Public report — vbnet-lsp, published 1 Oct 2026.
Concrete security findings (which rule fired, in which file, on which line; CVE IDs, secret matches,
dependency versions) are REDACTED in this version; ask the repo owner for the full report.
Public
Codebase surveyMeasured under the Code Assurance Index · rubric rubric-2026.09.18 (frozen) · verify this surveyFiledcd_32ab082625374ee0954fe92682bbbc7a
Filed 1 October 2026, 14:48 UTC
Public
Small · 18,418 LoC · 18 projects · rebuild ~0.2 person-years · weakest lens: Security (55%)
Findings by grade
70 critical162 serious59 minor3 could not be resolved — could be critical — see Limitations
This survey was produced by
Watchdog
Producer
Canine Development
Analyzer
Watchdog engine 1.0.0
Measured
1 October 2026, 14:46 UTC
A measurement, not a certificate. The Code Assurance Index does not certify,
approve or guarantee this codebase; it records a reproducible number and the evidence it was computed from. The
standard is authored by Canine Development, who also build Watchdog — its only implementation today. That is said
here so the number is checked rather than believed.
Build did not compile — scores are provisional
The analysed solution did not compile (1 build error(s)). Dimensions that depend on the compiler — complexity, duplication, cohesion, dead code, API surface — ran on incomplete models, so the scores below are provisional. Fix the build, then re-run for a reliable grade. First errors: BC30512: Option Strict On disallows implicit conversions from 'Integer' to 'String'.
Grounded in facts. Every number here is computed, not narrated — reproducible, tool-backed, and traceable to a line of code. How to trust this ▸
238findings with an exact file:lineof 291 — the remainder are repo-wide signals (a dimension-level measurement, not a single line); open any file:line and verify
80/131dimensions across the health lenses18418 LoC · 18 projects — wide & deep
Preview (pre-1.0). This repo hasn't declared a stable release, so it's judged against a relaxed, pre-production bar.
The system holds a provisional health score of 60%, indicating a workable asset carrying significant operational risk. While the codebase is small and relatively straightforward, its current state is fragile because it does not compile. This fundamental break means that most technical assessments are provisional, and the business cannot yet rely on the reported metrics for long-term planning. Until the build is fixed, the true extent of technical debt and security exposure remains obscured.
The value at stake is modest, with a rebuild cost of approximately €23,000 and a two-month effort for a single engineer. The code is largely straight-line logic with minimal branching, suggesting that the core business rules are simple and easy to understand. However, this simplicity masks deeper issues in how the system is maintained and secured. The low maturity and readiness scores imply that new teams would struggle to pick up the work, and the lack of documented decisions creates a knowledge gap that increases the cost of future changes.
The most critical theme is build integrity. Without a compiling solution, every analysis of code quality, duplication, or complexity is based on incomplete data. This is not just a technical nuisance; it blocks reliable delivery and makes any investment in refactoring or feature development risky. Fixing the compiler errors is the single highest-leverage action, as it validates the entire health assessment and unlocks the ability to measure true progress. Ignoring this leaves the team flying blind, potentially wasting resources on optimizations that do not address the root instability.
The second theme is security exposure. With a security score of 55%, the system has known vulnerabilities, including eleven high-severity issues in its dependencies. For a small asset, these risks are disproportionately dangerous, as a single breach could disrupt operations and damage trust. The presence of deprecated packages further increases the likelihood of future outages or compatibility failures. Addressing these vulnerabilities is essential to protect the business from avoidable incidents and to ensure the system remains compliant and safe to operate in a production environment.
How the score is built — each lens's share of the headlineWidth is the lens's weight in the worst-heaviest fold (the weakest area pulls hardest); colour is that lens's own band. A lens fixes the score in proportion to its width.
D22 · Inconsistent factory method naming convention. One method is named 'Success' (adjective/verb-like) and the other 'CreateError' (verb+noun). This breaks the symmetry of the API surface for constructing responses.
A full-fidelity diff against the previous run's complete recorded findings — line-move tolerant: a finding that only shifted line counts as unchanged, only genuinely new titles/files surface here.
0.8× (at 60% quality) — the last 20% of quality is most of the work
Size & shape
Small · effort split not classified for 17,694 line(s) outside the .NET model (the tier breakdown is a C#-only syntax walk)
This codebase represents roughly ~0.2 person-years of build effort (about ~€23,000 to rebuild). Its weakest lens is Security at 55% — the part of that asset most exposed by the findings below.
How we model this: boilerplate at a scaffolding rate + logic × domain Low (×0.9) — library/CLI × a 0.8× quality factor, at €60–95/h; indicative, ±~30%. Indicative only — most sensitive to the hourly rate and the domain tier (both tunable in config).
Top priorities
The highest-leverage moves; the full ranked list is in the Roadmap below.
1
Resolve the 1 Deprecated finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene.
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: BC30512: Option Strict On disallows implicit conversions from 'Integer' to 'String'..
Evidence: D18 build: The compiler reported: BC30512: Option Strict On disallows implicit conversions from 'Integer' to 'String'..
→ Fix the build, then re-run for a reliable grade.
Value concentrated against a weak lens · Medium · Value at risk
This is a Small asset (~0.2 person-years to rebuild), and its weakest lens is Security at 55%. The operational and business risk on an asset this size concentrates there — that's where remediation buys the most protection.
→ Direct remediation budget at Security first — highest risk-reduction per euro on an asset this size.
Architecture — bounded-context dependency graph
Each box is a bounded context (its layer projects grouped, or a project count when large); arrows show dependencies between contexts. A shared kernel is where many arrows converge.
Architecture — module dependency matrix
Rows and columns are the same modules, ordered so that a module only depends on ones above it. A cell means the row depends on the column, and its number is how many type pairs create that dependency. Read one thing: is anything above the diagonal? A mark there is a dependency cycle. (A cycle is all this shows — an unusual but cycle-free dependency sits below the diagonal like any other.)
52 modules, 17 dependencies. Every dependency points down the layering — no cycles.
Showing the 40 most-connected modules; 12 more are not drawn.
Module dependency matrix. The row depends on the column; the number is how many type pairs create the dependency. A cell above the diagonal is part of a dependency cycle.
VbNet.LanguageServer.Workspace uses VbNet.LanguageServer.Protocol. Changing VbNet.LanguageServer.Protocol can break VbNet.LanguageServer.Workspace, not the reverse.
Position
Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
33→29 src.extension.src depends on src.extension.src.outputLanguage✕
Type pairs
1 distinct (type in src.extension.src → type in src.extension.src.outputLanguage) reference.
src.extension.src.dotnetRuntime uses src.extension.src.platform. Changing src.extension.src.platform can break src.extension.src.dotnetRuntime, not the reverse.
Position
Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
36→31 src.extension.src.statusBar depends on src.extension.src.workspaceContext✕
Type pairs
1 distinct (type in src.extension.src.statusBar → type in src.extension.src.workspaceContext) reference.
src.extension.src.statusBar uses src.extension.src.workspaceContext. Changing src.extension.src.workspaceContext can break src.extension.src.statusBar, not the reverse.
Position
Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
37→13 VbNet.LanguageServer.Services depends on VbNet.LanguageServer.Protocol✕
Type pairs
106 distinct (type in VbNet.LanguageServer.Services → type in VbNet.LanguageServer.Protocol) references. Showing 25 of them; the rest are in namespace-graph.json in this report's bundle.
VbNet.LanguageServer.Services uses VbNet.LanguageServer.Protocol. Changing VbNet.LanguageServer.Protocol can break VbNet.LanguageServer.Services, not the reverse.
Position
Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
37→32 VbNet.LanguageServer.Services depends on VbNet.LanguageServer.Workspace✕
Type pairs
37 distinct (type in VbNet.LanguageServer.Services → type in VbNet.LanguageServer.Workspace) references. Showing 25 of them; the rest are in namespace-graph.json in this report's bundle.
VbNet.LanguageServer.Services uses VbNet.LanguageServer.Workspace. Changing VbNet.LanguageServer.Workspace can break VbNet.LanguageServer.Services, not the reverse.
Position
Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
38→30 src.extension.src.serverLauncher depends on src.extension.src.platform✕
Type pairs
1 distinct (type in src.extension.src.serverLauncher → type in src.extension.src.platform) reference.
src.extension.src.serverLauncher uses src.extension.src.platform. Changing src.extension.src.platform can break src.extension.src.serverLauncher, not the reverse.
Position
Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
38→35 src.extension.src.serverLauncher depends on src.extension.src.dotnetRuntime✕
Type pairs
2 distinct (type in src.extension.src.serverLauncher → type in src.extension.src.dotnetRuntime) references.
src.extension.src.serverLauncher uses src.extension.src.dotnetRuntime. Changing src.extension.src.dotnetRuntime can break src.extension.src.serverLauncher, not the reverse.
Position
Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
39→13 VbNet.LanguageServer.Core depends on VbNet.LanguageServer.Protocol✕
Type pairs
62 distinct (type in VbNet.LanguageServer.Core → type in VbNet.LanguageServer.Protocol) references. Showing 25 of them; the rest are in namespace-graph.json in this report's bundle.
VbNet.LanguageServer.Core uses VbNet.LanguageServer.Protocol. Changing VbNet.LanguageServer.Protocol can break VbNet.LanguageServer.Core, not the reverse.
Position
Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
39→32 VbNet.LanguageServer.Core depends on VbNet.LanguageServer.Workspace✕
Type pairs
2 distinct (type in VbNet.LanguageServer.Core → type in VbNet.LanguageServer.Workspace) references.
VbNet.LanguageServer.Core uses VbNet.LanguageServer.Workspace. Changing VbNet.LanguageServer.Workspace can break VbNet.LanguageServer.Core, not the reverse.
Position
Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
39→37 VbNet.LanguageServer.Core depends on VbNet.LanguageServer.Services✕
Type pairs
21 distinct (type in VbNet.LanguageServer.Core → type in VbNet.LanguageServer.Services) references.
VbNet.LanguageServer.Core uses VbNet.LanguageServer.Services. Changing VbNet.LanguageServer.Services can break VbNet.LanguageServer.Core, not the reverse.
Position
Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
40→30 src.extension.src.languageClient depends on src.extension.src.platform✕
Type pairs
1 distinct (type in src.extension.src.languageClient → type in src.extension.src.platform) reference.
src.extension.src.languageClient uses src.extension.src.platform. Changing src.extension.src.platform can break src.extension.src.languageClient, not the reverse.
Position
Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
40→31 src.extension.src.languageClient depends on src.extension.src.workspaceContext✕
Type pairs
1 distinct (type in src.extension.src.languageClient → type in src.extension.src.workspaceContext) reference.
src.extension.src.languageClient uses src.extension.src.workspaceContext. Changing src.extension.src.workspaceContext can break src.extension.src.languageClient, not the reverse.
Position
Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
40→38 src.extension.src.languageClient depends on src.extension.src.serverLauncher✕
Type pairs
2 distinct (type in src.extension.src.languageClient → type in src.extension.src.serverLauncher) references.
src.extension.src.languageClient uses src.extension.src.serverLauncher. Changing src.extension.src.serverLauncher can break src.extension.src.languageClient, not the reverse.
Position
Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
At a glance — Code Health · 68% · Adequate · gated by D18 ·
Findings mapped to OWASP categories; the specific CVEs/secrets are in the Security dimension cards below and findings.md (redacted only on the public version of this report).
OWASP category
Findings
Severity
A03:2021 — Injection
59
High / Critical
A06:2021 — Vulnerable & Outdated Components
16
High / Critical
Roadmap
Begin by documenting significant architectural decisions in a single, discoverable location to establish clear context and consequences. Next, address security risks by resolving the eleven high-severity dependency vulnerabilities, followed by fixing the deprecated and vulnerable dependencies. Finally, eliminate the seven static analysis issues related to shell injection, prioritizing fixes in the publish and package workflow files.
Ranked by impact ÷ effort. "Helps" is the estimated gain on the 0–100 health score.
Do this
Helps
Effort
Dimension
Resolve the 1 Deprecated finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene.
Record significant decisions one document per decision — dated, stating the context, the decision and its consequences — and keep them together wherever your design docs already live (a conventional `docs/adr/` tree, with each file named `NNNN-title` in whatever markup those docs already use, is the most discoverable form).
Every finding carries one of four grades. Three say how serious it is. The fourth says this
survey could not settle it — and it is a grade, not a gap.
Critical — 70
A definite problem that already costs you something and drags the score down: a
missing authorisation check, a dependency with a known exploit, a build that does not reproduce. Failure here
tends to cause failures elsewhere.
Serious — 162
Likely wrong, but not failing yet. It degrades
the codebase over a longer horizon and can cause failures elsewhere — not urgent this week, not something to
carry for two years either.
Minor — 59
Recorded, with no effect on how the codebase functions.
Present so the survey is complete, not because it needs doing.
Could not be resolved — 3
Something this survey could not settle
from the outside, and which could be critical or serious. Either a control was required and no
positive evidence of it exists in the repository — a backup job that nothing shows was ever restored from proves
nothing about restores — or our own analysis could not run over that part of the tree. This is not a clean
result. These are excluded from the score rather than awarded a pass, so the number on the cover neither
rewards nor penalises them: if you act on this survey without resolving them, you carry that risk yourself. Each
one is named under Limitations.
Methodology & how to trust this report
Watchdog is a deep, periodic assessment — run each sprint, monthly, or quarterly, taking the time to go wider and deeper than a quick check and surfacing in one coherent report what you'd otherwise piece together from a dozen separate tools. It scores deterministically: the same commit yields the same score, every run. 74 of 80 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); 6 documentation/naming judgement(s) are LLM-assisted and labelled advisory. Overall confidence is 0.9 — the weighted average across measured dimensions; it falls as more of the score leans on LLM-assisted judgement and rises when it's fully tool-backed.
Every figure here is one of three kinds, and we label which: ✓ Measured — a deterministic fact (LoC, complexity, coverage); ~ Modeled — an estimate from a stated model (cost, effort, value-at-risk), always a range with its assumptions, never a precise fact; ◐ Advisory — an LLM prose judgement. We never present a modelled estimate as if it were measured. Perfect or absent scores carry their provenance too (ADR-0011): ✓ Tool-verified means the property itself was measured across the surface; ○ Nothing flagged means the probes came back clean — a claim bounded by what a repository can show; ⊘ Not evidenced means a working control (a tested restore, an automated rollback) showed no positive evidence — absence of evidence is not evidence of a control, so it's excluded from the score rather than awarded a spurious 10; ◐ Sampled · advisory marks an LLM verdict over a bounded sample — advisory, never a deterministic measurement.
What we checked — 80 dimensions across the health lenses
Each chip is a dimension scored from real signals across architecture, testing, dependencies, security & compliance, documentation, git-history and code quality — in one coherent pass. A surface report typically covers a handful.
How to trust any code-health report — three questions
Can you open the finding? Real findings cite a repo-relative file and line you can open at the cited line — never an absolute scratch path. Here, 238 of 291 do; the remainder are repo-wide signals — a dimension-level measurement, not a single line. (Every path in this report is repo-relative by construction: paths are normalized at the producer and the report is rejected if any rooted path leaks through.)
Is there a tool behind the number? Every score below names the method that produced it — Roslyn, git, a scanner, or (for a handful of documentation/naming dimensions) an LLM labelled sampled · advisory — not a narrative.
Does re-running give the same result? Run it again on the same commit and the score — and this report, byte for byte — is identical. A report whose numbers move between runs is describing the run, not the code.
This report answers yes to all three. That's the bar to hold any assessment to.
Tools & methods
The actual versions used this run (captured at analysis time) — re-run on the same commit for the identical score.
Method
Backs
Version
Evaluator
Roslyn static analysis
Complexity, cohesion, coupling, dead code, API surface, layering
What ran differently this time — a tool absent, degraded, or that fell back to an estimate. Named openly, not folded silently into the scores. A degraded run also records its exact cause in diagnostics.md.
D8 Code Coverage — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Coverage NOT MEASURED: this repository's production source spans .cs, .vb, .ts, and our analyzer cannot run the .ts test suite(s) — so no coverage was collected for the repository as a whole. The .NET half did build and run, and its own line coverage came back at 53.6% — but that is a figure for one half of the product, and we do not publish a partial one as if it were complete. This is OUR limitation, not a defect in the repo — coverage is excluded from the score rather than counted as a near-zero. In the meantime, produce a coverage report in a standard format (Cobertura — `dotnet test --collect:"XPlat Code Coverage"` with a `coverlet.collector` PackageReference, or lcov — `vitest --coverage`, `jest --coverage`, `bun test --coverage --coverage-reporter=lcov`, or `nyc`) and commit it — a hosted scan measures a clone of the repository, so a report that exists only in a working tree, a CI runner's or your own, never reaches it; the artefact is commonly gitignored, so `git add -f` that one file (or un-ignore its path) and commit it alongside the code it measures and real coverage will be read. You can widen what we reach: optional: produce a coverage report in a standard format (lcov — `vitest --coverage`, `jest --coverage`, `bun test --coverage --coverage-reporter=lcov`, or `nyc`) and commit it — a hosted scan measures a clone of the repository, so a report that exists only in a working tree, a CI runner's or your own, never reaches it; the artefact is commonly gitignored, so `git add -f` that one file (or un-ignore its path) and commit it alongside the code it measures — then both halves are read on the next scan.
D10 Test Quality — measured, with a gap in what it reached — Watchdog measured this, but not all of it. What it did not reach is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — so the numbers on that dimension cover less than the repository, and the part left out is not evidence that it would have passed. The 22 test(s) behind this row are the ones the JavaScript/TypeScript census could read, and this repository also carries at least 50 test source file(s) (.vb, .rs) that it cannot: it reads JavaScript/TypeScript test declarations off disk, so a JUnit/pytest-style suite is invisible to it. Skipped tests, zero-assertion tests and the other quality signals on this row are UNMEASURED in that suite — their absence from the counts above is a gap in this analyzer's language coverage, not a finding that those tests are sound.
D11 Test Reliability — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Test reliability NOT SCORED: this repository's production source spans .cs, .vb, .ts, and the built-in reliability runner cannot re-run the .ts test suite(s) — so reliability was not measured for the repository as a whole. The .NET suite did build and re-run, and came back with 0 flaky across 2 measured tier(s) (unit: measured (0 flaky); other: measured (0 flaky)) — but that is a figure for one half of the product, and we do not publish a partial one as if it were complete. This is OUR limitation, not a defect in the repo — test reliability is excluded from the score rather than counted.
D14 License Compliance — measured, with a gap in what it reached — Watchdog measured this, but not all of it. What it did not reach is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — so the numbers on that dimension cover less than the repository, and the part left out is not evidence that it would have passed. This repository declares a Python pyproject.toml/requirements.txt (pip/uv/Poetry), but the licence verdict published here was taken over its NuGet package dependencies. Nothing was read about its Python dependencies' licensing in either direction, and a clean score on this card must not be read as covering them.
D14 License Compliance — measured, with a gap in what it reached — Watchdog measured this, but not all of it. What it did not reach is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — so the numbers on that dimension cover less than the repository, and the part left out is not evidence that it would have passed. This repository declares a Swift Package.swift/Package.resolved, but the licence verdict published here was taken over its NuGet package dependencies. Nothing was read about its SwiftPM dependencies' licensing in either direction, and a clean score on this card must not be read as covering them.
D14 License Compliance — measured, with a gap in what it reached — Watchdog measured this, but not all of it. What it did not reach is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — so the numbers on that dimension cover less than the repository, and the part left out is not evidence that it would have passed. This repository declares a Cargo manifest, but the licence verdict published here was taken over its NuGet package dependencies. Nothing was read about its Cargo dependencies' licensing in either direction, and a clean score on this card must not be read as covering them.
D14 License Compliance — measured, with a gap in what it reached — Watchdog measured this, but not all of it. What it did not reach is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — so the numbers on that dimension cover less than the repository, and the part left out is not evidence that it would have passed. This repository declares package.json, but the licence verdict published here was taken over its NuGet package dependencies. Nothing was read about its npm dependencies' licensing in either direction, and a clean score on this card must not be read as covering them.
D16 Bus Factor — not measured this run — This is a true statement about the repository that carries nothing for its owner to act on, so it is reported here rather than as a defect in their code. Single-contributor repository — bus factor is not applicable (1 contributor(s) across 223 commit(s) sampled, automation and bot accounts excluded). Concentration needs a team to concentrate: with one contributor there is nobody to spread the knowledge to, so there is nothing here for the owner to act on.
D17 Explicit Debt — measured, with a gap in what it reached — Watchdog measured this, but not all of it. What it did not reach is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — so the numbers on that dimension cover less than the repository, and the part left out is not evidence that it would have passed. The 5 deducted marker(s) and the 0.3/KLoC density on this row were taken over this repository's .NET projects ALONE: .ts (3,394 lines, 19% of production source) went unread, because every marker collector on this path is reached through a C# workspace. D17's marker collectors need a compiler we do not have for that language, so none of its nine marker kinds were read there. The debt in that source is UNMEASURED — its absence from the score above is a gap in this analyzer's language coverage, not a finding that the code carries none.
D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. At 13357 LoC across 18 projects this is a large multi-module system that clearly needs explicit bounded contexts. Bounded contexts cannot be inferred from a codebase that is not physically organised by them (D-321), so with none declared there are no boundaries for the coupling pass to measure across. You can widen what we reach: name this codebase's bounded contexts (≥2 module groups, e.g. per subsystem) so cross-boundary type coupling can be assessed. Declare them in `.codehealth/config.yaml` at the repository root (create it if absent), mapping each context name to the module-path or namespace prefixes that belong to it — e.g. `architecture:` → `contexts:` → `Billing: ["src/billing", "Acme.Billing"]`, `Catalog: ["src/catalog", "Acme.Catalog"]`.
D27 Navigability — measured, with a gap in what it reached — Watchdog measured this, but not all of it. What it did not reach is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — so the numbers on that dimension cover less than the repository, and the part left out is not evidence that it would have passed. Tracing effort is measured over resolved call sites, and all 2615 sampled here came from .vb files. This repository's .ts source is a material share of its production lines and contributed none, so the score above is a verdict about the part that was read. Not a finding that the unread half navigates well — it is unmeasured.
Repo exclusion declarations: 8 pattern(s) declared (.gitattributes linguist-generated/vendored, .editorconfig generated_code) excluded 0 source file(s) from code-quality scoring. Declarations are the repo's own visible statement that a tree is machine-written or vendored — auditable in any diff, honored by GitHub the same way.
Limitations & what we did not check
Watchdog assesses the repository exactly as committed, and only the repository. By design it does not reach outside the source tree: the live cloud account, the running CI/CD pipeline, the host's branch-protection and approval rules, the production configuration, or a restore actually exercised against a backup are all out of scope. That boundary is a feature, not a gap — a repo-relative, deterministic scan re-runs identically on any commit and every finding opens at a real file and line, where a live audit can neither be reproduced nor traced. The visible consequence is that controls which leave no in-repo evidence are reported as "not evidenced" and excluded from the score rather than awarded a number a static scan cannot justify.
Per-dimension blind spots
For each dimension that was measured, what a static, repo-only scan structurally cannot see — the honest edge of the measurement, not a failure of it.
D1 Cyclomatic Complexity: Cyclomatic complexity counts branches statically — it cannot tell an essential decision tree from accidental tangle, nor see complexity that lives in data or configuration (large switch-case token tables, DSL lexers/parsers, data-as-code rule tables) rather than control flow: a tokenizer's many single-character cases read as high complexity though each branch is trivial.
D2 Cognitive Complexity: Cognitive-complexity heuristics approximate how hard code is to follow; genuine domain difficulty and well-named intent that eases reading are not captured.
D3 God Classes: "God class" is sized by members and responsibilities visible in the type — a deliberately broad facade over a coherent subsystem can read the same as an accidental grab-bag. For front-end JS the file-length check is cohesion-aware (a single-responsibility module — one class/IIFE — earns a 3× threshold), but cohesion is approximated from top-level declarations, not true dependency structure.
D4 Code Duplication: Duplication is token-similarity — an in-process token-stream comparison over sliding windows, with type-aware normalization — so it finds copy-paste, not semantic duplication expressed differently. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, protobuf/OpenAPI stubs, model snapshots) is EXCLUDED — its repetition is the tool's, not the team's — so the score reflects hand-written duplication only.
D5 Coupling: Coupling is measured between projects/assemblies — runtime coupling through DI, reflection, messaging or shared databases is invisible to a static reference graph.
D6 Cohesion (LCOM4): LCOM4 cohesion is syntactic — it infers connectivity from which methods touch which fields/methods by name, not from real runtime behaviour or intent.
D9 Test Distribution: The test-pyramid shape is inferred from project/folder naming and references, with a single test host bucketed per-file by its path tier and content signals — a suite that names tiers unconventionally and gives no per-file signal can still be mis-bucketed.
D10 Test Quality: Assertion density is structural — it cannot tell a meaningful behavioural assertion from a trivial one, only that an assertion is present.
D12 Dependency Hygiene: Dependency health reads manifests and lockfiles — a vulnerability in a vendored/copied dependency, or risk from how a dependency is actually used, is outside this view.
D13 Secret Scanning: Secret detection is signature- and entropy-based on the current tree — a secret that does not match a known pattern, or one already rotated, will not be flagged (a clean scan is "nothing matched", not "no secrets exist").
D14 License Compliance: License compatibility is checked against declared package metadata and a policy — mislabelled or missing license metadata, and obligations that depend on how you distribute, are not resolved here.
D15 Churn × Complexity Hotspots: Churn hotspots come from git history — a freshly imported or squashed repository has no churn signal, and recent rewrites can mask a historically risky file.
D17 Explicit Debt: Acknowledged-debt signals (TODO/FIXME, suppressions, dead code) are textual — undocumented debt that nobody marked, and debt that lives in design rather than annotations, is invisible. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, generated stubs) is excluded — it is never the team's dead code to delete.
D18 Solution Shape: Build integrity reflects whether the solution compiled in this environment — a build that needs a private feed, a specific SDK, or a generated file absent from the repo can read as broken when it is merely unreproducible here.
D19 Documentation Quality: Documentation quality is judged by an LLM over a bounded sample of docs — it reads what is written, not whether the docs match the running system, and it is advisory, not a measurement. Its critique rows are drawn from a closed category vocabulary and each row means the same thing in every run, so two scans can be compared row by row; the SET that fires is still a sample, and does not repeat exactly. Measured on one frozen input, six scans at one engine SHA: 2-5 critique rows per scan, 8 distinct rows across the six, 3 of those 8 seen in only one scan. So a D19 row is evidence about the documentation, but a COUNT of D19 rows is not a quantity — never read a change in it as an improvement or a regression.
D20 ADR Quality: ADR quality is an LLM read of the decision records present — it cannot know about decisions made and never recorded, and its verdict is sampled and advisory.
D21 Naming Consistency: Naming quality is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it assesses clarity/consistency of the names it sees, not domain-correctness, and is advisory.
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.
D24 Comment Value: Comment value (WHY vs WHAT) is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it is advisory and cannot weigh a comment against the precise code change it was written to explain.
D26 Project Cohesion: Project focus is sized from members/namespaces per project — a project that is broad by deliberate design reads the same as one that has sprawled.
D27 Navigability: Indirection/navigability is structural — it measures hops to follow a call, not whether that indirection buys real flexibility or just ceremony.
D28 Secrets (history): Secret-history scanning sweeps the git log for known patterns — a secret that predates the available history, or never matched a signature, is not found (clean means "nothing matched in the history we can see").
D29 Static Analysis (SAST): SAST findings are pattern-based (semgrep) — it finds classes of bug it has rules for; logic flaws, auth/authorization gaps and issues needing runtime context are out of reach (and clean means "no rule matched").
D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities: CVE matching depends on accurate package/version metadata and on the advisory databases — a vulnerability with no published advisory, or in code not declared as a dependency, is not seen. Coverage needs a RESOLVED graph: an unpinned requirements.txt, or a pom without a resolved build, yields partial coverage rather than a clean verdict. An ecosystem the analyzer cannot scan is reported as unmeasured, never as clean.
D34 Knowledge Freshness: Freshness is decayed commit RECENCY, not comprehension — code read often but rarely committed reads as orphaned, and stable code that genuinely needs no changes is penalised the same as forgotten code; bot/squash commits distort it like the bus factor.
D35 Change Coupling: Change coupling is co-change in COMMITS — files split across separate commits, or coupled only through a shared config/build step, read as uncoupled, and a sweeping commit (rename/format) is excluded so it doesn't couple everything. It shows that files change together, not WHY: a high coupling can be a healthy cohesive pair as readily as a hidden leak.
D43 Malicious Dependencies: Only packages some vulnerability database has already NAMED as malicious are seen — a compromise published in the last hours, or never reported at all, is invisible here, and this dimension reading 10 is not evidence that a dependency is trustworthy. There is no typosquat or dependency-confusion analysis: a package nobody has reported is simply absent from the feeds. Coverage is the dependency scan's: an ecosystem that could not be scanned is disclosed as unmeasured, never as clean.
D44 Platform End-of-Life: The support table is FROZEN, so it goes out of date by losing RECALL: a release that ended support after the table was written is missed until the table is refreshed, and this dimension reading 10 is not evidence that a platform is current. Only platforms the repository DECLARES in a place this pass reads are seen — a runtime named only in a Dockerfile (D31's subject), in a CI workflow (D29's), or in a file this pass does not parse (REDACTED, a Gemfile ruby directive) is invisible here, which is why a repository declaring none of them abstains rather than scoring. Only frameworks with a PUBLISHED support policy are tracked: React, Flask and Express publish none, so their age cannot be judged and their absence from a report is not a statement that they are supported.
AX10 Code composition: Role is inferred from namespace/folder convention, not semantics — a domain concept living in a folder named "Services" reads as application, and the split is lines-of-code, not business value. The business-logic-share score is a SOFT, FLOORED signal: it contributes to the Architecture lens but is floored at the Critical gate, so an infrastructure-heavy design (a gateway, an ETL, a driver) is legitimately low without being nuked to zero.
AX9 CQS / query purity: Handlers are found by interface/name convention — a query handler using neither is not seen. Mutation is a resolved write/publish invocation (SaveChanges/repository/bus), so a write hidden behind a hand-rolled wrapper, reflection, or a string-keyed service locator resolves to a non-persistence type and isn't flagged; it detects that a query writes state, not whether the write is a legitimate read-side cache update. Clean means "no resolved write/publish in a query body", not a proof of CQS purity.
M4 Documentation accuracy: Onboarding quality is an LLM read of the docs/setup present — it cannot run the onboarding or measure how long a real new joiner takes; the verdict is sampled and advisory.
P4 Deployment & Rollback: Approval/branch-protection rules live in repository settings the scan cannot see — only their in-repo evidence (config files, workflows) is checked, so a control enforced purely in the host's settings reads as "not evidenced".
P6 Release Hygiene: Rollback/observability controls are inferred from repo artefacts (pipelines, dashboards-as-code) — controls configured in external tooling, with no in-repo trace, cannot be credited.
The LLM boundary
LLM-set scores this run (6): D19, D21, D22, D24, D26, M4 (model: Local LLM). For these, a model reads a bounded sample and sets the numeric score; each names its own sample and method on its card. They are sampled and advisory by design: they vary at the margins between runs and are never a deterministic measurement. Every other score in this report is tool-computed at confidence 1.0.
What it measures: How tangled the control flow is — methods with many branches are hard to test and change.
Method: Cyclomatic complexity per method (1 + decision points), computed exhaustively across production source; test projects separated by convention. Deterministic.
23 method(s) exceeded the cyclomatic complexity threshold of 15; the worst was Program.ParseArgs at 62. A further 3 method(s) were over the threshold but excluded as flat dispatchers (a long switch/match over independent cases: many branches, almost no nesting), the largest being CallHierarchyService.GetSymbolKind at 23 — they are counted neither in the figure above nor in this dimension's score. 1 file carries no cyclomatic complexity row at all for this reason — every one of its over-threshold methods was excluded, so the exclusion is disclosed nowhere in the file itself: src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Services/CallHierarchyService.vb (CallHierarchyService.GetSymbolKind at 23). They are named here because the per-file figures other dimensions report are taken BEFORE this exclusion, so such a file can show a high maximum complexity elsewhere in this report and nothing here, with nothing to reconcile the two.
+ 18 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.
What to do
Resolve the 1 Program.ParseArgs (cyclomatic 62) finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with Program.vb. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 Program.RunRpcOverStreamAsync (cyclomatic 37) finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with Program.vb. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 extension.selectWorkspaceContext (cyclomatic 32) finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with extension.ts. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Enforce Cyclomatic Complexity in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Detailed fixes: d1_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: How hard the code is for a person to follow, beyond raw branching.
Method: Cognitive complexity per method (Sonar-style nesting-penalized score), computed exhaustively over production code, excluding test projects. Deterministic.
+ 34 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.
What to do
Resolve the 1 Program.ParseArgs (cognitive 76) finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with Program.vb. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 LanguageServer.LoadWorkspaceAsync (cognitive 47) finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with LanguageServer.vb. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 Program.RunRpcOverStreamAsync (cognitive 44) finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with Program.vb. — 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 Classes6.4 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified
What it measures: Over-large classes that try to do too much ("god classes").
Method: God-class detection by line and method-count thresholds per logical type (partial classes unified), filtered for generated code and registration/contract false positives. Deterministic.
Resolve the 8 FileTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with LanguageServer.vb, Program.vb, LspTypes.vb. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (8 warning-level).
Resolve the 6 ClassTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with Program.vb, WorkspaceManager.vb, SignatureHelpService.vb. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (6 warning-level).
Resolve the 3 MethodTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with Program.vb (2), languageClient.ts. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 warning-level).
Enforce God Classes in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Detailed fixes: d3_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: Copy-pasted code that should be shared instead.
Method: Code duplication via token-stream sliding windows with type-aware normalization (locals masked, type names preserved), density-scored per KLoC of production code. Deterministic.
19 duplicated block group(s) detected. A further 4 rows report members as variants of one another; they aggregate block groups already counted above and are not themselves counted. 7 of the 23 are in trees this repository does not ship — vendored, example/demo, fixture and benchmark code — and are ranked below the shipped groups rather than excluded from them: the duplication there is real and is still counted in this dimension's score. The dimensions that publish a production-file census leave those trees out of theirs, so this count is deliberately drawn over the wider population. Measured on part of this repository only: .ts (19% of production source) was not exposed to THIS dimension's token comparison and is not in this count; duplication there is measured by R10 Code Duplication, the frontend lens's card running the same clone algorithm over the JS/TS token stream.
Members sharing a duplicated core (15 members, 50+ identical tokens)src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Services/CallHierarchyService.vb:469
Members sharing a duplicated core (6 members, 50+ identical tokens)src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Services/CallHierarchyService.vb:312
Members sharing a duplicated core (5 members, 50+ identical tokens)src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Services/CallHierarchyService.vb:404
+ 16 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.
What to do
Resolve the 2 Duplicated block (17 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with CallHierarchyService.vb (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
Resolve the 2 Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with Program.cs (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 Members sharing a duplicated core (15 members, 50+ identical tokens) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with CallHierarchyService.vb. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Enforce Code Duplication in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.
Detailed fixes: d4_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D5 · 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.
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.
Resolve the 1 Low cohesion finding(s) in Cohesion (LCOM4) — start with LanguageServer.vb. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 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.
42 test methods: 42 unit, 0 integration, 0 BDD, 0 e2e. The JavaScript/TypeScript suite contributes 22 `it`/`test` case(s) across 6 test file(s) declaring at least one; its tier split is read from package names and paths only. The Rust suite contributes 19 `#[test]` function(s) across 5 file(s) declaring at least one; its unit/integration split is Cargo's own — 0 of those file(s) are integration-test targets under a crate's tests/ directory, and the rest are #[test] functions compiled into the crate they test. The Go suite contributes 1 test case(s) across 1 `_test.go` file(s) declaring at least one — every `func Test…(t *testing.T)` that `go test` would collect, plus the suite methods a testify-style runner reaches; a table-driven case list counts once, so this is a floor. Its tier split is INFERRED from file names, paths and build constraints, not declared: 1 of those file(s) use Go's external test package (`package x_test`), which is a visibility boundary rather than a pyramid tier and was not read as one.
✓ On the Gold path — maintain.
Detailed fixes: d9_recommendation.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D10 · Test Quality10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified
What it measures: Whether the tests truly assert behaviour rather than just running the code.
Method: Per-test assertions, skips, and mock references analyzed via Roslyn; structured skip-reason tags (BUG:/ENV:) separate documented deferrals from debt. Deterministic.
7 skipped (7 with a documented reason), 0 zero-assertion, no mocking-framework packages referenced (hand-written doubles or no mocking) across 22 tests. Measured on the JavaScript/TypeScript suite only — at least 50 test source file(s) (.vb, .rs) went unread, so its test quality is unmeasured and is not in these counts.
Skipped (documented): open files and probe symbols · ×7test-explore/clients/vscode/src/suite/vbnet-fuzz.test.ts:16
✓ On the Gold path — maintain.
Detailed fixes: d10_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: Whether dependencies are current, secure, and not bloated.
Method: Manifest scan via dotnet list package across all projects; worst-signal-per-package deduction (saturating for vulnerabilities, capped-linear for deprecation/outdated) per KLoC. Exhaustive, deterministic.
18 outdated, 1 vulnerable, 1 deprecated packages. Those are the NuGet packages; this repository's npm dependencies were read too — 8 outdated of 8 package(s) across 2 lockfile(s).
Vulnerable: System.Security.Cryptography.Xml
Deprecated: xunit
Outdated: Microsoft.Build · ×18
Outdated (npm): balanced-match · ×8
What to do
Resolve the 1 Vulnerable finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).
Resolve the 1 Deprecated finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Enforce Dependency Hygiene in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.
Detailed fixes: d12_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: Whether any secrets (keys, tokens, passwords) have leaked into the code.
Method: In-process native secret scanner (entropy plus signature patterns) across all tracked files; no external tool. A clean result is a measured 10, not no-data zero. Deterministic.
What it measures: Whether the licenses of third-party packages are compatible with your policy.
Method: Third-party package licenses resolved from declared package metadata and checked against the configured policy (allow/deny/copyleft). Deterministic; clean = no incompatible license found at metadata depth.
0 of 183 packages use a banned license. ★ DEPTH: this repository's MSBuild projects declare 20 direct `PackageReference`(s), and 160 further package(s) were reached beyond them by closing the graph over nuget.org's own nuspec dependency graph — so a banned licence pulled in only by a dependency's OWN dependencies is inside this verdict. A package whose licence nuget.org could not be asked for is not graded, and version ranges are taken at their lower bound, so this is the closure as that graph states it rather than a restored consumer's exact resolution. ★ COVERAGE OF THIS VERDICT: it grades this repository's NuGet package dependencies and nothing else. The repository also declares a Python pyproject.toml/requirements.txt (pip/uv/Poetry), a Swift Package.swift/Package.resolved, a Cargo manifest and package.json, and the licences of those dependency graphs were NOT read by this pass — a gap in this engine's coverage, not a statement about them. So this result says the graded closure carries no banned licence; it does NOT say this repository's licensing is clear.
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.
Resolve the 2 Hotspot finding(s) in Churn × Complexity Hotspots — start with LanguageServer.vb, languageClient.ts. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
Detailed fixes: d15_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: Acknowledged debt left in the code — TODOs, dead code, suppressed warnings.
Method: Roslyn syntactic debt markers (suppressions/TODO/FIXME/HACK/empty-catch/commented-code/Obsolete) plus SymbolFinder dead-code analysis; weighted-debt-per-KLoC density deducted 2.0x per unit. Deterministic, exhaustive.
5 deducted debt markers + 0 dead symbols across 13357 LoC in the .NET projects (0.3/KLoC) → score 9.3. Measured on the .NET source only: .ts (19% of production source) was not read, and carries at least 0 uncounted task marker(s) in 0 file(s).
Resolve the 5 EmptyCatchBlock finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with DiagnosticsService.vb (2), LegacyVbProjectReader.vb, WorkspaceManager.vb. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (5 issue-level).
Enforce Explicit Debt in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Detailed fixes: d17_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D18 · Solution Shape3.0 / 10Weak✓ 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.
18 projects, 94 source files, 19457 hand-written lines of code (13357 production / 6100 test — the split is derived per file: test is what its project, its own path, or a compile-guarded region marks as test, and a file carrying no test signal counts as production), 1 inter-project edges (build failed). Measured across 6 solutions loaded as one workspace: `VbNet.LanguageServer.sln`, `test-explore/clients/zed/fixtures/mixed-vb-csharp/ZedMixed.sln`, `test-explore/vbnet-lsp/fixtures/diagnostics/DiagnosticsSample.sln`, `test-explore/clients/zed/fixtures/sln/ZedSlnFixture.sln`, `test-explore/clients/zed/fixtures/slnf/ZedSlnfFixture.sln`, `test-explore/clients/zed/fixtures/slnx/ZedSlnxFixture.slnx`.
Resolve the 7 Shell project finding(s) in Solution Shape — start with ZedMixed.vbproj, ZedMixed.CSharp.csproj, DiagnosticsSample.vbproj. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (7 recommendation-level).
Resolve the 1 Build failed finding(s) in Solution Shape. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 Thin analysable surface across projects finding(s) in Solution Shape. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Detailed fixes: d18_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: Whether the project's documentation is clear, complete, and useful.
Method: Judged by language model at low temperature (0.0-0.1) on a deterministic doc sample (READMEs plus first 25 architecture docs), with two-pass stability filtering. Advisory, sampled.
The repository's root README and a dedicated 'VB.NET Language Support' README give an excellent overview of the project (VS Code extension, standalone binaries, editor adapters) plus installation, usage, and licensing. The architecture/Docs markdown files cover the per-package adapter, integration, test-harness, and distribution workflows in depth, while the XML-doc coverage is 0% for both C# namespaces, reflecting a tooling focus rather than documentation. The READMEs for test-explore/clients/* and the adapter-release-checklist.md are clear, complete, and well-structured for their respective directories: each client README documents its directory's purpose (headless Neovim LSP harness, VS Code smoke tests, Zed probes), lists goals, structure, usage examples, environment variables, and a manual run command. The adapter release checklist is authoritative for publishing snapshot adapters across repos, covering sync, validation in the monorepo, validation in each repo, and publish steps with Zed-specific notes. All documents are clipped mid-sentence by the scanner; no section is omitted from the outline.
Detailed fixes: d19_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D20 · ADR Quality0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified
What it measures: Whether architecture decisions are recorded well (context, decision, consequences).
Method: Per-ADR judgment by language model at low temperature with two-pass stability; confidence is share of ADRs evaluated; enforcement-field presence detected deterministically. Advisory.
What it measures: Whether names — types, methods, variables — are clear and consistent.
Method: Judged by language model at low temperature (0.0-0.1) on a deterministic random symbol sample (fixed size, not exhaustive), with disclosed confidence band. Advisory, sampled.
0 naming inconsistencies across 33 sampled symbols.
✓ On the Gold path — maintain.
Detailed fixes: d21_recommendation.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D22 · Internal API ConsistencyStronggated by 1 serious finding◐ 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.
1 API inconsistencies across a 400-member sample of 171 exposed types.
Inconsistent factory method naming convention. One method is named 'Success' (adjective/verb-like) and the other 'CreateError' (verb+noun). This breaks the symmetry of the API surface for constructing responses.
What to do
Resolve the 1 Inconsistent factory method naming convention. One method is named… finding(s) in Internal API Consistency. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Detailed fixes: d22_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D24 · Comment ValueWeak◐ Sampled · advisory
What it measures: Whether comments are worth it — explaining WHY (valuable) rather than WHAT (redundant).
Method: Judged by language model at low temperature (0.0-0.1) on deterministically sampled inline comments with surrounding code; findings verified back to sampled comments by substring match. Advisory, sampled.
1 of 18 projects flagged as possibly oversized/incoherent.
Projects may be oversized for their cohesion
What to do
Resolve the 1 Projects may be oversized for their cohesion finding(s) in Project Cohesion. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Detailed fixes: d26_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
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.
81 % of calls cross a namespace and 1 % go through an interface, but 100 % of collaborators are co-located — so a call's collaborators sit together and tracing stays easy. Baseline: medium — clean/modular boundaries expected. Measured over the .vb source only — this repository's .ts was not sampled for call sites, so this score covers part of the tree, not all of it.
What it measures: Whether any secrets were ever committed — scanned across the full git history, not just now.
Method: Secret scan via TWO gitleaks detect passes in an isolated checkout — the full git history, then a second --no-git pass over the working tree as it stands — merged and de-duplicated by (rule, file, line); each match flagged High. Both invocations are recorded in the audit trail. Exhaustive; when the tool is absent, or when its output cannot be parsed into the expected shape, the dimension is WITHHELD as an explicit measurement gap on our side — unscored and excluded from the lens, never a hedged middling score.
What it measures: Real static-analysis (SAST) findings — likely security bugs in the code, any language.
Method: Polyglot static analysis via semgrep across the repo using the pinned, image-baked p/security-audit + p/owasp-top-ten rulesets (no scan-time registry fetch); severity rules (ERROR/WARNING/INFO) map to a full-band severity-weighted score. Exhaustive, deterministic; degrades on parse failure.
Coverage: semgrep pattern rules over all files — exhaustive for the rule set, blind to classes of bug without a rule (clean = no rule matched).
59 finding(s): 0 critical, 53 high, 6 medium, 0 low. 42 unpinned-GitHub-Actions row(s) are reported here but scored by D36 (supply-chain provenance), which measures that posture as `pinned_actions` — one pinning decision is charged once, not once per lens. semgrep hit a parse error in 1 file(s) — `tree-sitter-vbnet/src/tree_sitter/array.h` (line 159) — so no absence of findings in the named regions is evidence of anything; rows reported elsewhere in those files are real. Fix the syntax error (or exclude the file deliberately) and re-scan to cover them. Separately, one or more rules could not re-parse an embedded snippet in 5 file(s) (e.g. a workflow `run:` block read as shell). Those files WERE scanned and their other rows are unaffected; only those rules' view of those snippets is missing.
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
What to do
Resolve the 7 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED (3), REDACTED (2), REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (7 issue-level).
Resolve the 2 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 issue-level).
No action in Static Analysis (SAST) — all 42 REDACTED finding(s) are reported here at file:line but scored by D36 (supply-chain provenance), so none is charged to this dimension. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (42 issue-level, 0 of them charged here).
Detailed fixes: d29_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: Whether any dependency has a known published vulnerability (CVE), direct or transitive, in ANY ecosystem the repository declares — Dart pub, Elixir and Erlang via Hex, Go modules, Java and Kotlin via Maven/Gradle, JavaScript/npm, .NET/NuGet, PHP/Composer, Python/PyPI, RubyGems, Rust/Cargo and Swift.
Method: Dependency-CVE scan across every ecosystem the repository declares, scored ONCE. Three sources are unioned and deduplicated by advisory identity (rule id + alias closure, CVE<->GHSA) scoped to package+version, keeping the worst severity: `osv-scanner --recursive` over osv.dev for Dart pub, Elixir/Hex (and Erlang, whose `rebar.lock` syft first converts to a CycloneDX SBOM the scanner reads, with rows attributed back to the lock), Go, Java and Kotlin via Maven/Gradle (and Scala, whose sbt build's pinned direct declarations are written into a CycloneDX SBOM the scanner reads, with rows attributed back to the build file), npm, PHP/Composer, Python/PyPI, RubyGems, Rust/Cargo and Swift; `trivy fs --scanners vuln` for npm lockfiles; and `dotnet list package --vulnerable --include-transitive` for NuGet (with per-advisory collapse of the project x target-framework fan-out), plus a DECLARED-dependency arm that resolves a published gem's gemspec against rubygems.org where no Gemfile.lock is committed. `SeverityScore(c,h,m,l, normalizer 8.0)`. NotApplicable only when NO ecosystem is readable; if any applicable ecosystem could not be scanned the findings are REPORTED and the score is withheld. Supersedes the npm and OSV arms, retired 2026-09-05.
Resolve the 11 High CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with REDACTED (10). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (11 issue-level).
Resolve the 2 Medium CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with REDACTED, REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
Resolve the 2 Medium vulnerability finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with REDACTED (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
Detailed fixes: d30_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: Whether anyone still has living knowledge of each file, or it has been orphaned — last understood long ago by someone now gone quiet. The sibling of the bus factor: D16 asks who owns it, D34 asks whether anyone still knows it.
Method: File orphaning as total living-knowledge decay below one focused-commit's worth within a year, computed per-file from the D16 decay model. Exhaustive, deterministic over fixed history.
Every significant source file has living knowledge — recently and meaningfully worked. Counted over 35 of the 37 production source files in this repository: the rest are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over.
What it measures: Whether files that change together actually belong together — pairs that repeatedly co-change in git history despite having no explicit code dependency, surfacing the hidden/logical coupling (and boundaries in the wrong place) a static scan can't see.
Method: Pairwise co-occurrence over the per-commit file sets in git history (production source only — tests and generated dropped): Degree-of-Coupling = shared ÷ min individual revisions, reported above noise floors (each file ≥10 revisions, ≥5 shared commits, ≥50% strength); sweeping commits excluded. Deterministic over fixed history.
Coverage: Population: PRODUCTION source files only — test and generated files are dropped before pairing, so a class co-changing with its own test (trivially ~100%) can't drown the real production↔production coupling. Pairs ranked by Degree-of-Coupling. A non-source file is never a coupling PARTICIPANT either: documentation, schemas, config and data files are dropped with the rest, so a code↔docs pair — a command and the reference page that restates it — is not reported however strongly the two co-change; nor is coupling that runs THROUGH a build step or config file.
What it measures: Whether the build pipeline provides supply-chain integrity — generated provenance/attestation, signed artifacts (cosign/sigstore), an SBOM, and pinned build actions. Presence of the configuration, not a runtime guarantee.
Method: Supply-chain provenance/signing read deterministically from CI/build config (.github/workflows, .gitlab-ci.yml, azure-pipelines, Jenkinsfile, .circleci) + the release surface: four signals — generated provenance/attestation (SLSA/in-toto/actions-attest), artifact signing (cosign/sigstore/gitsign), an SBOM (syft/sbom-action/*.spdx.json/*.cdx.json), and SHA-pinned build actions — scored 10·present/denom. NotApplicable without a build pipeline. Detects configuration presence, not runtime enforcement.
+ 6 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.
What to do
Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Detailed fixes: d36_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D39 · IL Efficiency10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified
Method: IL instruction count per method, read from the BUILT first-party assemblies via Mono.Cecil (the target is compiled on a deep run); scored on the fraction of methods whose emitted IL body exceeds the size threshold. Sees compiler-generated bloat source can't; not-applicable when the target fails to build. Deterministic.
What it measures: Whether any dependency the repository declares is published as MALICIOUS rather than merely vulnerable — a package that is an attacker's work, in any ecosystem osv-scanner reads. Scored apart from D30 because the answer is binary: there is no safe version to upgrade to, and the fix is to remove the package and rotate every credential it could have read.
Method: The same dependency scan D30 reads, partitioned on the scanner's own classification rather than rescanned: a row is MALICIOUS when its id is in the `MAL-` space (the ossf/malicious-packages feed) OR its `database_specific.cwe_ids` carries `CWE-506` ("Embedded Malicious Code"). Both channels are structural; the summary text is deliberately NOT read, because a malicious-package record whose summary says only "Critical severity vulnerability" is a real shape ([GHSA redacted]) and a text matcher misses it. Scored BINARY: any surviving row is 0, whatever its severity and however many CVEs sit beside it — a hostile dependency is not a quantity. Applicability and degradation are D30's: NotApplicable only when no ecosystem is readable, and an unscannable ecosystem degrades rather than reading clean. SCORED, not informational.
What it measures: Whether anyone still ships security patches for the platform this repository RUNS ON — the runtime it pins and the framework majors its own constraints hold it to. Separate from D12 because the question differs: a current Django on an end-of-life Python is perfectly up to date and completely unsupported, and the fix is a migration rather than a version bump. What the repository says it merely SUPPORTS is never charged.
Method: End-of-life PLATFORM read from the repository's own declarations and graded against a FROZEN, dated table of vendor support dates — no network, no feed, no API, so this dimension answers identically inside a closed scan fence. Two subjects: a RUNTIME the project pins (a single or all-end-of-life TargetFramework, a .nvmrc or .python-version, a requires-python CAP) and a FRAMEWORK major a dependency constraint cannot move off (a caret, tilde or exact version; `vue@^2.7.16` pins Vue 2). A FLOOR is deliberately never charged — `requires-python = ">=3.8"` states what a package SUPPORTS, not what it runs on — and a multi-target project is charged only when EVERY target is out of support. Runtime 4.0/product capped 8.0, framework 1.5 capped 4.5. The table is safe to freeze because a statement about support that ended in the past cannot become false: it loses recall as it ages, never precision, and a test asserts every entry predates the freeze date. Disjoint from D31 (a container image's OS layer) and D29 (the toolchain a CI workflow installs). Abstains when the repository declares no platform this pass reads — never scores it clean.
0 end-of-life runtime(s) and 0 end-of-life framework(s), read from 23 platform declaration(s) and 0 dependency declaration(s). This dimension reads what the repository says about ITSELF — a pinned target framework, a version file, a capped requires-python, a Rust toolchain pin, a framework major a constraint cannot move off. A FLOOR is deliberately never charged: `requires-python = ">=3.8"` states what the package SUPPORTS, not what it runs on, and a well-maintained library declares exactly that while running its own CI on a current release. The end-of-life facts are FROZEN and dated, so this dimension needs no network and answers identically inside a closed scan fence; as the table ages it loses recall and never precision, because a statement about support that ended in the past cannot become false. The OS layer of a container image is D31's question and the toolchain a CI workflow installs is D29's; this row is neither.
Other · Architecture — How the codebase splits by code ROLE — domain, application, infrastructure, test, generated. The significance map behind the knowledge/coupling weighting, and a DDD signal in its own right: a thin domain core under fat infrastructure is the anemic-domain smell, quantified. How each file's role is decided, because the split is only as good as that: a generated name or a build-output tree makes it Generated, a test project makes it Test, and otherwise the file's NAMESPACE and PATH words are matched against fixed vocabularies in a fixed ORDER — domain, then infrastructure, then application — so a file whose words hit two layers is counted under the earlier one. A production file matching none of them counts as application, so that share reads 'application or unclassified' rather than a measured application layer. Roles come from naming convention, never from what the code does.
Method: Roslyn line-count by code ROLE: every source file classified Domain/Application/Infrastructure/Test/Generated by namespace + path convention (the shared CodeRoleClassifier), then significant lines summed per role. Deterministic; the advisory score is the business-logic (domain+application) share of production code.
Coverage: Population: ALL source files, each bucketed into ONE of five roles (Domain/Application/Infrastructure/Test/Generated) by namespace + path convention — a file whose layer isn't named in the convention falls to Application (the neutral default), and the split is line-count, not semantic depth or business value.
What to do
The domain core is a small share of production code — check that business logic isn't leaking into the application/infrastructure layers (a thin domain is the anemic-domain smell).
Other · Architecture — Whether the project-reference graph is acyclic (cycles block independent build/deploy and signal eroding boundaries).
Method: Project reference cycles via elementary-DFS over real .csproj references, using the engine shared with D5/D7; cyclic versus acyclic. Exhaustive, deterministic.
Other · Architecture — Whether dependencies point inward (Domain ← Application ← Infrastructure/Web) — the clean-architecture dependency rule, checked across the project graph.
Method: Layer violations by name-segment inference (Domain/Core to Application to Infrastructure/Web) over the project-reference graph. Exhaustive over all projects, deterministic.
Other · Architecture — Whether the codebase has a recognisable, scale-appropriate structure (a named architectural style, or modular enough for its size) rather than being an ad-hoc ball of mud.
Method: Roslyn plus csproj analysis: architecture style detection (DDD, clean, vertical-slice, CQRS) and structure fitness for repo size. Deterministic.
Other · Architecture — Whether interfaces stay focused rather than fat — the Interface-Segregation principle (SOLID 'I').
Method: Roslyn scan: public interface declared-member counts (accessors fold into their property/event); fat-interface threshold (over 15 declared members) flagged per type. Each finding also reports the distinct-OPERATION count — members counted by name, so an overload group counts once — which decides whether it states the caller-side ISP harm or the implementer-side burden of an overload set. 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.
Other · Architecture — Whether read (query) handlers stay side-effect-free — a query that writes persistent state or raises events breaks CQS and makes reads unsafe to retry, cache, or route to a read replica.
Method: Roslyn scan: CQRS handlers classified query-vs-command by interface (IQueryHandler/ICommandHandler/IRequestHandler<TQuery,TResult>) and name convention (*Query/Get*/Find* vs *Command); each query handler's body checked for persistent-state writes (SaveChanges/repository Add-Update) or event publishes by resolved invocation. Deterministic, type-level, exhaustive over the detected handlers.
Coverage: Population: CQRS handlers identified by IQueryHandler/ICommandHandler/IRequestHandler interface + *Query/Get*/Find*/*Command NAME convention; query purity then checked exhaustively within that set — a query handler using neither convention is invisible, and mutation is a resolved persistence/publish CALL, not full dataflow.
Other · Code Health — Unreviewed-generation residue: shipped members still throwing NotImplementedException, and placeholder string literals left in non-test, non-generated code. Scored as a quality signature, never as a claim about authorship.
Method: Roslyn syntax scan: NotImplementedException throws and placeholder string literals in non-test, non-generated shipped code. Deterministic, code-shape signature.
Other · Code Health — Unfinished work detected by code SHAPE, not keywords: members that only throw a "not implemented" exception, methods that take inputs and return a constant, async methods that never await, dead `if (false)` / `#if false` branches, and skeleton types most of whose members are holes. A real, objective slice of technical debt.
Method: Roslyn syntax scan: incompleteness by code shape (constant-returning methods, async-never-await, #if false branches, guards that return what the code already falls through to, tests an earlier guard already decided, comparisons against NaN, skeleton types), not keyword-gated. Deterministic, code-shape heuristic.
Maturity · Maturity — Whether the repo and its projects have a README, and whether it's substantive and current.
Method: Filesystem scan: README presence, word count, and headings for depth; git history for staleness. Exhaustive across root and project dirs, deterministic.
What to do
Add an 'Architecture' / 'How it works' section to the root README — the high-level shape.
Add a README to the 14 of 17 project(s) that lack one — worth up to 1.6 pts.
Maturity · Maturity — Whether key decisions (ADRs) and the high-level shape (C4/diagrams) are written down.
Method: Filesystem scan: ADR folder/naming conventions or content, plus Mermaid/PlantUML/C4/architecture.md discovery. Exhaustive, deterministic.
No Architecture Decision Records found — no conventional ADR directory, no numbered `NNNN-title` documents in any markup this check reads, and nothing ADR-shaped by content. Design rationale recorded elsewhere (a design-notes tree, a mailing list, pull-request discussion) is not visible to this check and is not re-findable per decision, so a future maintainer cannot ask why one choice was made and get an answer.
What to do
Record significant decisions one document per decision — dated, stating the context, the decision and its consequences — and keep them together wherever your design docs already live (a conventional `docs/adr/` tree, with each file named `NNNN-title` in whatever markup those docs already use, is the most discoverable form).
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.
Only 7/18 projects share a common root namespace — the code's module identity is inconsistent.
What to do
Adopt a consistent root-namespace convention (a shared prefix, e.g. Acme.*); short project-file/directory names are fine as long as the RootNamespace is uniform.
Maturity · Maturity — Whether the README actually describes the code that exists (LLM-judged, advisory).
Method: Judged by language model at low temperature: README accuracy versus actual projects, within a disclosed tolerance. Advisory, not a measured number.
README advertises Docker containerisation, but no Dockerfile/compose file exists — searched for: `dockerfile`, `docker-compose`, `compose.yaml`, `compose.yml`. Each was matched case- and separator-insensitively against file and directory NAMES anywhere in the tree, and against the CONTENTS of manifest files (package.json, *.csproj, *.props, *.slnx, *.yml, Dockerfile); the README's own prose never counts, so a claim is never refuted by merely being made. Nothing outside that search was read — a footprint living only in a submodule, in a file type not listed here, or under a name none of those terms matches is not seen, and this row is then wrong.
What to do
Reconcile the README with reality: README advertises Docker containerisation, but no Dockerfile/compose file exists.
Readiness · Readiness — Whether SAST, secret/dependency scanning and performance benchmarking are wired in (presence, not runtime).
Method: Filesystem scan: SAST configuration, dependency-update automation, secret scanning, and a benchmark harness or benchmark step — in this repository's own ecosystem. Exhaustive, deterministic.
No static application security testing detected. For this repository's stack, add a Roslyn security analyzer package referenced from the project (the analyzer packages do analyse VB.NET), plus gitleaks for committed secrets — CodeQL has no VB.NET extractor, so its csharp pack would extract nothing from this tree and then report it clean as a CI step. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: the 26158 CI workflow file(s) in this repository, and the scanner and linter configuration checked in beside them. A scan that runs outside CI, one configured in your forge's web UI rather than in a committed file, or a tool whose name is none of those this check carries, is not seen — if that is your case the row is wrong, and saying so is more useful than adding a second scanner.
What to do
Add a SAST step to CI running what this repository's stack ships: a Roslyn security analyzer package referenced from the project (the analyzer packages do analyse VB.NET), plus gitleaks for committed secrets — CodeQL has no VB.NET extractor, so its csharp pack would extract nothing from this tree and then report it clean — so a security regression fails the build instead of landing.
Enable Dependabot/Renovate or a dependency-review gate.
Add gitleaks/trufflehog in CI to block PRs that introduce committed secrets.
Readiness · Readiness — Whether releases are automated and safely reversible (probes, rolling updates, approval gates) — from manifests/pipeline files, not the live environment.
Method: Filesystem scan: deployment manifests/IaC (K8s YAML, Helm, Terraform) for rolling updates, probes, approval gates, migration hooks. Exhaustive, deterministic.
Readiness · Readiness — Whether releases are traceable — a maintained changelog and explicit version stamping.
Method: Filesystem scan: changelog file presence and version tags in csproj or git tags. Exhaustive, deterministic.
Do you agree with this assessment?
R1 · Type Safety7.0 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified
React / JS · Code Health — How much of the frontend is typed TypeScript vs untyped JavaScript.
Method: Frontend file inventory: the share of typed TypeScript vs untyped JavaScript across the source tree. Deterministic, exhaustive over frontend files.
What to do
Migrate the remaining .js/.jsx files to TypeScript.
React / JS · Code Health — Near-exact copy-pasted blocks of substantial extent across the frontend (the D4 clone algorithm over JS/TS tokens, D-386): a block is reported only where its copies still agree on most of their own identifiers and literals, or were renamed as they were pasted but kept most of their constants, and where the copies carry enough code to stand on their own or the copied extent reaches 30 lines — so a re-implementation sharing neither names nor values, and a small pasted declaration, are both found and deliberately not reported, and a clean R10 is not a claim that nothing was copied.
Method: Near-exact copy-pasted blocks of substantial extent across the frontend (the D4 clone algorithm run over JS/TS tokens). Masking finds the candidates; a block is reported when its copies still agree on most of their own identifiers and literals, or when a renamed copy still agrees on most of its constants, AND the copies carry enough code to stand on their own — or when the copied extent reaches 30 lines. So a re-implementation sharing neither names nor values, and a small pasted declaration, are deliberately not counted. Deterministic.
src/extension/src/serverLauncher.ts:104 · src/extension/src/serverLauncher.ts:159 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — src/extension/src/serverLauncher.ts:104
src/extension/src/extension.ts:1264 · src/extension/src/extension.ts:1288 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. — src/extension/src/extension.ts:1264
src/extension/src/languageClient.ts:435 · src/extension/src/languageClient.ts:492 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. — src/extension/src/languageClient.ts:435
tree-sitter-vbnet/grammar.js:82 · tree-sitter-vbnet/grammar.js:100 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — tree-sitter-vbnet/grammar.js:82
src/extension/src/extension.ts:471 · src/extension/src/extension.ts:485 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. — src/extension/src/extension.ts:471
src/extension/scripts/copy-roslyn-server.js:151 · src/extension/scripts/copy-roslyn-server.js:199 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. — src/extension/scripts/copy-roslyn-server.js:151
src/extension/src/debugger.ts:118 · src/extension/src/debugger.ts:214 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 92 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both spans, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's finding: an edit made to one and not the other changes behaviour silently. Diff the two spans first to learn what genuinely differs, then extract the shared core into one module both sites use, passing the differences in as parameters — or, if one copy exists only because the other could not be imported from its context, make one of them the single source the other is generated or re-exported from. If one copy is no longer reachable, delete it rather than letting it shadow the live one. — src/extension/src/debugger.ts:118
src/extension/src/extension.ts:1102 · src/extension/src/extension.ts:1115 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. — src/extension/src/extension.ts:1102
src/extension/src/extension.ts:671 · src/extension/src/languageClient.ts:377 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 100 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both files, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's finding: an edit made to one and not the other changes behaviour silently. Diff the two spans first to learn what genuinely differs, then extract the shared core into one module both sites use, passing the differences in as parameters — or, if one copy exists only because the other could not be imported from its context, make one of them the single source the other is generated or re-exported from. If one copy is no longer reachable, delete it rather than letting it shadow the live one. — src/extension/src/extension.ts:671
src/extension/src/extension.ts:225 · src/extension/src/extension.ts:237 · src/extension/src/extension.ts:257 · src/extension/src/extension.ts:269 · +3 more site(s) not listed — all 7 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — src/extension/src/extension.ts:225
src/extension/src/extension.ts:787 · src/extension/src/extension.ts:800 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — src/extension/src/extension.ts:787
src/extension/src/extension.ts:911 · src/extension/src/extension.ts:1074 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — src/extension/src/extension.ts:911
src/extension/src/languageClient.ts:173 · src/extension/src/languageClient.ts:183 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — src/extension/src/languageClient.ts:173
src/extension/src/extension.ts:725 · src/extension/src/extension.ts:747 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — src/extension/src/extension.ts:725
src/extension/scripts/copy-roslyn-server.js:99 · src/extension/scripts/copy-roslyn-server.js:116 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — src/extension/scripts/copy-roslyn-server.js:99
What to do
Act on each finding's own remediation rather than one rule: the move depends on what recurs. Where the copies are executable blocks, give the shared part one home and call it from each site; where they are declarations, a listing, a specialisation already delegating to its base, or one shape repeated per entity, there is no call site and the move is a shared type, a generated set or a factory — sometimes there is nothing to extract.
React / JS · Code Health — Per-function cyclomatic/cognitive complexity from the token-level function scanner (D-386) — real branching, not a regex heuristic.
Method: Per-function cyclomatic/cognitive complexity from a token-level function scanner (real branching, not a regex heuristic), computed over every frontend function. Deterministic.
main has cyclomatic complexity 55 and cognitive complexity 147; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — test-explore/clients/vscode/src/runTests.ts:10
selectWorkspaceContext has cyclomatic complexity 32 and cognitive complexity 34; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — src/extension/src/extension.ts:671
resolveDebugConfiguration has cyclomatic complexity 25 and cognitive complexity 44; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — src/extension/src/debugger.ts:29
buildInitializationOptions has cyclomatic complexity 22 and cognitive complexity 42; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — src/extension/src/languageClient.ts:377
main has cyclomatic complexity 18 and cognitive complexity 21; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — src/extension/scripts/copy-roslyn-server.js:128
formatWorkspaceContextDetail has cyclomatic complexity 17 and cognitive complexity 17; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — src/extension/src/workspaceContext.ts:55
resolveNetcoreDbgPath has cyclomatic complexity 14 and cognitive complexity 22; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — test-explore/clients/vscode/src/suite/vbnet-debug.test.ts:448
formatWorkspaceContextLabel has cyclomatic complexity 14 and cognitive complexity 14; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — src/extension/src/workspaceContext.ts:26
refreshTestExplorer has cyclomatic complexity 13 and cognitive complexity 16; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — src/extension/src/extension.ts:445
main has cyclomatic complexity 13 and cognitive complexity 15; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — src/extension/scripts/copy-debugger.js:190
(anonymous) has cyclomatic complexity 13 and cognitive complexity 13; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — test-explore/clients/vscode/src/suite/vbnet-extension.test.ts:61
(anonymous) has cyclomatic complexity 13 and cognitive complexity 12; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive sits below cyclomatic here, so much of the count is breadth — arms side by side rather than stacked — and splitting per arm would leave a function per arm; group the work between the checks into named steps instead. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — test-explore/clients/vscode/src/suite/vbnet-debug.test.ts:96
resolveSourceExe has cyclomatic complexity 12 and cognitive complexity 13; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — src/extension/scripts/copy-debugger.js:146
resolveTestTarget has cyclomatic complexity 12 and cognitive complexity 11; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive sits below cyclomatic here, so much of the count is breadth — arms side by side rather than stacked — and splitting per arm would leave a function per arm; group the work between the checks into named steps instead. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — src/extension/src/extension.ts:1041
activate has cyclomatic complexity 11 and cognitive complexity 14; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — src/extension/src/extension.ts:28
What to do
Break down the listed branch-heavy functions; aim P95 cyclomatic ≤ 5.
Do you agree with this assessment?
R3 · Large Files4.3 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified
React / JS · Code Health — How many source files exceed the large-file threshold.
Method: Components/modules exceeding the large-file threshold, counted exhaustively across the frontend source tree. Deterministic.
3 file(s) over 400 lines (counted as significant lines — blank lines excluded — over production source only, tests excluded), largest first: src/extension/src/extension.ts (1140), src/extension/src/languageClient.ts (560), src/extension/src/serverLauncher.ts (470).
What to do
Split each oversized file along the responsibilities already in it, into smaller focused modules in the same package.
React / JS · Readiness — How outdated the npm dependencies are (a maturity signal). JS/npm CVEs are scored separately in D30 (JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities).
Method: npm dependency staleness from manifest/registry metadata (a maturity signal; JS/npm CVEs are scored separately in D30, which answers dependency vulnerabilities for every ecosystem). Deterministic.
What to do
Bump outdated dependencies to current versions to limit upgrade debt.
Do you agree with this assessment?
R6 · Tooling10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified
React / JS · Readiness — Whether the project wires up test, lint and typecheck — detected from each package.json script's COMMAND (eslint / tsc / vitest / jest / playwright), not just its name, and corroborated against CI-workflow invocations so a tool run only in CI still counts.
Method: package.json scanned for test/lint/typecheck script wiring. Deterministic presence check.
Do you agree with this assessment?
R7 · Dead Code10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified
React / JS · Code Health — Files unreachable from every application/tooling/test entry point, and exports nothing imports (module-graph reachability, D-386).
Method: Dead code: files unreachable from every application/tooling/test entry point plus exports nothing imports, via module-graph reachability. Deterministic, exhaustive over the import graph.
1 file(s) (~426 LoC) were excluded from dead-code analysis. This package DOES declare main/module/exports — but every declared target is missing from the scanned tree, which is what a build-output entry (dist/, lib/, out/) looks like before the package is built. Point a declared target at the source entry, or build the package before scanning, so reachability can follow it. — tree-sitter-vbnet
React / JS · Readiness — npm dependency truthfulness (D-386): unused dependencies, imports not declared anywhere, and type-/test-only packages shipped as production deps.
Method: npm dependency truthfulness: unused dependencies, imports declared nowhere, and type-/test-only packages shipped as production deps — from the manifest + import graph. Deterministic.
React / JS · Architecture — Import cycles in the module graph (D-386) — files that can only be understood and changed together.
Method: Import cycles in the module graph, detected exhaustively over JS/TS imports (the same cycle detection as the .NET coupling dimension). Deterministic.
Other · Code Health — Whether the code avoids sync-over-async (deadlock-prone blocking on tasks) and async void.
Method: Roslyn syntax scan: async methods scanned for .Wait()/.GetAwaiter().GetResult() and async-void outside event handlers. Deterministic, hard fact per invocation.
Other · Code Health — Whether any branch is dead by construction — a switch arm whose label can never equal a case-normalised subject, or an `else if` whose predicate the arm above has already swallowed.
Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: switch labels compared against the subject's own case normaliser, and if/else-if chains checked for a literal an earlier arm's containment test already swallows. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Do you agree with this assessment?
X13 · Undrained process stream10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged
Other · Code Health — Whether a child process that has BOTH standard streams redirected drains both — reading one to the end while the other is never read deadlocks once the child fills the unread pipe.
Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: ProcessStartInfo launches with both streams redirected, checked for a drain of each stream across the enclosing type. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Other · Security — Whether a hand-rolled public/private IP check can be walked past — a method that unwraps IPv4-mapped IPv6 but returns the opposite verdict for the same host written as IPv4-compatible, 6to4 or NAT64.
Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: methods that unwrap IPv4-mapped IPv6 and hand-roll IPv4 range carve-outs, checked for whether the IPv6 branch also accounts for the IPv4-compatible, 6to4 and NAT64 embeddings. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Do you agree with this assessment?
X15 · Unvalidated length from an untrusted reader10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged
Other · Security — Whether a length read out of the stream being parsed is bounded before it is allocated or read — an unchecked count taken from the input lets the input choose the allocation.
Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: integer lengths read from a BinaryReader and spent on a bulk read or an array allocation, checked for any comparison or bounding call on the value anywhere in the method. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Other · Code Health — Whether a loop that shortens a string until it fits a length budget has a floor — one with none grinds the value down to the empty string, or past it into a negative-length `Substring`.
Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: while/do loops whose body's only effect on a string is to drop its last character, checked for whether anything — a direct comparison on the length, a body guard, a break — bounds that length below. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Do you agree with this assessment?
X17 · Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged
Other · Security — Whether a walk that recurses through a JSON/XML tree handed in by its caller bounds how deep it will go — an uncapped walk lets the document's nesting choose the stack depth, and the resulting StackOverflowException cannot be caught.
Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: methods that take a JSON/XML document node and call themselves with a child of it, reachable from an externally-callable member of the same type that accepts a document, checked for any depth parameter, descent counter or threaded arithmetic anywhere in the walk. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Other · Code Health — Whether a type's disposal matches what it OWNS — releasing what it created, leaving alone what it was handed, and not declaring a finalizer for state that has nothing unmanaged to finalize.
Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: every assignment to a disposable field is read to decide whether the type CREATED the value or was handed it, and the type's disposal is checked against that answer — an injected interface it disposes, a value it constructed and never releases, a finalizer on a type holding nothing unmanaged, and a disposable local whose every reference is a plain member read. A value handed to a container that disposes its contents (a parent control's `Controls` collection, a component `IContainer`) is released by that container and is not reported; generated code is out of population. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Other · Code Health — Whether a method that temporarily changes state belonging to the whole process — the working directory, an environment variable — puts it back on EVERY path: a restore reached only when nothing throws leaks the change to the rest of the process.
Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: method bodies that write the process working directory or an environment variable and write it back in the same body, checked for whether that restore sits in a `finally`/`catch` or only on the straight-line path. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Other · Code Health — Whether an argument guard throws the exception its own condition describes — a guard that rejects a value for being EMPTY and reports it as `ArgumentNullException` tells the caller a parameter was null when it provably was not.
Method: Roslyn syntax: `throw new ArgumentNullException(nameof(p))` statements controlled by an `if`, whose condition is read for a test that is true of a NON-null `p` — an emptiness test that dereferences it (`p.Count == 0`, `!p.Any()`) or a BCL predicate documented true of the empty value (`string.IsNullOrEmpty(p)`). Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Other · Code Health — Whether a `when` guard is free of side effects — a guard that increments a counter or assigns while deciding whether its arm matches applies that change during PATTERN MATCHING, on an arm that may not be selected, and skips it entirely when a short-circuit to its left answers first.
Method: Roslyn syntax: `when` guards on case labels and switch-expression arms, read for a mutation (`++`/`--`/assignment) sitting in a position the guard's own `&&`/`||`/`??`/`?:`/`?.` can skip. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Other · Code Health — Whether a method that TAKES a lock or semaphore and gives it back from a flag-guarded `finally` returns the value that flag implies — reporting success while the guard hands the primitive back admits a second caller the exclusion was there to keep out, and reporting failure while the guard keeps it leaves nothing to ever give it back.
Method: Roslyn syntax: `try` statements whose `finally` releases a synchronisation primitive under a bare local-bool guard, where the method also TOOK that same primitive before the `try`, checked for a `return` of a bool literal whose value disagrees with the flag state the method's own straight-line assignments put it in. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Other · Code Health — Whether the work a diagnostic log line costs is paid only when that line is wanted — C# evaluates a call's arguments BEFORE the call, so a trace/debug message joined or projected out of a collection is built in full on every pass, and then discarded by a sink the shipped configuration leaves switched off.
Method: Roslyn syntax: log calls at a diagnostic level (a `Log`-prefixed method naming Trace/Debug/Verbose, or a bare `Debug`/`Trace`/`Verbose` on a receiver named for a logger), whose argument list is read for a call whose cost scales with a sequence — a LINQ operator, a materialisation, `string.Join`, a serializer — with no enclosing level check or conditional-compilation region. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Do you agree with this assessment?
X24 · Document value interpolated into markup unescaped10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged
Other · Security — Whether text read out of the document being converted is escaped before it is written into generated markup — a value the document's author chose, interpolated into an attribute the surrounding literal delimits, can close that attribute and open another.
Method: Roslyn semantic model over the whole compilation: a string-typed `Value`/`InnerText`/`InnerXml`/`Text` member declared inside `DocumentFormat.OpenXml` or `System.Xml` is a taint SOURCE, propagated through assignments, returns, arguments, tuple elements and string composition to its transitive closure, then read at interpolated-string holes that sit in a markup position the surrounding literal itself delimits. Escaper/encoder calls and enclosing validator conditions cut the flow. Flow- and container-insensitive by construction. A second arm needs no provenance at all and reports a type that CONTRADICTS ITSELF — the same expression escaped at one delimited markup hole and interpolated raw at another hole in the same markup position of the same type, which the type's own escaping proves is a defect without knowing where the value came from. On a repository with no .NET source it reads JavaScript/TypeScript off the token stream with the same rule: a DOM read of raw document text (`getAttribute`, `textContent`, `innerText`, `nodeValue`) is the source, propagated through local bindings and string composition, and judged at template-literal and concatenation holes in the same two delimited markup positions; escapers and validating conditions cut it, and documentation-site, test, vendored and minified scripts are not read. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Other · Code Health — Whether a value the caller is invited to supply is the value the type actually uses — a constructor parameter stored in a private field that nothing ever reads while the default it was given is spelled out a second time at the site that should have read it, a keyed lookup that falls back to a different setting than the one its key names while the same type falls back to the matching one for that same key, or a culture-sensitive parse given no format provider by a type that feeds its own settable culture to the same kind of parse elsewhere. Either way, every caller who supplies a value silently gets something else.
Method: Roslyn syntax: private instance fields of a non-partial type assigned in a constructor from one of its own parameters with a `??` fallback, checked for whether anything in the type body reads the field and whether that same fallback expression is spelled out again outside the constructor; and `??` fallbacks onto a member access from a lookup call carrying exactly one string literal, grouped by that key across the type and checked for a fallback member whose folded name disagrees with the key while a sibling site for the same key agrees with it. On a repository with no .NET source the first two arms read JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (tests included, bundles and vendored paths not): a `#x`, `private` or `private` parameter-property instance field filled in the constructor from a parameter (or one member of one) through `??`/`||` or a parameter default, never read anywhere in the file by name, whose constructed default is spelled again in the class body; and `lookup("key") ?? s.member` grouped by key per class, or per module outside every class. The culture arm has no JavaScript counterpart: its parses take no locale. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Other · Code Health — Whether a value handed from a callback to the body that waits on it crosses on something built to be crossed — a `Queue<T>`/`List<T>`/`Dictionary<K,V>` written inside an event handler and read back outside it is mutated by two flows at once, and the semaphore or completion source beside it orders how MANY items exist while leaving the collection's own head, tail and backing array unprotected.
Method: Roslyn syntax: method, accessor, local-function and lambda bodies that declare BOTH a non-thread-safe generic collection (`Queue`/`Stack`/`List`/`Dictionary`/`HashSet`/`Sorted*`/`LinkedList`) and a synchronisation primitive (`SemaphoreSlim`/`TaskCompletionSource`/`ManualResetEvent(Slim)`/`AutoResetEvent`/`CountdownEvent`) as locals, then read for a `+=`-registered lambda that raises that primitive while the body outside every lambda waits on it — and, in that scope, a mutating call on the collection inside the lambda paired with a mention of it outside. Any `lock` in the scope abstains it. On a repository with no .NET source the same handoff is read in Java off the engine’s own token stream (test source sets, vendored and demonstration paths not): an `ArrayList`/`LinkedList`/`ArrayDeque`/`PriorityQueue`/`Hash*`/`LinkedHash*`/`Tree*` local and a `CountDownLatch`/`Semaphore`/`CompletableFuture` local, a lambda or anonymous class that raises the primitive and mutates the collection, and a wait outside it; any `synchronized` or `lock()` abstains the body. Because each of those primitives orders what the callback wrote before raising it, only a touch that provably overlaps the callback is convicted: one after the registration and before the next wait, or one in a loop registered-before, waiting on every pass and not declaring the collection. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Do you agree with this assessment?
X27 · Collection changed while being enumerated10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged
Other · Code Health — Whether a `foreach` leaves the collection it is walking alone — a body that adds to or removes from the very collection the loop is enumerating invalidates the enumerator it is holding, so the next `MoveNext` throws `InvalidOperationException` and the remaining items are never seen.
Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: `foreach` statements whose body calls a structural mutator (`Add`/`Remove`/`Clear`/`Insert`/…) on the very expression the loop is enumerating. Two arms. ARM A — the source is a concrete fragile BCL collection, or a live `Keys`/`Values` view over one, and the mutator resolves to that same collection's own member; concurrent and immutable collections and arrays are outside the population by construction, since their enumerators survive a structural change. ARM B — the source is an argument-less accessor CALL on a receiver whose body is in source: the accessor must return a stored field VERBATIM and a sibling member must structurally change that same field, both read off the implementations rather than from the members' names. A mutation the loop provably exits immediately after (`break`/`return`/`throw`/`goto`), or one written inside a nested loop or a lambda, is counted and never reported. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Do you agree with this assessment?
X28 · Index access outside its own emptiness guard10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged
Other · Code Health — Whether a condition that tests a value for emptiness indexes that same value only where the test holds — an `||` written one parenthesis too far to the left leaves an index access outside the guard beside it, so the empty case the guard exists to anticipate reaches the index and throws.
Method: Roslyn syntax only, no semantic model: the OUTERMOST `&&`/`||` of every boolean condition, read for a symbol the condition tests for emptiness (`string.IsNullOrEmpty`/`IsNullOrWhiteSpace`, a `Length`/`Count` comparison against a literal, `Any()`, a `Length`/`Count` pattern, or a comparison against `""`) and ALSO indexes. Each `symbol[...]` access is placed by a boolean-reachability walk from the access up to the outermost connective: an access is COVERED when some enclosing step has it in the right operand and the left operand, under the truth value that step forces, proves the symbol non-empty — a recursion over `&&`/`||` whose true- and false-directions are asymmetric. A finding needs BOTH an uncovered access and a covered one on the same symbol in the same condition, which is the agreeing twin that separates a misplaced parenthesis from an unrelated length test. Bare index accesses with no emptiness test in the condition are neither counted nor reported; a non-identifier receiver and a lambda nested inside the condition are outside the population. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Do you agree with this assessment?
X29 · Per-element action decided by a fixed element10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged
Other · Code Health — Whether a decision taken once per element is taken ABOUT that element — a test inside a counted loop that reads a fixed subscript of the very collection its guarded statement indexes by the loop variable applies element zero's answer to all of them, so the elements that differ from it are all handled wrongly, and in the same direction.
Method: Roslyn syntax only, no semantic model: every `for` statement declaring exactly ONE loop variable, and every `if` inside its body that is not under a nested loop or a lambda. A site enters the population when the `if`’s condition never mentions the loop variable while the statement it guards indexes some collection by that variable ALONE (`c[i]`; `c[i + 1]` and `c[i, j]` are outside it). A finding additionally needs the AGREEING TWIN at the same-collection grain: the condition must read THAT SAME collection at a subscript that does not move — written into the condition, or reached through a local declared BEFORE the loop, so an alias bound inside the body is not followed. Both collection expressions must be simple identifiers. On a repository with no .NET source the same rule reads JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (tests included, bundles and vendored paths not): a `for (let|var|const x = …; …; …)` with one declarator and a braced body, an alias followed only when it is declared before the loop in a block that encloses it and never assigned inside the loop. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Other · Code Health — Whether exceptions are handled rather than silently swallowed or rethrown with lost stack traces.
Method: Roslyn syntax scan: every catch clause counted; empty catches and bare rethrows flagged. Population is all catch clauses, not estimated. Deterministic, hard fact.
Do you agree with this assessment?
X30 · Support guard that admits what it rejects10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged
Other · Code Health — Whether a guard written as a NEGATED `||` says what its author meant — `!(a || b || x != k)` is `!a && !b && x == k` by De Morgan, so a bail-out that mixes capabilities the code needs with a fault it refuses turns inside out: it fires only where the capabilities are ABSENT, and lets every value the fault term names walk straight into the body that cannot handle it.
Method: Roslyn syntax only, no semantic model: every logical-not whose operand is a parenthesised `||` chain of two or more disjuncts, flattened (a left-nested `a || b || c` read once would see `(a || b)` as one disjunct). A site enters the population on that shape alone. A finding additionally needs the disjuncts to DISAGREE in polarity: at least one bare boolean read — an identifier or member access, never an invocation, which is a predicate rather than a capability flag — and at least one `x != <constant>`, the only form that negates into an exact-value pin (`== null` negates into a looser requirement and is outside the fault set). Consistently-polarised disjunctions, all-fault or all-capability, are counted and never reported; a negated `&&` is outside the population entirely. No same-receiver gate: it was measured to cost a real defect and remove no false positive. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Do you agree with this assessment?
X32 · Type resolved by simple name across every loaded assembly10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged
Other · Code Health — Whether a plugin lookup names the type it means — searching every assembly loaded into the process for a candidate whose SIMPLE name equals a string supplied at runtime, and taking the first one found, is decided by assembly LOAD ORDER rather than by this source, so the same name can resolve to a different type on the next run.
Method: Roslyn syntax only, no semantic model: every invocation of `First`/`FirstOrDefault`/`Single`/`SingleOrDefault` whose OWN expression subtree contains both a `GetAssemblies()` call and a `GetTypes()`/`GetExportedTypes()` call — a single-element pick out of every type loaded into the process. A nested selector in the same chain sees no `GetAssemblies()` in its own subtree and is outside the population, so one lookup counts once however many links its chain has. A finding additionally needs both remaining halves: the selector must be `First`/`FirstOrDefault` (`Single`/`SingleOrDefault` reports the ambiguity rather than resolving it, and is counted and never reported), and the chain must carry an `==` comparison of `<lambda parameter>.Name` against something that is not a literal. The receiver must be a plain identifier bound by one of the chain’s own lambdas, which places `assembly.GetName().Name == "X"` outside the rule by construction. One exemption: a `.Name` test joined by `&&` to a `FullName`/`AssemblyQualifiedName` test on the same identifier is spared; joined by `||` it is not. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Other · Code Health — Whether log calls use message templates (queryable) rather than interpolated strings.
Method: Roslyn syntax scan: every log call-site counted; interpolated-string first-argument violations flagged. Population is all log calls, not estimated. Deterministic.
Other · Code Health — Whether nullable reference types are enabled and not undermined by heavy `!` suppression.
Method: Roslyn compiler-options scan: NullableContextOptions per project; null-forgiving (!) suppression density per 1k syntax nodes. Deterministic, adoption plus suppression penalty.
5/6 NRT-eligible project(s) enable <Nullable>enable</Nullable> (projects targeting a pre-C#-8 framework are excluded — NRTs aren't available there). NRTs catch a whole class of null-deref bugs at compile time.
What to do
Enable <Nullable>enable</Nullable> across all projects and resolve warnings rather than suppressing with `!`.
Do you agree with this assessment?
Reference — by lens
The score is the rank-weighted fold of these lenses (worst-heaviest), each including its meta-dimensions; a lens with a Critical contributor is capped at Fair (its band reads "gated by …") and is never the strongest area however high its average.
Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Unscored — 3 check(s) recorded observations but carry no score
These checks ran and found something, but they do not carry a score — either by design (an advisory check reports evidence rather than grading it) or because they could not be scored here. They are excluded from the score for that reason, not because there was nothing to see.
SC1 Supply-chain hygiene — 2 observation(s) recorded · Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
X10 Duplicated predicate — 1 observation(s) recorded · Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score.
X7 Silent fallback defaults — 1 observation(s) recorded · Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score.
Not evidenced — 1 control(s) we could not find positive evidence for
These checks grade a working control, and the repository shows no evidence of one. That is deliberately not scored as a zero: a repository cannot show an ops runbook, a database TTL or an infrastructure-side audit log, so absence of evidence here is not evidence the control is missing. It is also not a statement that the check is irrelevant to this codebase — the thing it grades applies; we just could not see it. Excluded from the score either way.
P5 DR & Backup — not evidenced — repo shows no backup/RTO/RPO controls; absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control
Not included — 47 check(s) not relevant to this codebase
These checks had nothing to measure here (no tests, no git history, the codebase is small, or the architecture style doesn't apply), so they're omitted above rather than scored low.
AC1 Text alternatives — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC2 Forms & labels — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC3 Page structure — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC4 Keyboard semantics — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC5 ARIA correctness — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC6 Visual & motion safety — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC7 A11y enforcement — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AX1 Captive dependencies — no DI registrations detected
AX2 Stateful singletons — no singleton implementations detected
AX7 Slice cohesion — not applicable — not a vertical-slice architecture
AXB1 Runtime evidence locked — no reproducible boot — This repository has nothing the runtime tiers could boot or serve — no markup, no UI framework or web-server dependency, no UI component source, no native UI project and no API definition — nothing here is a surface to boot — so runtime a11y/egress/header evidence has no subject here. Not applicable: this is neither a gap in the scan nor a finding about your code.
AXB2 Runtime readiness — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
C1 Data Protection — No personal data detected in the analyzed source — no PII-typed entity/column names (Email, FirstName, DateOfBirth, …), no ASP.NET Identity / user-account model, and no stored user credentials. GDPR data-protection controls are therefore N/A here. If this is intentional, record the no-PII posture in an ADR; if the app does process personal data, name those fields conventionally so this dimension activates.
C2 Access Controls — No access-control surface detected in the analyzed source — no web/app surface to authorize (no HTTP API or web-UI project) and no authorization code at all (no [Authorize]/policies, no imperative guard methods). Access control is therefore N/A here — this is a library/CLI, which is authorized by its CALLER, not by itself. If this codebase grows request handlers, the dimension reactivates and a default-deny posture is expected then.
C3 Audit Trail — No personal data detected in the analyzed source — no PII-typed entity/column names (Email, FirstName, DateOfBirth, …), no ASP.NET Identity / user-account model, and no stored user credentials. GDPR data-protection controls are therefore N/A here. If this is intentional, record the no-PII posture in an ADR; if the app does process personal data, name those fields conventionally so this dimension activates.
C4 Data Retention — No personal data detected in the analyzed source — no PII-typed entity/column names (Email, FirstName, DateOfBirth, …), no ASP.NET Identity / user-account model, and no stored user credentials. GDPR data-protection controls are therefore N/A here. If this is intentional, record the no-PII posture in an ADR; if the app does process personal data, name those fields conventionally so this dimension activates.
C5 Data-Subject Rights — No personal data detected in the analyzed source — no PII-typed entity/column names (Email, FirstName, DateOfBirth, …), no ASP.NET Identity / user-account model, and no stored user credentials. GDPR data-protection controls are therefore N/A here. If this is intentional, record the no-PII posture in an ADR; if the app does process personal data, name those fields conventionally so this dimension activates.
D11 Test Reliability — Test reliability not scored — polyglot repository, one half has no runner
D16 Bus Factor — single-contributor repository — bus factor is not applicable
D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — Cross-context type coupling could not be assessed — this codebase's bounded contexts are neither declared nor inferable.
D25 ADR Conformance — no ADRs to check
D31 IaC & Container Security — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Docker Compose, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation, ARM, Bicep, Ansible); nothing to scan.
D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — No personal data was found crossing a boundary the PII/GDPR ruleset checks — nothing written to a log or console sink, placed in a URL or query string, or persisted to browser storage. That is a clean result for the LEAK surface only: this ruleset detects personal data escaping, it does not inventory the personal data a repository holds, so it is not evidence that this repository has no personal-data surface. The personal-data map (Appendix C) and the C1-C5 compliance cards are what speak to that.
D37 Vulnerability-disclosure Policy — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.
D40 Network Egress Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.
D41 Kernel & Syscall Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.
D42 Runtime Threat Enforcement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.
D7 Architectural Integrity — no checkable ADRs and no dependency cycles — architectural integrity not assessed
D8 Code Coverage — Coverage not measured — polyglot repository, one half has no runner
DM1 Domain Modelling — not scored — this repository shows none of the 2 signals this lens looks for
ED2 Event/command shape — not scored — deciding whether a command has more than one competing handler requires resolving the call graph, and a call made through an inferred or generic receiver has no resolvable owner in the source. Reported as guidance rather than measured
ED5 Idempotency — no mutating command handlers or message consumers detected — idempotency check not applicable
ES1 Event Sourcing — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this lens looks for
P12 CI test-gate honesty — Reported, not scored — and nothing was matched here. The coverage check applies to any stack, and the automatic-re-run check to any GitHub-Actions workflow, but the checks for excluded tests, skipped tests and sleep-based synchronisation currently recognise only some ecosystems' test-runner idioms, so on a repository built with another stack the zeros below mean 'not checked', not 'clean'.
P2 Observability — 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.
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 — coverage data present for 30 file(s), but no domain-layer files were identified: no covered file's path contains any of the markers this check keys on (/domain/, /aggregates/, /valueobjects/, /domainmodel/, .domain/, /entities/), which are matched case-insensitively anywhere in the path. With no domain partition there is nothing to compare the web/controller layer against — if this repository keeps its business rules under a folder named none of those, that naming is what the check cannot see, not the domain logic.
PF1 Benchmark discipline — Performance is assessed only for perf-relevant repos — a packaged library, one that ships benchmarks, or one already using allocation-aware APIs. This repo isn't one, so the Performance lens is not applicable and is excluded from the score.
PF2 Allocation hygiene — Performance is assessed only for perf-relevant repos — a packaged library, one that ships benchmarks, or one already using allocation-aware APIs. This repo isn't one, so the Performance lens is not applicable and is excluded from the score.
PF3 Async & latency hygiene — Performance is assessed only for perf-relevant repos — a packaged library, one that ships benchmarks, or one already using allocation-aware APIs. This repo isn't one, so the Performance lens is not applicable and is excluded from the score.
R11 Import Boundaries — No recognizable feature-sliced/layered src layout — boundary rules not applicable.
R4 Test Coverage — 10 test file(s) reach none of 17 production file(s) via imports — exercised outside the JS import graph (integration/bundled), not import-reachable
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.
X2 Cancellation propagation — no async methods found
X6 Hand-rolled structured-format parsing — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
X9 Subsumed condition operand — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
Appendix A — Findings (grouped)
The findings behind the scores, grouped by severity, then by dimension and kind. The high-severity issues are enumerated in full below; items per group are capped at 25 with any overflow stated explicitly per group, never silently truncated. The complete machine-readable list of every finding (all severities) is the companion findings.md in this report's bundle.
EmptyCatchBlock src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Services/DiagnosticsService.vb:171— empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Narrow the catch to the exception you actually expect, record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or — where swallowing really is correct, as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — write down WHY in a comment on the catch. The comment has to give the reason: a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all and leaves this row in place. Any of the three makes the decision reviewable; all three clear this row.
EmptyCatchBlock src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Services/DiagnosticsService.vb:338— empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Narrow the catch to the exception you actually expect, record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or — where swallowing really is correct, as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — write down WHY in a comment on the catch. The comment has to give the reason: a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all and leaves this row in place. Any of the three makes the decision reviewable; all three clear this row.
EmptyCatchBlock src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Workspace/LegacyVbProjectReader.vb:330— empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Narrow the catch to the exception you actually expect, record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or — where swallowing really is correct, as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — write down WHY in a comment on the catch. The comment has to give the reason: a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all and leaves this row in place. Any of the three makes the decision reviewable; all three clear this row.
EmptyCatchBlock src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Workspace/WorkspaceManager.vb:148— empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Narrow the catch to the exception you actually expect, record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or — where swallowing really is correct, as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — write down WHY in a comment on the catch. The comment has to give the reason: a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all and leaves this row in place. Any of the three makes the decision reviewable; all three clear this row.
EmptyCatchBlock test-explore/vbnet-lsp/VbNetLspSmokeTest.Vb/Program.vb:78— empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Narrow the catch to the exception you actually expect, record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or — where swallowing really is correct, as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — write down WHY in a comment on the catch. The comment has to give the reason: a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all and leaves this row in place. Any of the three makes the decision reviewable; all three clear this row.
FileTooLong: Core/LanguageServer.vb src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Core/LanguageServer.vb— FileTooLong — 1701 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 1201 over it, 3.40× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
FileTooLong: VbNetLspSmokeTest.Vb/Program.vb test-explore/vbnet-lsp/VbNetLspSmokeTest.Vb/Program.vb— FileTooLong — 1210 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 710 over it, 2.42× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
FileTooLong: Protocol/LspTypes.vb src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Protocol/LspTypes.vb— FileTooLong — 946 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 446 over it, 1.89× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
FileTooLong: src/extension.ts src/extension/src/extension.ts— FileTooLong — 860 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 360 over it, 1.72× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
FileTooLong: Workspace/LegacyVbProjectReader.vb src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Workspace/LegacyVbProjectReader.vb— FileTooLong — 693 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 193 over it, 1.39× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
FileTooLong: Workspace/WorkspaceManager.vb src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Workspace/WorkspaceManager.vb— FileTooLong — 604 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 104 over it, 1.21× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
FileTooLong: Services/SignatureHelpService.vb src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Services/SignatureHelpService.vb— FileTooLong — 542 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 42 over it, 1.08× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
FileTooLong: Services/SymbolsService.vb src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Services/SymbolsService.vb— FileTooLong — 528 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 28 over it, 1.06× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
ClassTooLong: Program test-explore/vbnet-lsp/VbNetLspSmokeTest.Vb/Program.vb— ClassTooLong — 1169 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 25 methods. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 769 over it, 2.92× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
ClassTooLong: WorkspaceManager src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Workspace/WorkspaceManager.vb— ClassTooLong — 577 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 30 methods. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 177 over it, 1.44× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
ClassTooLong: SignatureHelpService src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Services/SignatureHelpService.vb— ClassTooLong — 530 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 26 methods. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 130 over it, 1.33× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
ClassTooLong: SymbolsService src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Services/SymbolsService.vb— ClassTooLong — 518 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 19 methods. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 118 over it, 1.30× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
ClassTooLong: CodeActionsService src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Services/CodeActionsService.vb— ClassTooLong — 437 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 25 methods. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 37 over it, 1.09× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
ClassTooLong: DiagnosticsService src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Services/DiagnosticsService.vb— ClassTooLong — 407 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 22 methods. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 7 over it, 1.02× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
MethodTooLong: Program.ExecuteServiceTestAsync test-explore/vbnet-lsp/VbNetLspSmokeTest.Vb/Program.vb:485— MethodTooLong — ExecuteServiceTestAsync runs 138 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 38 over it, 1.38× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
MethodTooLong: VbNetLanguageClient.buildInitializationOptions src/extension/src/languageClient.ts:377— MethodTooLong — buildInitializationOptions runs 116 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 16 over it, 1.16× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
MethodTooLong: Program.ParseArgs test-explore/vbnet-lsp/VbNetLspSmokeTest.Vb/Program.vb:867— MethodTooLong — ParseArgs runs 115 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 15 over it, 1.15× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
FunctionTooLong: extension.selectWorkspaceContext src/extension/src/extension.ts:671— FunctionTooLong — selectWorkspaceContext runs 105 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 5 over it, 1.05× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
FunctionTooLong: extension.activate src/extension/src/extension.ts:28— FunctionTooLong — activate runs 104 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 4 over it, 1.04× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
FunctionTooLong: extension.registerCommands src/extension/src/extension.ts:201— FunctionTooLong — registerCommands runs 103 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 3 over it, 1.03× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
Hotspot: src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Core/LanguageServer.vb src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Core/LanguageServer.vb:579— src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Core/LanguageServer.vb changed 9 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 28 in LanguageServer.LoadWorkspaceAsync at line 579. 5 of those changes were fix/bug commits, so the churn is repair rather than feature work. Before the next change lands here, make sure the area it touches is under test, then split that area out of the file so the following change is smaller than this one — a file this often edited pays the complexity back every time. Counted over 2026-04-01..2026-06-30, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-04-01 12:48:08 +02:00' --until='2026-06-30 12:48:08 +02:00' --full-history --no-merges -- src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Core/LanguageServer.vb`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Hotspot: src/extension/src/languageClient.ts src/extension/src/languageClient.ts:65— src/extension/src/languageClient.ts changed 3 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 19 in VbNetLanguageClient.start at line 65. 1 of those changes was a fix/bug commit, and the other 2 changed it for other reasons — this file is under both repair and feature pressure. Before the next change lands here, make sure the area it touches is under test, then split that area out of the file so the following change is smaller than this one — a file this often edited pays the complexity back every time. Counted over 2026-04-01..2026-06-30, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-04-01 12:48:08 +02:00' --until='2026-06-30 12:48:08 +02:00' --full-history --no-merges -- src/extension/src/languageClient.ts`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
TooManyMethods: LanguageServer src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Core/LanguageServer.vb— TooManyMethods — 1685 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 104 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 74 over it, 3.47× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
TooManyMethods: LegacyVbProjectReader src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Workspace/LegacyVbProjectReader.vb— TooManyMethods — 652 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 43 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 13 over it, 1.43× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
Duplicated block (17 lines × 2) src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Services/CallHierarchyService.vb:292— src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Services/CallHierarchyService.vb:292-308 | src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Services/TypeHierarchyService.vb:188-204 — before extracting anything, compare `src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Services/CallHierarchyService.vb` and `src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Services/TypeHierarchyService.vb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 6 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 90 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (17 lines × 2) src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Services/CallHierarchyService.vb:347— src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Services/CallHierarchyService.vb:347-363 | src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Services/TypeHierarchyService.vb:243-259 — before extracting anything, compare `src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Services/CallHierarchyService.vb` and `src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Services/TypeHierarchyService.vb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 6 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 90 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) test-explore/clients/zed/probes/dap-probe/Program.cs:131— test-explore/clients/zed/probes/dap-probe/Program.cs:131-138 | test-explore/clients/zed/probes/lsp-probe/Program.cs:152-159 — `test-explore/clients/zed/probes/dap-probe/Program.cs` and `test-explore/clients/zed/probes/lsp-probe/Program.cs` are one unit implemented once per sibling directory, so they are most likely parallel implementations of one contract rather than a copy of each other — this scan matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 76 lines. If both are selected at run time, neither can be retired in favour of the other, and the lines that DIFFER between them are the reason both exist. The move that pays here is to hoist the identical part into a shared location the whole family can reach and give what differs a parameter or a seam, so a change lands once instead of once per sibling; extracting one helper per block leaves every sibling to drift on its own.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) test-explore/clients/zed/probes/probe-harness/Program.cs:189— test-explore/clients/zed/probes/probe-harness/Program.cs:189-196 | test-explore/clients/zed/probes/real-server-harness/Program.cs:148-155 — `test-explore/clients/zed/probes/probe-harness/Program.cs` and `test-explore/clients/zed/probes/real-server-harness/Program.cs` are one unit implemented once per sibling directory, so they are most likely parallel implementations of one contract rather than a copy of each other — this scan matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 65 lines. If both are selected at run time, neither can be retired in favour of the other, and the lines that DIFFER between them are the reason both exist. The move that pays here is to hoist the identical part into a shared location the whole family can reach and give what differs a parameter or a seam, so a change lands once instead of once per sibling; extracting one helper per block leaves every sibling to drift on its own.
Duplicated block (15 lines × 2 locations) src/extension/src/languageClient.ts:435— src/extension/src/languageClient.ts:435 · src/extension/src/languageClient.ts:492 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (15 lines × 2 locations) tree-sitter-vbnet/grammar.js:82— tree-sitter-vbnet/grammar.js:82 · tree-sitter-vbnet/grammar.js:100 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.
Duplicated block (12 lines × 2 locations) src/extension/scripts/copy-roslyn-server.js:151— src/extension/scripts/copy-roslyn-server.js:151 · src/extension/scripts/copy-roslyn-server.js:199 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (12 lines × 2 locations) src/extension/src/extension.ts:1102— src/extension/src/extension.ts:1102 · src/extension/src/extension.ts:1115 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
R10 · Code Duplication· Duplicated block with local edits (12 matched lines × 2 locations) · ×2
Duplicated block with local edits (12 matched lines × 2 locations) src/extension/src/debugger.ts:118— src/extension/src/debugger.ts:118 · src/extension/src/debugger.ts:214 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 92 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both spans, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's finding: an edit made to one and not the other changes behaviour silently. Diff the two spans first to learn what genuinely differs, then extract the shared core into one module both sites use, passing the differences in as parameters — or, if one copy exists only because the other could not be imported from its context, make one of them the single source the other is generated or re-exported from. If one copy is no longer reachable, delete it rather than letting it shadow the live one.
Duplicated block with local edits (12 matched lines × 2 locations) src/extension/src/extension.ts:671— src/extension/src/extension.ts:671 · src/extension/src/languageClient.ts:377 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 100 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both files, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's finding: an edit made to one and not the other changes behaviour silently. Diff the two spans first to learn what genuinely differs, then extract the shared core into one module both sites use, passing the differences in as parameters — or, if one copy exists only because the other could not be imported from its context, make one of them the single source the other is generated or re-exported from. If one copy is no longer reachable, delete it rather than letting it shadow the live one.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 2 locations) src/extension/src/extension.ts:911— src/extension/src/extension.ts:911 · src/extension/src/extension.ts:1074 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 2 locations) src/extension/src/languageClient.ts:173— src/extension/src/languageClient.ts:173 · src/extension/src/languageClient.ts:183 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.
Program.ParseArgs (cyclomatic 62) test-explore/vbnet-lsp/VbNetLspSmokeTest.Vb/Program.vb:867— Program.ParseArgs has cyclomatic complexity 62 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table. This file is where this pass's cyclomatic complexity CONCENTRATES: test-explore/vbnet-lsp/VbNetLspSmokeTest.Vb/Program.vb holds 3 of the 23 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 84 of the 211 points over it (40%), 3.1× the next-largest file (src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Core/LanguageServer.vb at 27). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
Program.RunRpcOverStreamAsync (cyclomatic 37) test-explore/vbnet-lsp/VbNetLspSmokeTest.Vb/Program.vb:156— Program.RunRpcOverStreamAsync has cyclomatic complexity 37 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table. This file is where this pass's cyclomatic complexity CONCENTRATES: test-explore/vbnet-lsp/VbNetLspSmokeTest.Vb/Program.vb holds 3 of the 23 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 84 of the 211 points over it (40%), 3.1× the next-largest file (src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Core/LanguageServer.vb at 27). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
extension.selectWorkspaceContext (cyclomatic 32) src/extension/src/extension.ts:671— extension.selectWorkspaceContext has cyclomatic complexity 32 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
Program.ExecuteServiceTestAsync (cyclomatic 30) test-explore/vbnet-lsp/VbNetLspSmokeTest.Vb/Program.vb:485— Program.ExecuteServiceTestAsync has cyclomatic complexity 30 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table. This file is where this pass's cyclomatic complexity CONCENTRATES: test-explore/vbnet-lsp/VbNetLspSmokeTest.Vb/Program.vb holds 3 of the 23 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 84 of the 211 points over it (40%), 3.1× the next-largest file (src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Core/LanguageServer.vb at 27). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
LanguageServer.LoadWorkspaceAsync (cyclomatic 28) src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Core/LanguageServer.vb:579— LanguageServer.LoadWorkspaceAsync has cyclomatic complexity 28 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
LanguageServer.HandleDidChangeConfigurationAsync (cyclomatic 28) src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Core/LanguageServer.vb:839— LanguageServer.HandleDidChangeConfigurationAsync has cyclomatic complexity 28 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
CompletionService.ResolveCompletionItemAsync (cyclomatic 24) src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Services/CompletionService.vb:116— CompletionService.ResolveCompletionItemAsync has cyclomatic complexity 24 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
SymbolsService.GetTypeMembers (cyclomatic 23) src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Services/SymbolsService.vb:390— SymbolsService.GetTypeMembers has cyclomatic complexity 23 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
SymbolsService.GetSymbolKind (cyclomatic 23) src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Services/SymbolsService.vb:596— SymbolsService.GetSymbolKind has cyclomatic complexity 23 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
extension.registerCommands (cyclomatic 23) src/extension/src/extension.ts:201— extension.registerCommands has cyclomatic complexity 23 (threshold 15). Most of this is not in the body itself: 1 of the 23 points is its own statement and the rest belongs to 10 function literals inside it that branch (lines 204, 297, 229, …). The decisions are inside those literals, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literals' work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have each literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest.
CompletionService.FormatDocumentation (cyclomatic 22) src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Services/CompletionService.vb:342— CompletionService.FormatDocumentation has cyclomatic complexity 22 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table. This is NOT this file's highest cyclomatic complexity: CompletionService.TranslateCompletionKind (cyclomatic 23) is higher and carries no row of its own — it was excluded as a flat dispatcher (a long switch/match over independent cases: many branches, almost no nesting), which this dimension does not treat as a refactor obligation. It is named here so the ranking you see in this file is not mistaken for the whole of it; the excluded method is counted neither in this dimension's figures nor in its score.
VbNetDebugConfigurationProvider.resolveDebugConfiguration (cyclomatic 22) src/extension/src/debugger.ts:29— VbNetDebugConfigurationProvider.resolveDebugConfiguration has cyclomatic complexity 22 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
TypeDefinitionService.GetTypeDefinitionAsync (cyclomatic 21) src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Services/TypeDefinitionService.vb:39— TypeDefinitionService.GetTypeDefinitionAsync has cyclomatic complexity 21 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
VbNetLanguageClient.buildInitializationOptions (cyclomatic 21) src/extension/src/languageClient.ts:377— VbNetLanguageClient.buildInitializationOptions has cyclomatic complexity 21 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
copy-roslyn-server.main (cyclomatic 20) src/extension/scripts/copy-roslyn-server.js:128— copy-roslyn-server.main has cyclomatic complexity 20 (threshold 15). Of this number, 18 points are the body's own statements and 2 belong to one function literal inside it that branches. To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
ImplementationService.GetImplementationAsync (cyclomatic 19) src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Services/ImplementationService.vb:40— ImplementationService.GetImplementationAsync has cyclomatic complexity 19 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
StdioTransport.ReadContentLengthAsync (cyclomatic 18) src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Protocol/StdioTransport.vb:132— StdioTransport.ReadContentLengthAsync has cyclomatic complexity 18 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
HoverService.GetDocumentationParts (cyclomatic 18) src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Services/HoverService.vb:351— HoverService.GetDocumentationParts has cyclomatic complexity 18 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
SignatureHelpService.ParseDocumentationParts (cyclomatic 18) src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Services/SignatureHelpService.vb:380— SignatureHelpService.ParseDocumentationParts has cyclomatic complexity 18 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
LegacyVbProjectReader.GetProjectPathsFromSlnf (cyclomatic 18) src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Workspace/LegacyVbProjectReader.vb:174— LegacyVbProjectReader.GetProjectPathsFromSlnf has cyclomatic complexity 18 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
extension.activate (cyclomatic 17) src/extension/src/extension.ts:28— extension.activate has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15). Of this number, 11 points are the body's own statements and 6 belong to 3 function literals inside it that branch. To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
LanguageServer.ReportNetFxSupportWarningsAsync (cyclomatic 16) src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Core/LanguageServer.vb:1734— LanguageServer.ReportNetFxSupportWarningsAsync has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
SignatureHelpService.GetFallbackSignatureHelpAsync (cyclomatic 16) src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Services/SignatureHelpService.vb:183— SignatureHelpService.GetFallbackSignatureHelpAsync has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
Deprecated: xunit — xunit 2.9.2 — Legacy — the publisher's replacement is `xunit.v3`; that is the next major line under a new package id, so the move is a breaking rename rather than a version bump — budget for API changes in the code that uses it, not only the reference swap.
Build failed — The target solution did not build cleanly (errors: 1), which caps Solution Shape at 3/10 — the most basic shape signal is that it compiles. First errors: BC30512: Option Strict On disallows implicit conversions from 'Integer' to 'String'..
Program.ParseArgs (cognitive 76) test-explore/vbnet-lsp/VbNetLspSmokeTest.Vb/Program.vb:867— Program.ParseArgs has cognitive complexity 76 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
LanguageServer.LoadWorkspaceAsync (cognitive 47) src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Core/LanguageServer.vb:579— LanguageServer.LoadWorkspaceAsync has cognitive complexity 47 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Program.RunRpcOverStreamAsync (cognitive 44) test-explore/vbnet-lsp/VbNetLspSmokeTest.Vb/Program.vb:156— Program.RunRpcOverStreamAsync has cognitive complexity 44 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
SymbolsService.GetTypeMembers (cognitive 42) src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Services/SymbolsService.vb:390— SymbolsService.GetTypeMembers has cognitive complexity 42 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Program.ExecuteServiceTestAsync (cognitive 41) test-explore/vbnet-lsp/VbNetLspSmokeTest.Vb/Program.vb:485— Program.ExecuteServiceTestAsync has cognitive complexity 41 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
VbNetDebugConfigurationProvider.resolveDebugConfiguration (cognitive 41) src/extension/src/debugger.ts:29— VbNetDebugConfigurationProvider.resolveDebugConfiguration has cognitive complexity 41 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 19 (39 pts), boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 20). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: this score is depth rather than breadth — most of its points come from checks stacked inside one another, so the work sits several levels in. Invert each enclosing check into an early exit (a return, or the language's equivalent) so the happy path stays at one level, and where a level cannot be exited early, lift the block it encloses into its own named function.
StdioTransport.ReadContentLengthAsync (cognitive 40) src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Protocol/StdioTransport.vb:132— StdioTransport.ReadContentLengthAsync has cognitive complexity 40 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
VbNetLanguageClient.buildInitializationOptions (cognitive 39) src/extension/src/languageClient.ts:377— VbNetLanguageClient.buildInitializationOptions has cognitive complexity 39 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 14 (21 pts), ternaries 3 (9 pts), boolean chains 6, loops 1 (3 pts) (nesting depth added 15). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
extension.registerCommands (cognitive 35) src/extension/src/extension.ts:201— extension.registerCommands has cognitive complexity 35 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: ternaries 10 (21 pts), error handling 10 (11 pts), if/else 3 (nesting depth added 12). Most of this is not in the body itself: 0 of the 35 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to 10 function literals inside it that branch (lines 204, 297, 229, …). The decisions are inside those literals, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literals' work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have each literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest.
extension.selectWorkspaceContext (cognitive 34) src/extension/src/extension.ts:671— extension.selectWorkspaceContext has cognitive complexity 34 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: ternaries 7 (13 pts), if/else 10 (11 pts), boolean chains 8, loops 2 (nesting depth added 7). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
CodeActionsService.BuildWorkspaceEditFromOperationsAsync (cognitive 30) src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Services/CodeActionsService.vb:303— CodeActionsService.BuildWorkspaceEditFromOperationsAsync has cognitive complexity 30 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
LanguageServer.HandleDidChangeWatchedFilesAsync (cognitive 28) src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Core/LanguageServer.vb:920— LanguageServer.HandleDidChangeWatchedFilesAsync has cognitive complexity 28 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
LanguageServer.HandleDidChangeConfigurationAsync (cognitive 27) src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Core/LanguageServer.vb:839— LanguageServer.HandleDidChangeConfigurationAsync has cognitive complexity 27 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
SymbolsService.GetWorkspaceSymbolsFromOpenDocumentsAsync (cognitive 25) src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Services/SymbolsService.vb:323— SymbolsService.GetWorkspaceSymbolsFromOpenDocumentsAsync has cognitive complexity 25 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
CompletionService.ResolveCompletionItemAsync (cognitive 24) src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Services/CompletionService.vb:116— CompletionService.ResolveCompletionItemAsync has cognitive complexity 24 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
ImplementationService.GetImplementationAsync (cognitive 23) src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Services/ImplementationService.vb:40— ImplementationService.GetImplementationAsync has cognitive complexity 23 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
copy-roslyn-server.main (cognitive 23) src/extension/scripts/copy-roslyn-server.js:128— copy-roslyn-server.main has cognitive complexity 23 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (14 pts), boolean chains 6, loops 2 (3 pts) (nesting depth added 6). Of this number, 21 points are the body's own statements and 2 belong to one function literal inside it that branches. To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
LanguageServer.ApplyInitializationOptions (cognitive 22) src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Core/LanguageServer.vb:1392— LanguageServer.ApplyInitializationOptions has cognitive complexity 22 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
extension.activate (cognitive 22) src/extension/src/extension.ts:28— extension.activate has cognitive complexity 22 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 13 (16 pts), ternaries 2 (4 pts), error handling 2 (nesting depth added 5). Of this number, 14 points are the body's own statements and 8 belong to 3 function literals inside it that branch. To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
ReferencesService.GetReferencesAsync (cognitive 21) src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Services/ReferencesService.vb:41— ReferencesService.GetReferencesAsync has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
SymbolsService.CreateDocumentSymbolAsync (cognitive 21) src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Services/SymbolsService.vb:457— SymbolsService.CreateDocumentSymbolAsync has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
TypeDefinitionService.GetTypeDefinitionAsync (cognitive 21) src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Services/TypeDefinitionService.vb:39— TypeDefinitionService.GetTypeDefinitionAsync has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
NamedPipeTransport.ReadContentLengthAsync (cognitive 20) src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Protocol/NamedPipeTransport.vb:167— NamedPipeTransport.ReadContentLengthAsync has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
SignatureHelpService.GetFallbackSignatureHelpAsync (cognitive 20) src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Services/SignatureHelpService.vb:183— SignatureHelpService.GetFallbackSignatureHelpAsync has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Program.CountWorkspaceEditFiles (cognitive 20) test-explore/vbnet-lsp/VbNetLspSmokeTest.Vb/Program.vb:756— Program.CountWorkspaceEditFiles has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
LanguageServer.ReportNetFxSupportWarningsAsync (cognitive 19) src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Core/LanguageServer.vb:1734— LanguageServer.ReportNetFxSupportWarningsAsync has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
HoverService.BuildHoverContent (cognitive 19) src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Services/HoverService.vb:131— HoverService.BuildHoverContent has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
RenameService.BuildWorkspaceEditAsync (cognitive 19) src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Services/RenameService.vb:215— RenameService.BuildWorkspaceEditAsync has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
SignatureHelpService.BuildDocumentation (cognitive 19) src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Services/SignatureHelpService.vb:325— SignatureHelpService.BuildDocumentation has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
SymbolsService.GetWorkspaceSymbolsAsync (cognitive 19) src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Services/SymbolsService.vb:241— SymbolsService.GetWorkspaceSymbolsAsync has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
LegacyVbProjectReader.GetProjectPathsFromSlnf (cognitive 19) src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Workspace/LegacyVbProjectReader.vb:174— LegacyVbProjectReader.GetProjectPathsFromSlnf has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
NetFxProjectInspector.GetSdkStyleNetFxTargets (cognitive 19) src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Workspace/NetFxProjectInspector.vb:12— NetFxProjectInspector.GetSdkStyleNetFxTargets has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
DocumentHighlightService.GetDocumentHighlightsAsync (cognitive 17) src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Services/DocumentHighlightService.vb:40— DocumentHighlightService.GetDocumentHighlightsAsync has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
WorkspaceManager.LoadProjectsFromSolutionFallbackAsync (cognitive 17) src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Workspace/WorkspaceManager.vb:328— WorkspaceManager.LoadProjectsFromSolutionFallbackAsync has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
LanguageServer.EnumerateVbProjFiles (cognitive 16) src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Core/LanguageServer.vb:1693— LanguageServer.EnumerateVbProjFiles has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
HoverService.GetDocumentationParts (cognitive 16) src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Services/HoverService.vb:351— HoverService.GetDocumentationParts has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
SignatureHelpService.ParseDocumentationParts (cognitive 16) src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Services/SignatureHelpService.vb:380— SignatureHelpService.ParseDocumentationParts has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
LegacyVbProjectReader.ResolveReferences (cognitive 16) src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Workspace/LegacyVbProjectReader.vb:403— LegacyVbProjectReader.ResolveReferences has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
debugger.findOnPath (cognitive 16) src/extension/src/debugger.ts:402— debugger.findOnPath has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 4 (10 pts), loops 2 (4 pts), boolean chains 1, ternaries 1 (nesting depth added 8). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D22 · Internal API Consistency· Inconsistent factory method naming convention. One method is named 'Success' (adjective/verb-like) and the other 'CreateError' (verb+noun). This breaks the symmetry of the API surface for constructing responses. · ×1
Inconsistent factory method naming convention. One method is named 'Success' (adjective/verb-like) and the other 'CreateError' (verb+noun). This breaks the symmetry of the API surface for constructing responses. — Rename 'Success' to 'CreateSuccess' to match 'CreateError', or rename 'CreateError' to 'Error' to match 'Success'. Given the explicit 'Create' prefix on the error factory, 'CreateSuccess' is likely the intended pattern. (signatures: JsonRpcResponse.Success(id As JsonRpcId, result As Object) As JsonRpcResponse | JsonRpcResponse.CreateError(id As JsonRpcId, code As Integer, message As String, data As Object = Nothing) As JsonRpcResponse)
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities· Medium advisory (unsound) · ×1
D4 · Code Duplication· Members sharing a duplicated core (15 members, 50+ identical tokens) · ×1
Members sharing a duplicated core (15 members, 50+ identical tokens) src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Services/CallHierarchyService.vb:469— src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Services/CallHierarchyService.vb:469-476 | src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Services/CompletionService.vb:383-390 | src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Services/DefinitionService.vb:262-269 | src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Services/DocumentHighlightService.vb:152-159 | src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Services/FormattingService.vb:134-141 | src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Services/HoverService.vb:445-452 | src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Services/ImplementationService.vb:193-200 | src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Services/ReferencesService.vb:215-222 | src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Services/RenameService.vb:269-276 | src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Services/SelectionRangeService.vb:89-96 | src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Services/SemanticTokensService.vb:266-273 | src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Services/SignatureHelpService.vb:675-682 | src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Services/TypeDefinitionService.vb:169-176 | src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Services/TypeHierarchyService.vb:313-320 | src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Workspace/DocumentManager.vb:260-268 — These 15 members share a duplicated core: a run of at least 50 identical tokens appears in every one of them. That run is NOT broken out as duplicated-block rows below — it is what admitted this row, and the blocks below cover only the part of it that clears the block floor, so they understate the correspondence. Read the members as one construct written 15 times. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 15 times.
D4 · Code Duplication· Members sharing a duplicated core (6 members, 50+ identical tokens) · ×1
Members sharing a duplicated core (6 members, 50+ identical tokens) src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Services/CallHierarchyService.vb:312— src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Services/CallHierarchyService.vb:312-339 | src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Services/DefinitionService.vb:105-132 | src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Services/DocumentHighlightService.vb:121-148 | src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Services/ReferencesService.vb:125-152 | src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Services/RenameService.vb:187-209 | src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Services/TypeHierarchyService.vb:208-235 — These 6 members share a duplicated core: a run of at least 50 identical tokens appears in every one of them. That run is NOT broken out as duplicated-block rows below — it is what admitted this row, and the blocks below cover only the part of it that clears the block floor, so they understate the correspondence. Read the members as one construct written 6 times. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 6 times.
D4 · Code Duplication· Members sharing a duplicated core (5 members, 50+ identical tokens) · ×1
Members sharing a duplicated core (5 members, 50+ identical tokens) src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Services/CallHierarchyService.vb:404— src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Services/CallHierarchyService.vb:404-415 | src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Services/ImplementationService.vb:178-189 | src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Services/RenameService.vb:293-304 | src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Services/TypeDefinitionService.vb:154-165 | src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Services/TypeHierarchyService.vb:281-292 — These 5 members share a duplicated core: a run of at least 50 identical tokens appears in every one of them. That run is NOT broken out as duplicated-block rows below — it is what admitted this row, and the blocks below cover only the part of it that clears the block floor, so they understate the correspondence. Read the members as one construct written 5 times. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 5 times.
Duplicated block (21 lines × 6) src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Services/CallHierarchyService.vb:312— src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Services/CallHierarchyService.vb:312-332 | src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Services/DefinitionService.vb:105-125 | src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Services/DocumentHighlightService.vb:121-141 | src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Services/ReferencesService.vb:125-145 | src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Services/RenameService.vb:187-207 | src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Services/TypeHierarchyService.vb:208-228 — before extracting anything, compare `src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Services/CallHierarchyService.vb` and `src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Services/RenameService.vb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 42 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Services/CallHierarchyService.vb:335` calls `GetTypeInfo` and `src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Services/RenameService.vb:209` does not — after which the two agree again for 2 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (20 lines × 3) src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Services/DefinitionService.vb:210— src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Services/DefinitionService.vb:210-229 | src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Services/ImplementationService.vb:152-171 | src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Services/TypeDefinitionService.vb:128-147 — before extracting anything, compare `src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Services/ImplementationService.vb` and `src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Services/TypeDefinitionService.vb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 41 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Services/DefinitionService.vb:210` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (20 lines × 2) src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Workspace/DocumentManager.vb:272— src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Workspace/DocumentManager.vb:272-291 | src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Workspace/WorkspaceManager.vb:726-745 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once.
Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Services/CallHierarchyService.vb:422— src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Services/CallHierarchyService.vb:422-435 | src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Services/TypeHierarchyService.vb:296-309 — before extracting anything, compare `src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Services/CallHierarchyService.vb` and `src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Services/TypeHierarchyService.vb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 6 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 90 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just before the matched lines, `src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Services/CallHierarchyService.vb:421` calls `DirectCast` and `src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Services/TypeHierarchyService.vb:295` does not — after which the two agree again for 2 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Services/CallHierarchyService.vb:421— src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Services/CallHierarchyService.vb:421-433 | src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Services/SymbolsService.vb:598-610 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.
Duplicated block (12 lines × 5) src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Services/CallHierarchyService.vb:404— src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Services/CallHierarchyService.vb:404-415 | src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Services/ImplementationService.vb:178-189 | src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Services/RenameService.vb:293-304 | src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Services/TypeDefinitionService.vb:154-165 | src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Services/TypeHierarchyService.vb:281-292 — before extracting anything, compare `src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Services/CallHierarchyService.vb` and `src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Services/RenameService.vb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 42 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (10–11 lines × 2) src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Services/DiagnosticsService.vb:289— src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Services/DiagnosticsService.vb:289-298 | src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Services/DiagnosticsService.vb:314-324 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Services/DiagnosticsService.vb:314` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Services/TypeHierarchyService.vb:86— src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Services/TypeHierarchyService.vb:86-95 | src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Services/TypeHierarchyService.vb:133-142 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 15) src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Services/CallHierarchyService.vb:469— src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Services/CallHierarchyService.vb:469-476 | src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Services/CompletionService.vb:383-390 | src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Services/DefinitionService.vb:262-269 | src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Services/DocumentHighlightService.vb:152-159 | src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Services/FormattingService.vb:134-141 | src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Services/HoverService.vb:445-452 | src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Services/ImplementationService.vb:193-200 | src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Services/ReferencesService.vb:215-222 | src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Services/RenameService.vb:269-276 | src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Services/SelectionRangeService.vb:89-96 | src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Services/SemanticTokensService.vb:266-273 | src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Services/SignatureHelpService.vb:675-682 | src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Services/TypeDefinitionService.vb:169-176 | src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Services/TypeHierarchyService.vb:313-320 | src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Workspace/DocumentManager.vb:260-268 — before extracting anything, compare `src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Services/CallHierarchyService.vb` and `src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Services/RenameService.vb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 42 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just before the matched lines, `src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Services/SignatureHelpService.vb:671` calls `triggerCharacter` and `src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Services/DocumentHighlightService.vb:148` does not — after which the two agree again for 2 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Workspace/LegacyVbProjectReader.vb:300— src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Workspace/LegacyVbProjectReader.vb:300-306 | src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Workspace/LegacyVbProjectReader.vb:525-531 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 3) src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Services/DiagnosticsService.vb:211— src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Services/DiagnosticsService.vb:211-216 | src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Services/DiagnosticsService.vb:294-299 | src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Services/DiagnosticsService.vb:320-325 — all 3 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Services/DiagnosticsService.vb:211` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
D4 · Code Duplication· Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) · ×1
Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) test-explore/clients/zed/probes/dap-probe/Program.cs:99— test-explore/clients/zed/probes/dap-probe/Program.cs:99-121 | test-explore/clients/zed/probes/lsp-probe/Program.cs:127-149 | test-explore/clients/zed/probes/probe-harness/Program.cs:241-263 | test-explore/clients/zed/probes/real-server-harness/Program.cs:217-239 — These 4 members share a duplicated core: a run of at least 50 identical tokens appears in every one of them. That run is NOT broken out as duplicated-block rows below — it is what admitted this row, and the blocks below cover only the part of it that clears the block floor, so they understate the correspondence. Read the members as one construct written 4 times. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 4 times.
Duplicated block (45 lines × 2) test-explore/clients/zed/probes/dap-probe/Program.cs:52— test-explore/clients/zed/probes/dap-probe/Program.cs:52-96 | test-explore/clients/zed/probes/lsp-probe/Program.cs:80-124 — `test-explore/clients/zed/probes/dap-probe/Program.cs` and `test-explore/clients/zed/probes/lsp-probe/Program.cs` are one unit implemented once per sibling directory, so they are most likely parallel implementations of one contract rather than a copy of each other — this scan matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 76 lines. If both are selected at run time, neither can be retired in favour of the other, and the lines that DIFFER between them are the reason both exist. The move that pays here is to hoist the identical part into a shared location the whole family can reach and give what differs a parameter or a seam, so a change lands once instead of once per sibling; extracting one helper per block leaves every sibling to drift on its own. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just before the matched lines, `test-explore/clients/zed/probes/lsp-probe/Program.cs:77` calls `Dispose` and `test-explore/clients/zed/probes/dap-probe/Program.cs:49` does not — after which the two agree again for 3 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (34 lines × 2) test-explore/clients/zed/probes/probe-harness/Program.cs:204— test-explore/clients/zed/probes/probe-harness/Program.cs:204-237 | test-explore/clients/zed/probes/real-server-harness/Program.cs:163-196 — `test-explore/clients/zed/probes/probe-harness/Program.cs` and `test-explore/clients/zed/probes/real-server-harness/Program.cs` are one unit implemented once per sibling directory, so they are most likely parallel implementations of one contract rather than a copy of each other — this scan matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 65 lines. If both are selected at run time, neither can be retired in favour of the other, and the lines that DIFFER between them are the reason both exist. The move that pays here is to hoist the identical part into a shared location the whole family can reach and give what differs a parameter or a seam, so a change lands once instead of once per sibling; extracting one helper per block leaves every sibling to drift on its own. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `test-explore/clients/zed/probes/probe-harness/Program.cs:204` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members' bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
Duplicated block (23 lines × 4) test-explore/clients/zed/probes/dap-probe/Program.cs:99— test-explore/clients/zed/probes/dap-probe/Program.cs:99-121 | test-explore/clients/zed/probes/lsp-probe/Program.cs:127-149 | test-explore/clients/zed/probes/probe-harness/Program.cs:241-263 | test-explore/clients/zed/probes/real-server-harness/Program.cs:217-239 — `test-explore/clients/zed/probes/dap-probe/Program.cs` and `test-explore/clients/zed/probes/lsp-probe/Program.cs` are one unit implemented once per sibling directory, so they are most likely parallel implementations of one contract rather than a copy of each other — this scan matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 76 lines. If both are selected at run time, neither can be retired in favour of the other, and the lines that DIFFER between them are the reason both exist. The move that pays here is to hoist the identical part into a shared location the whole family can reach and give what differs a parameter or a seam, so a change lands once instead of once per sibling; extracting one helper per block leaves every sibling to drift on its own.
Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) test-explore/vbnet-lsp/VbNetLspSmokeTest.Vb/Program.vb:1023— test-explore/vbnet-lsp/VbNetLspSmokeTest.Vb/Program.vb:1023-1037 | test-explore/vbnet-lsp/VbNetLspSmokeTest.Vb/Program.vb:1115-1129 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.
Low cohesion: LanguageServer (LCOM4 15) src/VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb/Core/LanguageServer.vb:17— LanguageServer's methods fall into 15 groups that share no field and call none of each other, against a bar of more than 3 for this run (LCOM4, configurable — your repository's bar is the one quoted here). Each group is a set of methods reachable from one another through shared fields or direct calls, so 15 groups means the type has that many internally-connected clusters with nothing tying them together. Types whose shape makes a high count expected — and which would otherwise dominate this list — are excluded before this row is raised, so this is a genuine split candidate rather than a metric reading. It is still a shape, not a defect: confirm the groups match responsibilities you can name before splitting.
Duplicated block (42 lines × 2 locations) src/extension/src/serverLauncher.ts:104— src/extension/src/serverLauncher.ts:104 · src/extension/src/serverLauncher.ts:159 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.
Duplicated block (16 lines × 2 locations) src/extension/src/extension.ts:1264— src/extension/src/extension.ts:1264 · src/extension/src/extension.ts:1288 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (13 lines × 2 locations) src/extension/src/extension.ts:471— src/extension/src/extension.ts:471 · src/extension/src/extension.ts:485 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 7 locations) src/extension/src/extension.ts:225— src/extension/src/extension.ts:225 · src/extension/src/extension.ts:237 · src/extension/src/extension.ts:257 · src/extension/src/extension.ts:269 · +3 more site(s) not listed — all 7 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 2 locations) src/extension/src/extension.ts:787— src/extension/src/extension.ts:787 · src/extension/src/extension.ts:800 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2 locations) src/extension/src/extension.ts:725— src/extension/src/extension.ts:725 · src/extension/src/extension.ts:747 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.
Duplicated block (5 lines × 2 locations) src/extension/scripts/copy-roslyn-server.js:99— src/extension/scripts/copy-roslyn-server.js:99 · src/extension/scripts/copy-roslyn-server.js:116 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.
R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity· Complex function main (cyclomatic 55, cognitive 147) · ×1
Complex function main (cyclomatic 55, cognitive 147) test-explore/clients/vscode/src/runTests.ts:10— main has cyclomatic complexity 55 and cognitive complexity 147; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.
Complex function selectWorkspaceContext (cyclomatic 32, cognitive 34) src/extension/src/extension.ts:671— selectWorkspaceContext has cyclomatic complexity 32 and cognitive complexity 34; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.
Complex function resolveDebugConfiguration (cyclomatic 25, cognitive 44) src/extension/src/debugger.ts:29— resolveDebugConfiguration has cyclomatic complexity 25 and cognitive complexity 44; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.
Complex function buildInitializationOptions (cyclomatic 22, cognitive 42) src/extension/src/languageClient.ts:377— buildInitializationOptions has cyclomatic complexity 22 and cognitive complexity 42; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.
R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity· Complex function main (cyclomatic 18, cognitive 21) · ×1
Complex function main (cyclomatic 18, cognitive 21) src/extension/scripts/copy-roslyn-server.js:128— main has cyclomatic complexity 18 and cognitive complexity 21; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.
Complex function formatWorkspaceContextDetail (cyclomatic 17, cognitive 17) src/extension/src/workspaceContext.ts:55— formatWorkspaceContextDetail has cyclomatic complexity 17 and cognitive complexity 17; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.
Complex function resolveNetcoreDbgPath (cyclomatic 14, cognitive 22) test-explore/clients/vscode/src/suite/vbnet-debug.test.ts:448— resolveNetcoreDbgPath has cyclomatic complexity 14 and cognitive complexity 22; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.
Complex function formatWorkspaceContextLabel (cyclomatic 14, cognitive 14) src/extension/src/workspaceContext.ts:26— formatWorkspaceContextLabel has cyclomatic complexity 14 and cognitive complexity 14; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.
Complex function refreshTestExplorer (cyclomatic 13, cognitive 16) src/extension/src/extension.ts:445— refreshTestExplorer has cyclomatic complexity 13 and cognitive complexity 16; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.
R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity· Complex function main (cyclomatic 13, cognitive 15) · ×1
Complex function main (cyclomatic 13, cognitive 15) src/extension/scripts/copy-debugger.js:190— main has cyclomatic complexity 13 and cognitive complexity 15; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.
Complex function (anonymous) (cyclomatic 13, cognitive 13) test-explore/clients/vscode/src/suite/vbnet-extension.test.ts:61— (anonymous) has cyclomatic complexity 13 and cognitive complexity 13; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.
Complex function (anonymous) (cyclomatic 13, cognitive 12) test-explore/clients/vscode/src/suite/vbnet-debug.test.ts:96— (anonymous) has cyclomatic complexity 13 and cognitive complexity 12; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive sits below cyclomatic here, so much of the count is breadth — arms side by side rather than stacked — and splitting per arm would leave a function per arm; group the work between the checks into named steps instead. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.
Complex function resolveSourceExe (cyclomatic 12, cognitive 13) src/extension/scripts/copy-debugger.js:146— resolveSourceExe has cyclomatic complexity 12 and cognitive complexity 13; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.
Complex function resolveTestTarget (cyclomatic 12, cognitive 11) src/extension/src/extension.ts:1041— resolveTestTarget has cyclomatic complexity 12 and cognitive complexity 11; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive sits below cyclomatic here, so much of the count is breadth — arms side by side rather than stacked — and splitting per arm would leave a function per arm; group the work between the checks into named steps instead. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.
Complex function activate (cyclomatic 11, cognitive 14) src/extension/src/extension.ts:28— activate has cyclomatic complexity 11 and cognitive complexity 14; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.
Large Files — 3 file(s) over 400 lines (counted as significant lines — blank lines excluded — over production source only, tests excluded), largest first: src/extension/src/extension.ts (1140), src/extension/src/languageClient.ts (560), src/extension/src/serverLauncher.ts (470).
SC1 · Supply-chain hygiene· NuGet dependencies are not locked · ×1
NuGet dependencies are not locked — No packages.lock.json and no central package management — restores aren't reproducible or pinned (SSDF PW.4.4). Enable <RestorePackagesWithLockFile>true</RestorePackagesWithLockFile> (commit the lockfile) or adopt Directory.Packages.props. Advisory — never scored.
SC1 · Supply-chain hygiene· Go module dependencies are not locked · ×1
Go module dependencies are not locked — There is a REDACTED but no go.sum — module versions aren't pinned to a verified hash, so builds aren't reproducible (SSDF PW.4.4). Run `go mod tidy` and commit go.sum; keep `GOFLAGS=-mod=readonly` in CI so a build fails rather than silently resolving a new version. Advisory — never scored.
Shell project: ZedMixed test-explore/clients/zed/fixtures/mixed-vb-csharp/ZedMixed.vbproj— `ZedMixed` contributes only 7 significant line(s) — an empty/placeholder project is structural noise. Remove it or fold its contents into a real project.
Shell project: ZedMixed.CSharp test-explore/clients/zed/fixtures/mixed-vb-csharp/ZedMixed.CSharp.csproj— `ZedMixed.CSharp` contributes only 5 significant line(s) — an empty/placeholder project is structural noise. Remove it or fold its contents into a real project.
Shell project: DiagnosticsSample test-explore/vbnet-lsp/fixtures/diagnostics/DiagnosticsSample/DiagnosticsSample.vbproj— `DiagnosticsSample` contributes only 9 significant line(s) — an empty/placeholder project is structural noise. Remove it or fold its contents into a real project.
Shell project: ZedSlnFixture test-explore/clients/zed/fixtures/sln/ZedSlnFixture.vbproj— `ZedSlnFixture` contributes only 5 significant line(s) — an empty/placeholder project is structural noise. Remove it or fold its contents into a real project.
Shell project: ZedSlnfFixture test-explore/clients/zed/fixtures/slnf/ZedSlnfFixture.vbproj— `ZedSlnfFixture` contributes only 5 significant line(s) — an empty/placeholder project is structural noise. Remove it or fold its contents into a real project.
Shell project: ZedSlnxFixture test-explore/clients/zed/fixtures/slnx/ZedSlnxFixture.vbproj— `ZedSlnxFixture` contributes only 5 significant line(s) — an empty/placeholder project is structural noise. Remove it or fold its contents into a real project.
Shell project: ZedFixture test-explore/clients/zed/fixtures/vbproj/ZedFixture.vbproj— `ZedFixture` contributes only 5 significant line(s) — an empty/placeholder project is structural noise. Remove it or fold its contents into a real project.
Thin analysable surface across projects — 2 project(s) carry only a thin slice of real code (e.g. `DebugConsole` with 12 significant line(s)). The mean analysable-surface weight is 41 %, lowering Solution Shape by about 4.72 point(s). Consolidate thin projects or grow them into substantial, well-scoped assemblies.
Documentation: no contributor guidance README.md— The document does not mention how to contribute or where to submit pull requests. Add a short Contributing section covering PR guidelines and the repository's branching model.
No ADRs found — No ADRs found. No recognised ADR directory (`docs/adr/`, `docs/decisions/`, `adr/`, `docs/rfcs/`, an `ADR0001/` folder, or their siblings) exists anywhere in this tree. What was searched, so you can tell an empty log from a search that missed one: every directory under the tree (build output, dependencies and VCS metadata excepted), for a document that is either any non-index page inside a recognised ADR directory, whatever its name and however deeply nested (`docs/adr/use-postgres.md`, `docs/adr/2024/0001-x.md`); or a file anywhere whose name is ADR-shaped (`0001-use-postgres.md`, `adr-012-caching.md`); or, when neither turned anything up, a document carrying the decision-record signature (an "Architecture Decision Record" heading, or Status / Context / Decision / Consequences as section headings). A decision log that clears none of these — unnumbered files outside any recognised directory, without those headings — is not seen by this check and this row is then wrong. If that is your case, say so rather than renaming anything; otherwise, consider recording architectural decisions in `docs/adr/`.
D26 · Project Cohesion· Projects may be oversized for their cohesion · ×1
Projects may be oversized for their cohesion — 1 of 18 project(s) overshoot their size bounds, lowering Project Cohesion to 8.9/10. The most over is `VbNet.LanguageServer.Vb` (11197 LoC, 171 public types across 5 namespaces). Review these for cohesion — split a project that spans unrelated responsibilities.
No ADRs — No Architecture Decision Records found — no conventional ADR directory, no numbered `NNNN-title` documents in any markup this check reads, and nothing ADR-shaped by content. Design rationale recorded elsewhere (a design-notes tree, a mailing list, pull-request discussion) is not visible to this check and is not re-findable per decision, so a future maintainer cannot ask why one choice was made and get an answer.
README/code drift — README advertises Docker containerisation, but no Dockerfile/compose file exists — searched for: `dockerfile`, `docker-compose`, `compose.yaml`, `compose.yml`. Each was matched case- and separator-insensitively against file and directory NAMES anywhere in the tree, and against the CONTENTS of manifest files (package.json, *.csproj, *.props, *.slnx, *.yml, Dockerfile); the README's own prose never counts, so a claim is never refuted by merely being made. Nothing outside that search was read — a footprint living only in a submodule, in a file type not listed here, or under a name none of those terms matches is not seen, and this row is then wrong.
No SAST — No static application security testing detected. For this repository's stack, add a Roslyn security analyzer package referenced from the project (the analyzer packages do analyse VB.NET), plus gitleaks for committed secrets — CodeQL has no VB.NET extractor, so its csharp pack would extract nothing from this tree and then report it clean as a CI step. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: the 26158 CI workflow file(s) in this repository, and the scanner and linter configuration checked in beside them. A scan that runs outside CI, one configured in your forge's web UI rather than in a committed file, or a tool whose name is none of those this check carries, is not seen — if that is your case the row is wrong, and saying so is more useful than adding a second scanner.
Duplicated predicate test-explore/clients/zed/probes/dap-probe/Program.cs:75— `!headers.TryGetValue("Content-Length", out var lengthText) || !int.TryParse(lengthText, out var length)` appears character-identically in 4 files — test-explore/clients/zed/probes/dap-probe/Program.cs, test-explore/clients/zed/probes/lsp-probe/Program.cs, test-explore/clients/zed/probes/probe-harness/Program.cs, test-explore/clients/zed/probes/real-server-harness/Program.cs. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
Nullable reference types not enabled everywhere — 5/6 NRT-eligible project(s) enable <Nullable>enable</Nullable> (projects targeting a pre-C#-8 framework are excluded — NRTs aren't available there). NRTs catch a whole class of null-deref bugs at compile time.
Silent fallback default in catch test-explore/clients/vscode/src/runTests.ts:325— `listCodePids` swallows every exception into `return []` — a data error becomes a silent behavior change with no trail. Log the failure or let it raise. If that constant is the correct answer rather than a stand-in for a value that could not be read, say so in a comment on the handler or in the docstring, and the row stops firing.
Skipped (documented): open files and probe symbols test-explore/clients/vscode/src/suite/vbnet-fuzz.test.ts:16— Skipped with a documented reason — a deferral, not lazy debt: skipped at run time by a this.skip()/t.skip() call
Skipped (documented): workspace symbol query test-explore/clients/vscode/src/suite/vbnet-fuzz.test.ts:44— Skipped with a documented reason — a deferral, not lazy debt: skipped at run time by a this.skip()/t.skip() call
Skipped (documented): launch debug session with netcoredbg test-explore/clients/vscode/src/suite/vbnet-debug.test.ts:14— Skipped with a documented reason — a deferral, not lazy debt: skipped at run time by a this.skip()/t.skip() call
Skipped (documented): variables and watch evaluate values at breakpoint test-explore/clients/vscode/src/suite/vbnet-debug.test.ts:96— Skipped with a documented reason — a deferral, not lazy debt: skipped at run time by a this.skip()/t.skip() call
Skipped (documented): launch debug session with inferred program path test-explore/clients/vscode/src/suite/vbnet-debug.test.ts:221— Skipped with a documented reason — a deferral, not lazy debt: skipped at run time by a this.skip()/t.skip() call
Skipped (documented): launch debug session with template program path test-explore/clients/vscode/src/suite/vbnet-debug.test.ts:295— Skipped with a documented reason — a deferral, not lazy debt: skipped at run time by a this.skip()/t.skip() call
Skipped (documented): launch debug session with projectPath inference test-explore/clients/vscode/src/suite/vbnet-debug.test.ts:375— Skipped with a documented reason — a deferral, not lazy debt: skipped at run time by a this.skip()/t.skip() call
Every external tool invocation behind a deep-scan dimension — the tool, its captured version, the exact command, how many findings it yielded, and a link to the retained raw output. To reproduce any finding: check out the same commit and run the command shown (repo-relative — never an absolute scratch path). The complete raw scanner output is retained verbatim under artifacts/raw/ (indexed in artifacts/raw/index.json); per-invocation exit codes and wall-clock durations are in sidecar.json — kept out of this table so the rendered report stays byte-identical across runs of the same commit.
trivy: not applicable — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Docker Compose, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation, ARM, Bicep, Ansible); nothing to scan.
semgrep: not applicable — No personal data was found crossing a boundary the PII/GDPR ruleset checks — nothing written to a log or console sink, placed in a URL or query string, or persisted to browser storage. That is a clean result for the LEAK surface only: this ruleset detects personal data escaping, it does not inventory the personal data a repository holds, so it is not evidence that this repository has no personal-data surface. The personal-data map (Appendix C) and the C1-C5 compliance cards are what speak to that.
disclosure: not applicable — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.
runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.
runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.
runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.
Run 01a0f7ed-fc6b-7b43-926b-46a70a2945ef · every finding is also locatable in findings.md, and the complete scoring record (with exit codes + durations) in sidecar.json.
Issues: 70 · Warnings: 162 · Recommendations: 24 · Info: 35 — Appendix A · all findings · full markdown report.
Generated by Watchdog — deterministic code-health analysis. 01-10-2026 @ 14:46 UTC.
Downloadable artifacts
Machine-readable and reproducible from this commit + frozen rubric — drop them straight into a contract appendix, a CRA dossier, or a downstream SCA / VEX tool.