cognitive 17) · ×1

SafeResourceLoader.ValidateResource (cognitive 17) RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/Utilities/SafeResourceLoader.cs:68 — SafeResourceLoader.ValidateResource has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15).

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · HierarchicalPathfindingGrid.RefinePath (cognitive 17) · ×1

HierarchicalPathfindingGrid.RefinePath (cognitive 17) Canine/Canine.TacticalBattleEngine/Navigation/HierarchicalPathfindingGrid.cs:396 — HierarchicalPathfindingGrid.RefinePath has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15).

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · WaypointMovementSystem.CalculateWaypointPaths (cognitive 17) · ×1

WaypointMovementSystem.CalculateWaypointPaths (cognitive 17) Canine/Canine.TacticalBattleEngine/Units/WaypointMovementSystem.cs:39 — WaypointMovementSystem.CalculateWaypointPaths has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15).

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · UnitSelectButton._on_button_up (cognitive 16) · ×1

UnitSelectButton._on_button_up (cognitive 16) RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Assets/UI/UnitSelectButton.cs:515 — UnitSelectButton._on_button_up has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15).

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · ResourceManager.DiscoverUnitsOfType (cognitive 16) · ×1

ResourceManager.DiscoverUnitsOfType (cognitive 16) RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/Resources/ResourceManager.cs:419 — ResourceManager.DiscoverUnitsOfType has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15).

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · ResourceManager.DiscoverAvailableDefences (cognitive 16) · ×1

ResourceManager.DiscoverAvailableDefences (cognitive 16) RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/Resources/ResourceManager.cs:498 — ResourceManager.DiscoverAvailableDefences has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15).

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · ResourceManager.DiscoverAvailableScenarios (cognitive 16) · ×1

ResourceManager.DiscoverAvailableScenarios (cognitive 16) RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/Resources/ResourceManager.cs:537 — ResourceManager.DiscoverAvailableScenarios has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15).

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Model3DPreviewHelper.ClearModels (cognitive 16) · ×1

Model3DPreviewHelper.ClearModels (cognitive 16) RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/UI/ModdingTools/Utilities/Model3DPreviewHelper.cs:57 — Model3DPreviewHelper.ClearModels has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15).

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · AStarPathfinder.FindNearestWalkableNode (cognitive 16) · ×1

AStarPathfinder.FindNearestWalkableNode (cognitive 16) Canine/Canine.TacticalBattleEngine/Navigation/AStarPathfinder.cs:218 — AStarPathfinder.FindNearestWalkableNode has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15).

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · JumpPointSearch.FindNearestWalkableNode (cognitive 16) · ×1

JumpPointSearch.FindNearestWalkableNode (cognitive 16) Canine/Canine.TacticalBattleEngine/Navigation/JumpPointSearch.cs:378 — JumpPointSearch.FindNearestWalkableNode has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15).

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · UnitAI.SelectTargetFromState (cognitive 16) · ×1

UnitAI.SelectTargetFromState (cognitive 16) Canine/Canine.TacticalBattleEngine/Simulation/UnitAI.cs:531 — UnitAI.SelectTargetFromState has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15).

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · MovementSystem.MoveTowardTargetWithCollision (cognitive 16) · ×1

MovementSystem.MoveTowardTargetWithCollision (cognitive 16) Canine/Canine.TacticalBattleEngine/Units/MovementSystem.cs:148 — MovementSystem.MoveTowardTargetWithCollision has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15).

D21 · Naming Consistency · LLM evaluation failed · ×1

LLM evaluation failed — naming-consistency evaluation failed: Name or service not known (canine-dgx1:80)

D24 · Comment Value · LLM evaluation failed · ×1

LLM evaluation failed — comment-value evaluation failed: Name or service not known (canine-dgx1:80)

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (34 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (34 lines × 2) Canine/Canine.TacticalBattleEngine/Navigation/AStarPathfinder.cs:255 — Canine/Canine.TacticalBattleEngine/Navigation/AStarPathfinder.cs:255-288 | Canine/Canine.TacticalBattleEngine/Navigation/JumpPointSearch.cs:413-441

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (22 lines × 3) · ×1

Duplicated block (22 lines × 3) RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/UI/Cutscenes/DefeatScene.cs:129 — RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/UI/Cutscenes/DefeatScene.cs:129-150 | RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/UI/Cutscenes/NightToDayCutscene.cs:160-181 | RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/UI/Cutscenes/VictoryScene.cs:128-149

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (22 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (22 lines × 2) Canine/Canine.TacticalBattleEngine/Units/MovementSystem.cs:65 — Canine/Canine.TacticalBattleEngine/Units/MovementSystem.cs:65-86 | Canine/Canine.TacticalBattleEngine/Units/MovementSystem.cs:114-134

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

Duplicated block (20 lines × 2) RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/UI/ModdingTools/DefenceEditDialog/DefenceEditDialog.Assets.cs:51 — RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/UI/ModdingTools/DefenceEditDialog/DefenceEditDialog.Assets.cs:51-70 | RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/UI/ModdingTools/WeaponEditDialog/WeaponEditDialog.Assets.cs:30-49

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

Duplicated block (18 lines × 2) Canine/Canine.TacticalBattleEngine/Navigation/HierarchicalPathfindingGrid.cs:180 — Canine/Canine.TacticalBattleEngine/Navigation/HierarchicalPathfindingGrid.cs:180-197 | Canine/Canine.TacticalBattleEngine/Navigation/HierarchicalPathfindingGrid.cs:229-246

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

Duplicated block (16 lines × 2) Canine/Canine.TacticalBattleEngine/Simulation/ProjectileSystem.cs:185 — Canine/Canine.TacticalBattleEngine/Simulation/ProjectileSystem.cs:185-200 | Canine/Canine.TacticalBattleEngine/Simulation/ProjectileSystem.cs:221-236

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (13 lines × 3) · ×1

Duplicated block (13 lines × 3) RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/UI/ModdingTools/DefenceEditDialog/DefenceEditDialog.DragDrop.cs:19 — RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/UI/ModdingTools/DefenceEditDialog/DefenceEditDialog.DragDrop.cs:19-31 | RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/UI/ModdingTools/UnitEditDialog/UnitEditDialog.DragDrop.cs:21-33 | RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/UI/ModdingTools/WeaponEditDialog/WeaponEditDialog.DragDrop.cs:50-62

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

Duplicated block (9 lines × 3) RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/UI/ModdingTools/DefenceOverview.cs:114 — RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/UI/ModdingTools/DefenceOverview.cs:114-122 | RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/UI/ModdingTools/UnitsOverview.cs:101-109 | RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/UI/ModdingTools/WeaponsOverview.cs:93-101

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) Canine/Canine.TacticalBattleEngine/Environment/ForestClusterGenerator.cs:231 — Canine/Canine.TacticalBattleEngine/Environment/ForestClusterGenerator.cs:231-238 | Canine/Canine.TacticalBattleEngine/Environment/ForestClusterGenerator.cs:251-258

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

Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/Simulation/SimulationManager.cs:317 — RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/Simulation/SimulationManager.cs:317-323 | RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/Simulation/SimulationManager.cs:358-364

D5 · Coupling · Off the main sequence · ×1

Off the main sequence: Canine.TacticalBattleEngine — Canine.TacticalBattleEngine: abstractness 0.09, instability 0.00, distance 0.91 — zone of pain — concrete and heavily depended-on, so it's rigid to change.

D8 · Code Coverage · Coverage not measured · ×1

Coverage not measured — The test suite couldn't be built/run in-image and no coverage report is committed, so line coverage was not measured — and it is EXCLUDED from the score rather than scored on a LoC-ratio proxy. Commit the Cobertura/OpenCover/lcov report your CI already produces (anywhere in the repo), or make the suite runnable in-image, and real coverage will be measured.

Recommendation — 13 finding(s)

D11 · Test Reliability · No tests discovered · ×1

No tests discovered — Test reliability not scored — the test tier(s) built and ran but no tests were discovered, so reliability couldn't be exercised.

D17 · Explicit Debt · ObsoleteWithoutCallers · ×1

ObsoleteWithoutCallers Canine/Canine.TacticalBattleEngine.Tests/UnitTests/UnitStateFactoryTests.cs:248 — [Obsolete] CreateTreeUnitState_CreatesNeutralTreeWithFallbackId

D20 · ADR Quality · No ADRs found · ×1

No ADRs found — No ADRs found at common paths; consider documenting architectural decisions in Docs/ADL/ or similar.

D25 · ADR Conformance · no ADRs to check · ×1

no ADRs to check — No ADRs found, so conformance can't be assessed.

D28 · Secrets (history) · Rotate the exposed credentials · ×1

Rotate the exposed credentials — git history can't be un-committed — These secrets are in git HISTORY: deleting the file does not remove them (the commit persists on every clone, fork and backup). The remediation is to ROTATE each exposed credential and treat it as compromised — not to delete the file. Rewriting history is disruptive and unreliable across existing forks.

D31 · IaC & Container Security · Not applicable · ×1

Not applicable — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation); nothing to scan.

D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) · Not applicable · ×1

Not applicable — No PII/GDPR-handling patterns detected (p/gdpr ruleset) — no data-compliance surface to assess.

D33 · JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities · Not applicable · ×1

Not applicable — No JS/npm manifest or lockfile found outside bin/obj (package.json, package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); no JS dependencies to scan.

D34 · Knowledge Freshness · early-stage repository · ×1

early-stage repository — too little history to judge knowledge freshness — early-stage repository — too little history to judge knowledge freshness (0 commit(s) sampled).

D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · Not applicable · ×1

Not applicable — No CI/build pipeline found (.github/workflows, .gitlab-ci.yml, azure-pipelines.yml, Jenkinsfile, .circleci); there is no build to attest provenance for.

D37 · Vulnerability-disclosure Policy · Not applicable · ×1

Not applicable — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md, .github/SECURITY.md, docs/SECURITY.md, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.

D38 · OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities · Not applicable · ×1

Not applicable — No JS/npm lockfile found outside bin/obj (package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); nothing for OSV to scan.

D7 · Architectural Integrity · No checkable ADRs to assess · ×1

No checkable ADRs to assess — No architecture decision records were found and the project graph is acyclic, so architectural integrity could not be assessed. Add ADRs (with `enforcement: analyzer|test`) to make the architecture's rules checkable.

Info — 105 finding(s)

D17 · Explicit Debt · Justified suppression · ×88

Justified suppression RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Assets/UI/UnitSelectButton.cs:714 — #pragma warning disable CA2000 // Dispose objects before losing scope - Godot manages node lifecycle
Justified suppression RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Assets/UI/UnitSelectButtonContainer.cs:119 — #pragma warning disable CA2000 // Dispose objects before losing scope - Godot manages node lifecycle
Justified suppression RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/Animation/HumanoidAnimationController.cs:101 — #pragma warning disable CA2000 // AnimationPlayer takes ownership
Justified suppression RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/Combat/ProjectileRenderingManager.cs:59 — #pragma warning disable CA2000 // Dispose objects before losing scope - Godot manages node lifecycle
Justified suppression RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/Combat/ProjectileRenderingManager.cs:166 — #pragma warning disable CA2000 // Dispose objects before losing scope - Godot manages node lifecycle
Justified suppression RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/Environment/GrassFieldManager.cs:233 — #pragma warning disable CA2000 // Dispose objects before losing scope - QuadMesh is shared and managed by Godot
Justified suppression RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/Environment/GrassFieldManager.cs:292 — #pragma warning disable CA2000 // Dispose objects before losing scope - Node is added to scene tree and managed by Godot
Justified suppression RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/Environment/NeutralUnitRenderer.cs:84 — #pragma warning disable CA2000 // Dispose objects before losing scope - Godot manages RNG lifecycle
Justified suppression RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/Managers/BattlefieldManager.cs:448 — #pragma warning disable CA2000 // Godot manages node lifecycle
Justified suppression RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/Managers/BattlefieldManager.cs:740 — #pragma warning disable CA2000 // Godot manages node lifecycle
Justified suppression RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/Managers/BattlefieldManager.cs:798 — #pragma warning disable CA2000 // Godot manages node lifecycle
Justified suppression RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/Managers/BattlefieldManager.cs:1044 — #pragma warning disable CA2000 // WaveDefinitionWrapper ownership transferred to SpawnManager
Justified suppression RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/Managers/BattlefieldManager.cs:1595 — #pragma warning disable CA2000 // Dispose objects before losing scope - Godot manages node lifecycle
Justified suppression RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/Managers/BattlefieldManager.cs:2566 — #pragma warning disable CA2000 // Godot manages node lifecycle
Justified suppression RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/Managers/ProceduralForestManager.cs:211 — #pragma warning disable CA2000 // Dispose objects before losing scope - Godot manages node lifecycle
Justified suppression RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/Managers/ProceduralForestManager.cs:223 — #pragma warning disable CA2000 // Dispose objects before losing scope - Godot manages node lifecycle
Justified suppression RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/Managers/SelectionManager.cs:618 — #pragma warning disable CA2000 // Godot manages node lifecycle
Justified suppression RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/Managers/SelectionManager.cs:625 — #pragma warning disable CA2000 // Godot manages node lifecycle
Justified suppression RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/Managers/SelectionManager.cs:637 — #pragma warning disable CA2000 // Godot manages node lifecycle
Justified suppression RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/Managers/SelectionManager.cs:654 — #pragma warning disable CA2000 // Godot manages node lifecycle
Justified suppression RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/Managers/SelectionManager.cs:671 — #pragma warning disable CA2000 // Godot manages node lifecycle
Justified suppression RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/Managers/SelectionManager.cs:689 — #pragma warning disable CA2000 // Godot manages node lifecycle
Justified suppression RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/Managers/SelectionManager.cs:696 — #pragma warning disable CA2000 // Godot manages node lifecycle
Justified suppression RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/Managers/SelectionManager.cs:719 — #pragma warning disable CA2000 // Godot manages node lifecycle
Justified suppression RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/Managers/SelectionManager.cs:726 — #pragma warning disable CA2000 // Godot manages node lifecycle
+ 63 more in this group — see findings.md.

D10 · Test Quality · Skipped (documented) · ×6

Skipped (documented): Step3_ProcessCombatCacheFriendly_Should_Find_No_Engagements Canine/Canine.TacticalBattleEngine.Tests/UnitTests/IsolateRangeBugStepByStepTest.cs:112 — Skipped with a documented reason — a deferral, not lazy debt: ProcessCombatCacheFriendly method was removed during refactoring. This behavior is covered by Step2 (CombatSystem level) and Step5 (full simulation level).
Skipped (documented): SpawnUnits_WithNoCompositionRules_CreatesDefaultUnit Canine/Canine.TacticalBattleEngine.Tests/UnitTests/SpawnAreaUnitFactoryTests.cs:15 — Skipped with a documented reason — a deferral, not lazy debt: Obsolete: Wave-based spawning doesn't create default units for empty composition rules
Skipped (documented): SpawnUnits_WithEmptyCompositionRules_CreatesDefaultUnit Canine/Canine.TacticalBattleEngine.Tests/UnitTests/SpawnAreaUnitFactoryTests.cs:21 — Skipped with a documented reason — a deferral, not lazy debt: Obsolete: Wave-based spawning doesn't create default units for empty composition rules
Skipped (documented): CreateDefaultUnit_GeneratesUnitWithCorrectProperties Canine/Canine.TacticalBattleEngine.Tests/UnitTests/SpawnAreaUnitFactoryTests.cs:129 — Skipped with a documented reason — a deferral, not lazy debt: Obsolete: CreateDefaultUnit method removed in wave-based spawning refactoring
Skipped (documented): CreateDefaultUnit_IsDeterministic Canine/Canine.TacticalBattleEngine.Tests/UnitTests/SpawnAreaUnitFactoryTests.cs:135 — Skipped with a documented reason — a deferral, not lazy debt: Obsolete: CreateDefaultUnit method removed in wave-based spawning refactoring
Skipped (documented): CreateDefaultUnit_WithDifferentTeams_UsesCorrectTeam Canine/Canine.TacticalBattleEngine.Tests/UnitTests/SpawnAreaUnitFactoryTests.cs:141 — Skipped with a documented reason — a deferral, not lazy debt: Obsolete: CreateDefaultUnit method removed in wave-based spawning refactoring

D14 · License Compliance · Licenses scanned · ×1

Licenses scanned — 9 packages scanned; 3 distinct SPDX licenses.

D18 · Solution Shape · ROF (Production) · ×1

ROF (Production) RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/ROF.csproj — 129 .cs files, 36863 LoC (26031 significant)

D18 · Solution Shape · Canine.TacticalBattleEngine.Tests (Test) · ×1

Canine.TacticalBattleEngine.Tests (Test) Canine/Canine.TacticalBattleEngine.Tests/Canine.TacticalBattleEngine.Tests.csproj — 265 .cs files, 72067 LoC (55580 significant)

D18 · Solution Shape · Canine.TacticalBattleEngine (Production) · ×1

Canine.TacticalBattleEngine (Production) Canine/Canine.TacticalBattleEngine/Canine.TacticalBattleEngine.csproj — 137 .cs files, 22460 LoC (13970 significant)

D18 · Solution Shape · Canine.TacticalBattleEngine.Benchmarks (Production) · ×1

Canine.TacticalBattleEngine.Benchmarks (Production) Canine/Canine.TacticalBattleEngine.Benchmarks/Canine.TacticalBattleEngine.Benchmarks.csproj — 29 .cs files, 4924 LoC (3785 significant)

D18 · Solution Shape · Towerfall.Game (Production) · ×1

Towerfall.Game (Production) TowerfallProtocol/Towerfall.Game/Towerfall.Game.csproj — 6 .cs files, 807 LoC (624 significant)

D22 · Internal API Consistency · No exposed public API · ×1

No exposed public API — No intentionally-exposed types (IsPackable or .Contracts) to evaluate.

D9 · Test Distribution · Unit tests · ×1

Unit tests — 1966 unit test method(s).

D9 · Test Distribution · Integration tests · ×1

Integration tests — 0 integration test method(s).

D9 · Test Distribution · BDD tests · ×1

BDD tests — 0 BDD test method(s).

D9 · Test Distribution · E2E tests · ×1

E2E tests — 0 end-to-end test method(s).

Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail

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

Dimension	Tool	Version	Command	Findings	Raw output
D28 · Secrets (history)	gitleaks	—	gitleaks detect --no-banner --report-format json --report-path /dev/stdout --exit-code 0 --source .	3354	artifacts/raw/gitleaks.json
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)	semgrep	—	semgrep --config auto --json --quiet --timeout 0 --metrics off .	0	—
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities	dotnet	—	dotnet list CanineStudio.sln package --vulnerable --include-transitive --format json	2	artifacts/raw/dotnet-vulnerable.json
D31 · IaC & Container Security	trivy	—	trivy: not applicable — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation); nothing to scan.	0	—
D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR)	semgrep	—	semgrep: not applicable — No PII/GDPR-handling patterns detected (p/gdpr ruleset) — no data-compliance surface to assess.	0	—
D33 · JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities	trivy	—	trivy: not applicable — No JS/npm manifest or lockfile found outside bin/obj (package.json, package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); no JS dependencies to scan.	0	—
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing	provenance	—	provenance: not applicable — No CI/build pipeline found (.github/workflows, .gitlab-ci.yml, azure-pipelines.yml, Jenkinsfile, .circleci); there is no build to attest provenance for.	0	—
D37 · Vulnerability-disclosure Policy	disclosure	—	disclosure: not applicable — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md, .github/SECURITY.md, docs/SECURITY.md, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.	0	—
D38 · OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities	osv-scanner	—	osv-scanner: not applicable — No JS/npm lockfile found outside bin/obj (package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); nothing for OSV to scan.	0	—

Run 019edc7e-0894-7610-b527-12e8dbdad1aa · 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 — 1 field(s) across 1 category, 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.

Email — 1 field(s)

SupportScene._emailEdit RevivalOfForest/ROF.Game/Scripts/UI/SupportScene.cs:28

Executive summary

Top priorities

Diagnosis — what's actually going on

Architecture — module dependency graph

At a glance — Code Health · 61% · Fair · gated by D18, X1

At a glance — Architecture · 76% · Fair · gated by AX5

At a glance — Maturity · 31% · Poor · gated by M1, M2, M4

At a glance — Readiness · 58% · Fair · gated by P1

At a glance — Security · 62% · Fair · gated by D28

At a glance — Performance · 63% · Fair

Security & Compliance — OWASP Top-10 mapping

Roadmap

File quality

Methodology & how to trust this report

Tools & methods

Run transparency — what happened this run

Limitations & what we did not check

Per-dimension blind spots

The LLM boundary

Dimensions

Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions

Reference — by lens

Appendix A — Findings (grouped)

Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail

Appendix C — Personal-data map

Downloadable artifacts