Public report — Flow.Launcher, published 5 Aug 2026.
Concrete security findings (CVE IDs, secret matches, dependency versions) are hidden in this version;
ask the repo owner for the full report.
Medium · 44,739 LoC · 17 projects · rebuild ~0.7 person-years · weakest lens: Security (10%)
Build did not compile — scores are provisional
The analysed solution did not compile (82 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: CS0103: The name 'Localize' does not exist in the current context
Grounded in facts. Every number here is computed, not narrated — reproducible, tool-backed, and traceable to a line of code. How to trust this ▸
262findings with an exact file:lineof 307 — the remainder are repo-wide signals (a dimension-level measurement, not a single line); open any file:line and verify
54/99dimensions across the health lenses44739 LoC · 17 projects — wide & deep
Executive summary
Read through the Production lens — the standard calibration. *Green* means good enough to run in production. The score is absolute and comparable across repos.
Flow-Launcher/Flow.Launcher carries serious gaps (36%). Several issues below can materially affect correctness, security, or the cost of changing it — and propagate to everything that depends on it.
The area that most needs attention is Security (10%) — exposure to security and compliance incidents is elevated. Maturity (55%) is the next concern — onboarding is slow — key decisions and the architecture aren't written down, so contributors have to reverse-engineer the intent.
Leadership focus, highest impact first: Encrypt sensitive data at rest (ASP.NET Core Data Protection /… (Data Protection); 50 High finding(s) (Data Compliance (PII/GDPR)); 43 High finding(s) (Static Analysis (SAST)).
For scale: Medium (~44,739 production lines); rebuilding it from scratch would take roughly ~0.7 person-years (~1–2 engineers). Approximate, ±~30%.
How the score is built — each lens's share of the headlineWidth is the lens's weight in the worst-heaviest fold (the weakest area pulls hardest); colour is that lens's own band. A lens fixes the score in proportion to its width.
A full-fidelity diff against the previous run's complete recorded findings — line-move tolerant: a finding that only shifted line counts as unchanged, only genuinely new titles/files surface here.
This codebase represents roughly ~0.7 person-years of build effort (about ~€100,000 to rebuild). Its weakest lens is Security at 10% — the part of that asset most exposed by the findings below.
How we model this: boilerplate at a scaffolding rate + logic × domain Standard (×1.2) — desktop/game, high decision density × a 0.7× quality factor, at €60–95/h; indicative, ±~30%. Indicative only — most sensitive to the hourly rate and the domain tier (both tunable in config).
Top priorities
The highest-leverage moves; the full ranked list is in the Roadmap below.
1
Encrypt sensitive data at rest (ASP.NET Core Data Protection / column encryption) and manage keys in a vault. Skip if delegated to infra (Postgres TDE, KMS, etc.).
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: CS0103: The name 'Localize' does not exist in the current context.
Evidence: D18 build: The compiler reported: CS0103: The name 'Localize' does not exist in the current context.
→ Fix the build, then re-run for a reliable grade.
Value concentrated against a weak lens · High · Value at risk
This is a Medium asset (~0.7 person-years to rebuild), and its weakest lens is Security at 10%. 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 — module dependency graph
Project dependencies, layered top-to-bottom; arrows show direction. Any dashed red edge points upward or sideways — a layering smell or cycle. A clean layered graph has none.
Architecture — module dependency matrix
105 modules, 212 dependencies — 7 dependency cycles, shown as the red cell(s) above the diagonal. Rows and columns are the same modules, ordered so that a module only depends on ones above it. A cell means the row depends on the column, and its number is how many type pairs create that dependency. Read one thing: is anything above the diagonal? A mark there is a dependency cycle. (A cycle is all this shows — an unusual but cycle-free dependency sits below the diagonal like any other.)
At a glance — Code Health · 56% · Adequate · gated by D18, X5
Findings mapped to OWASP categories; the specific CVEs/secrets are in the Security dimension cards below and findings.md (redacted only on the public version of this report).
OWASP category
Findings
Severity
A04:2021 — Insecure Design
50
High / Critical
A03:2021 — Injection
43
High / Critical
A02:2021 — Cryptographic Failures
2
High / Critical
Roadmap
Begin by encrypting sensitive data at rest and managing keys in a secure vault, or confirm if this is handled by infrastructure. Next, address the 50 high-priority data compliance findings, starting with DialogJump.cs, WindowsDialog.cs, and PluginManager.cs. Then, resolve the 43 static analysis issues, focusing on default_plugins.yml, dotnet.yml, and release_pr.yml. Additionally, document significant architectural decisions in a centralized location and remove the single secret found in Main.cs.
Ranked by impact ÷ effort. "Helps" is the estimated gain on the 0–100 health score.
Do this
Helps
Effort
Dimension
Encrypt sensitive data at rest (ASP.NET Core Data Protection / column encryption) and manage keys in a vault. Skip if delegated to infra (Postgres TDE, KMS, etc.).
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. 51 of 54 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); 3 documentation/naming judgement(s) are LLM-assisted and labelled advisory. Overall confidence is 0.6 — the weighted average across measured dimensions; it falls as more of the score leans on LLM-assisted judgement and rises when it's fully tool-backed.
Every figure here is one of three kinds, and we label which: ✓ Measured — a deterministic fact (LoC, complexity, coverage); ~ Modeled — an estimate from a stated model (cost, effort, value-at-risk), always a range with its assumptions, never a precise fact; ◐ Advisory — an LLM prose judgement. We never present a modelled estimate as if it were measured. Perfect or absent scores carry their provenance too (ADR-0011): ✓ Tool-verified means the property itself was measured across the surface; ○ Nothing flagged means the probes came back clean — a claim bounded by what a repository can show; ⊘ Not evidenced means a working control (a tested restore, an automated rollback) showed no positive evidence — absence of evidence is not evidence of a control, so it's excluded from the score rather than awarded a spurious 10; ◐ Sampled · advisory marks an LLM verdict over a bounded sample — advisory, never a deterministic measurement.
What we checked — 54 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, 262 of 307 do; the remainder are repo-wide signals — a dimension-level measurement, not a single line. (Every path in this report is repo-relative by construction: paths are normalized at the producer and the report is rejected if any rooted path leaks through.)
Is there a tool behind the number? Every score below names the method that produced it — Roslyn, git, a scanner, or (for a handful of documentation/naming dimensions) an LLM labelled sampled · advisory — not a narrative.
Does re-running give the same result? Run it again on the same commit and the score — and this report, byte for byte — is identical. A report whose numbers move between runs is describing the run, not the code.
This report answers yes to all three. That's the bar to hold any assessment to.
Tools & methods
The actual versions used this run (captured at analysis time) — re-run on the same commit for the identical score.
Method
Backs
Version
Evaluator
Roslyn static analysis
Complexity, cohesion, coupling, dead code, API surface, layering
What ran differently this time — a tool absent, degraded, or that fell back to an estimate. Named openly, not folded silently into the scores. A degraded run also records its exact cause in diagnostics.md.
D24 Comment Value — LLM provider failed — The model provider returned an unusable result, so this LLM-assisted dimension fell back to a measurement gap (confidence 0) rather than a penalty. Re-run with a reachable provider to score it.
Repo exclusion declarations: 1 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 (jscpd) — it finds copy-paste, not semantic duplication expressed differently. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, protobuf/OpenAPI stubs, model snapshots) is EXCLUDED — its repetition is the tool's, not the team's — so the score reflects hand-written duplication only.
D5 Coupling: Coupling is measured between projects/assemblies — runtime coupling through DI, reflection, messaging or shared databases is invisible to a static reference graph.
D6 Cohesion (LCOM4): LCOM4 cohesion is syntactic — it infers connectivity from which methods touch which fields/methods by name, not from real runtime behaviour or intent.
D9 Test Distribution: The test-pyramid shape is inferred from project/folder naming and references, with a single test host bucketed per-file by its path tier and content signals — a suite that names tiers unconventionally and gives no per-file signal can still be mis-bucketed.
D10 Test Quality: Assertion density is structural — it cannot tell a meaningful behavioural assertion from a trivial one, only that an assertion is present.
D12 Dependency Hygiene: Dependency health reads manifests and lockfiles — a vulnerability in a vendored/copied dependency, or risk from how a dependency is actually used, is outside this view.
D13 Secret Scanning: Secret detection is signature- and entropy-based on the current tree — a secret that does not match a known pattern, or one already rotated, will not be flagged (a clean scan is "nothing matched", not "no secrets exist").
D14 License Compliance: License compatibility is checked against declared package metadata and a policy — mislabelled or missing license metadata, and obligations that depend on how you distribute, are not resolved here.
D15 Churn × Complexity Hotspots: Churn hotspots come from git history — a freshly imported or squashed repository has no churn signal, and recent rewrites can mask a historically risky file.
D16 Bus Factor: Bus-factor is a time-decayed model of commit attribution (who has recently, repeatedly worked a file), not comprehension — pairing, review and reading-without-committing spread knowledge it can't see; bot commits and shared accounts still distort it.
D17 Explicit Debt: Acknowledged-debt signals (TODO/FIXME, suppressions, dead code) are textual — undocumented debt that nobody marked, and debt that lives in design rather than annotations, is invisible. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, generated stubs) is excluded — it is never the team's dead code to delete.
D18 Solution Shape: Build integrity reflects whether the solution compiled in this environment — a build that needs a private feed, a specific SDK, or a generated file absent from the repo can read as broken when it is merely unreproducible here.
D19 Documentation Quality: Documentation quality is judged by an LLM over a bounded sample of docs — it reads what is written, not whether the docs match the running system, and it is advisory, not a measurement.
D20 ADR Quality: ADR quality is an LLM read of the decision records present — it cannot know about decisions made and never recorded, and its verdict is sampled and advisory.
D21 Naming Consistency: Naming quality is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it assesses clarity/consistency of the names it sees, not domain-correctness, and is advisory.
D26 Project Cohesion: Project focus is sized from members/namespaces per project — a project that is broad by deliberate design reads the same as one that has sprawled.
D27 Navigability: Indirection/navigability is structural — it measures hops to follow a call, not whether that indirection buys real flexibility or just ceremony.
D28 Secrets (history): Secret-history scanning sweeps the git log for known patterns — a secret that predates the available history, or never matched a signature, is not found (clean means "nothing matched in the history we can see").
D29 Static Analysis (SAST): SAST findings are pattern-based (semgrep) — it finds classes of bug it has rules for; logic flaws, auth/authorization gaps and issues needing runtime context are out of reach (and clean means "no rule matched").
D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR): PII/GDPR signals are heuristic pattern matches in code — they flag likely handling concerns, not legal compliance, and cannot trace where data actually flows at runtime.
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.
AX10 Code composition: Role is inferred from namespace/folder convention, not semantics — a domain concept living in a folder named "Services" reads as application, and the split is lines-of-code, not business value. The business-logic-share score is a SOFT, FLOORED signal: it contributes to the Architecture lens but is floored at the Critical gate, so an infrastructure-heavy design (a gateway, an ETL, a driver) is legitimately low without being nuked to zero.
M4 Documentation accuracy: Onboarding quality is an LLM read of the docs/setup present — it cannot run the onboarding or measure how long a real new joiner takes; the verdict is sampled and advisory.
P4 Deployment & Rollback: Approval/branch-protection rules live in repository settings the scan cannot see — only their in-repo evidence (config files, workflows) is checked, so a control enforced purely in the host's settings reads as "not evidenced".
P6 Release Hygiene: Rollback/observability controls are inferred from repo artefacts (pipelines, dashboards-as-code) — controls configured in external tooling, with no in-repo trace, cannot be credited.
The LLM boundary
LLM-set scores this run (4): D19, D20, D21, M4 (model: Local LLM). For these, a model reads a bounded sample and sets the numeric score (documentation, ADR quality, naming, comment value, onboarding) — D25 sets the ADR-conformance fraction over sampled code, D22 judges API accuracy over a sample. These are sampled and advisory by design: they vary at the margins between runs and are never a deterministic measurement. Every other score in this report is tool-computed at confidence 1.0.
What it measures: How tangled the control flow is — methods with many branches are hard to test and change.
Method: Cyclomatic complexity per method (1 + decision points), computed exhaustively across production source; test projects separated by convention. Deterministic.
21 method(s) exceeded the cyclomatic complexity threshold of 15; the worst was MainWindow.OnLoaded at 41. 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 AvailableLanguages.GetSystemTranslation at 28 — they are counted neither in the figure above nor in this dimension's score.
+ 16 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.
What to do
Resolve the 1 MainWindow.OnLoaded (cyclomatic 41) finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with MainWindow.xaml.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 StringMatcher.FuzzyMatch (cyclomatic 35) finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with StringMatcher.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 MainViewModel.QueryResultsAsync (cyclomatic 34) finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with MainViewModel.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Enforce Cyclomatic Complexity in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Detailed fixes: d1_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: How hard the code is for a person to follow, beyond raw branching.
Method: Cognitive complexity per method (Sonar-style nesting-penalized score), computed exhaustively over production code, excluding test projects. Deterministic.
+ 43 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.
What to do
Resolve the 1 ContextMenu.LoadContextMenus (cognitive 65) finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with ContextMenu.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 StringMatcher.FuzzyMatch (cognitive 56) finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with StringMatcher.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 Main.CreateResultsFromQuery (cognitive 53) finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with Main.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Enforce Cognitive Complexity in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Detailed fixes: d2_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D3 · God Classes8.8 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified
What it measures: Over-large classes that try to do too much ("god classes").
Method: God-class detection by line and method-count thresholds per logical type (partial classes unified), filtered for generated code and registration/contract false positives. Deterministic.
Resolve the 6 TooManyMethods finding(s) in God Classes — start with MainViewModel.cs, PublicAPIInstance.cs, MainWindow.xaml.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (6 warning-level).
Resolve the 6 FileTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with MainViewModel.cs, ShellContextMenu.cs, MainWindow.xaml.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (6 warning-level).
Resolve the 5 ClassTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with ShellContextMenu.cs, DialogJump.cs, PluginsManager.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (5 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.
+ 6 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.
✓ On the Gold path — maintain.
Detailed fixes: d4_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D5 · Coupling10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified
What it measures: Whether volatile projects sit underneath others that depend on them (so their churn ripples upward), and whether project dependencies form cycles. A widely-depended-on but stable shared/kernel project is healthy, not penalised.
Method: Dependency cycles via elementary-DFS over real .csproj references, plus Martin instability (afferent/efferent) per project. Exhaustive over the reference graph, deterministic.
Coverage: Exhaustive · type-level: afferent/efferent coupling + cycles computed over every production type — the population is all types, not a name convention.
What it measures: Whether a class's methods are focused on a single responsibility.
Method: LCOM4 cohesion per production class with at least two methods: connected components of methods sharing state or calls, computed syntactically. Deterministic, not a proxy.
Coverage: Exhaustive · type-level: LCOM4 cohesion computed over every production class — the population is all types, not a name convention.
Detailed fixes: d6_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D9 · Test Distribution10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified
What it measures: Whether the test suite has a healthy mix of unit / integration / end-to-end tests.
Method: Test projects classified (Unit/Integration/BDD/E2E) from compiled metadata; test methods counted exhaustively across projects with placement-agnostic disk fallback. Deterministic.
96 test methods: 96 unit, 0 integration, 0 BDD, 0 e2e.
✓ On the Gold path — maintain.
Detailed fixes: d9_recommendation.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D10 · Test Quality10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified
What it measures: Whether the tests truly assert behaviour rather than just running the code.
Method: Per-test assertions, skips, and mock references analyzed via Roslyn; structured skip-reason tags (BUG:/ENV:) separate documented deferrals from debt. Deterministic.
What it measures: Whether dependencies are current, secure, and not bloated.
Method: Manifest scan via dotnet list package across all projects; worst-signal-per-package deduction (saturating for vulnerabilities, capped-linear for deprecation/outdated) per KLoC. Exhaustive, deterministic.
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.
What it measures: Files that change often and are also complex — the riskiest hotspots.
Method: Per production file churn times cyclomatic complexity over a rolling window, computed from git and Roslyn/JS/Razor analysis. Exhaustive, deterministic per commit date.
Detailed fixes: d15_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D16 · Bus Factor8.1 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified
What it measures: Whether knowledge is concentrated in too few people (the "bus factor").
Method: Living knowledge per author via time-decayed commit attribution (6-month half-life, focus weighting) across largest source files. Deterministic, avoids blame's mechanical-refactor false positives.
32 source file(s) have their living knowledge concentrated in one author (≥90% of recent, decayed contribution). The largest is Flow.Launcher.Core/Plugin/PluginManager.cs.
Off-boarding risk: anonymized user #1
Further sole-owners (lower concentration)
What to do
Resolve the 1 Off-boarding risk finding(s) in Bus Factor. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Resolve the 1 Further sole-owners (lower concentration) finding(s) in Bus Factor. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Detailed fixes: d16_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D17 · Explicit Debt8.6 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified
What it measures: Acknowledged debt left in the code — TODOs, dead code, suppressed warnings.
Method: Roslyn syntactic debt markers (suppressions/TODO/FIXME/HACK/empty-catch/commented-code/Obsolete) plus SymbolFinder dead-code analysis; weighted-debt-per-KLoC density deducted 2.0x per unit. Deterministic, exhaustive.
+ 3 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.
What to do
Resolve the 10 EmptyCatchBlock finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with WindowsExplorer.cs (3), Win32Helper.cs (3), DialogJump.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (10 issue-level).
Resolve the 1 NoWarnInCsproj repeated across 11 files finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with Flow.Launcher.csproj. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).
Resolve the 16 TodoComment finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with UWPPackage.cs (5), PluginConfig.cs, PythonPlugin.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (16 warning-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.
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 Flow.Launcher project has a strong README presence (6 README files) and an official documentation site at flowlauncher.com/docs/, which is the single source of truth for plugin development. The site shows a clear roadmap: dedicated channels, getting started, installation, features, applications/files, web searches/urls, browser bookmarks, system commands, calculator, shell command, explorer, Windows/control panel settings, dialog jump, drag/drop, priority, preview panel, customizations, date/time display in search window, languages, game mode, plugins, and a list of community plugins. The README files are thin (e.g., one at the plugin level is only 26 words), with Flow.Launcher.Core's README giving a sparse 'What does Flow.Launcher.Core do?' bullet list and no further explanation, while the core package API reference is not linked to the site but appears in the outline. The project's documentation quality sits between strong site presence and thin per-package docs.
The Plugins Manager README is a stub ("Reference this package to develop a plugin for [Flow Launcher](https://github.com/Flow-Launcher/Flow.Launcher).") with no content.Flow.Launcher.Plugin.PluginsManager/README.md
Resolve the 1 The Plugins Manager README is a stub ("Reference this package to develop… finding(s) in Documentation Quality — start with README.md. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Detailed fixes: d19_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: Whether architecture decisions are recorded well (context, decision, consequences).
Method: Per-ADR judgment by language model at low temperature with two-pass stability; confidence is share of ADRs evaluated; enforcement-field presence detected deterministically. Advisory.
What it measures: Whether names — types, methods, variables — are clear and consistent.
Method: Judged by language model at low temperature (0.0-0.1) on a deterministic random symbol sample (fixed size, not exhaustive), with disclosed confidence band. Advisory, sampled.
1 of 17 projects flagged as possibly oversized/incoherent.
Projects may be oversized for their cohesion
✓ On the Gold path — maintain.
Detailed fixes: d26_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D27 · Navigability8.8 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified
What it measures: How far you must trace to follow a call — low indirection and co-located slices read easier.
Method: Call indirection (interface hops, cross-namespace calls, slice-locality scaled) over a sampled set of method invocations, size-aware baseline. Sampled; confidence discounted by symbol-resolution gaps.
Coverage: Slice locality from the first namespace segments, SAMPLED (≤400 methods) — not exhaustive.
72 % of calls cross a namespace and 10 % go through an interface, but 98 % of collaborators are co-located — so a call's collaborators sit together and tracing stays easy. Baseline: medium — clean/modular boundaries expected.
What to do
Improve Navigability — currently 8.8/10. — 72 % of calls cross a namespace and 10 % go through an interface, but 98 % of collaborators are co-located — so a call's collaborators sit together and tracing stays easy. Baseline: medium — clean/modular boundaries expected.
What it measures: Whether any secrets were ever committed — scanned across the full git history, not just now.
Method: Git-history secret scan via gitleaks detect over full history in an isolated checkout; each match flagged High. Exhaustive; degrades cleanly when tool absent.
1 finding(s): 0 critical, 1 high, 0 medium, 0 low. Remediation for historically-committed secrets is credential rotation — they remain in history regardless of later deletion.
Secret: generic-api-keyPlugins/WinAlfred.Plugin.Fanyi/Main.cs:30detected by gitleaks finding
Rotate the exposed credentials — git history can't be un-committed
✓ On the Gold path — maintain.
Detailed fixes: d28_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: Real static-analysis (SAST) findings — likely security bugs in the code, any language.
Method: Polyglot static analysis via semgrep across the repo using the pinned, image-baked p/security-audit + p/owasp-top-ten rulesets (no scan-time registry fetch); severity rules (ERROR/WARNING/INFO) map to a full-band severity-weighted score. Exhaustive, deterministic; degrades on parse failure.
Coverage: semgrep pattern rules over all files — exhaustive for the rule set, blind to classes of bug without a rule (clean = no rule matched).
High: dependabot-missing-cooldown · ×43.github/dependabot.yml:8detected by semgrep finding
What to do
Resolve the 43 High finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with default_plugins.yml (26), dotnet.yml (8), release_pr.yml (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (43 issue-level).
Detailed fixes: d29_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR)0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified
What it measures: Likely personal-data (PII / GDPR) handling concerns — logging or storing data without safeguards.
Method: Heuristic PII/GDPR pattern scan via semgrep across the repo, using Watchdog's own ruleset (personal data reaching log/console sinks, URLs and query strings, or unprotected browser storage); matches map to severity and a 0-10 wide normalizer. NotApplicable when the scan runs and detects no PII/GDPR surface (no unearned 10); reported LOUDLY as a measurement gap, never as not-applicable, if the ruleset is missing from the analyzer image. Exhaustive, advisory-leaning; degrades on parse failure.
High: watchdog-sensitive-personal-data-in-log · ×50Flow.Launcher.Core/ExternalPlugins/Environments/AbstractPluginEnvironment.cs:124detected by semgrep finding
What to do
Resolve the 50 High finding(s) in Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — start with DialogJump.cs (16), WindowsDialog.cs (8), PluginManager.cs (5). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (50 issue-level).
Detailed fixes: d32_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.
2 of 166 significant source file(s) are orphaned — their living knowledge has decayed to nothing, so no one currently understands them. The largest is Flow.Launcher.Infrastructure/Hotkey/RegisteredHotkeyData.cs.
Further orphaned files (smaller)
✓ On the Gold path — maintain.
Detailed fixes: d34_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: Whether files that change together actually belong together — pairs that repeatedly co-change in git history despite having no explicit code dependency, surfacing the hidden/logical coupling (and boundaries in the wrong place) a static scan can't see.
Method: Pairwise co-occurrence over the per-commit file sets in git history (production source only — tests and generated dropped): Degree-of-Coupling = shared ÷ min individual revisions, reported above noise floors (each file ≥10 revisions, ≥5 shared commits, ≥50% strength); sweeping commits excluded. Deterministic over fixed history.
Coverage: Population: PRODUCTION source files only — test and generated files are dropped before pairing, so a class co-changing with its own test (trivially ~100%) can't drown the real production↔production coupling. Pairs ranked by Degree-of-Coupling; coupling through a build step, config, or non-source file isn't seen.
Resolve the 2 Change coupling clique finding(s) in Change Coupling — start with WelcomePage1.xaml.cs, SettingsPaneAbout.xaml.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
Detailed fixes: d35_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: Whether the build pipeline provides supply-chain integrity — generated provenance/attestation, signed artifacts (cosign/sigstore), an SBOM, and pinned build actions. Presence of the configuration, not a runtime guarantee.
Method: Supply-chain provenance/signing read deterministically from CI/build config (.github/workflows, .gitlab-ci.yml, azure-pipelines, Jenkinsfile, .circleci) + the release surface: four signals — generated provenance/attestation (SLSA/in-toto/actions-attest), artifact signing (cosign/sigstore/gitsign), an SBOM (syft/sbom-action/*.spdx.json/*.cdx.json), and SHA-pinned build actions — scored 10·present/denom. NotApplicable without a build pipeline. Detects configuration presence, not runtime enforcement.
Resolve the 1 Unpinned build actions finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 PR-triggered workflow without a permissions block finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 No build provenance finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Detailed fixes: d36_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
Other · Architecture — Whether any singleton service captures a scoped/transient dependency — a silent lifetime/threading bug.
Method: Roslyn scan: DI registrations parsed from AddSingleton/Scoped/Transient; each singleton checked for captured shorter-lifetime dependencies. Exhaustive, deterministic.
Other · Architecture — How the codebase splits by code ROLE — domain, application, infrastructure, test, generated. The significance map behind the knowledge/coupling weighting, and a DDD signal in its own right: a thin domain core under fat infrastructure is the anemic-domain smell, quantified.
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 singleton services avoid mutable shared instance state that concurrent callers would race on.
Method: Roslyn scan: singleton field mutations unguarded by lock or Interlocked, per type; syntax-based guard detection. Deterministic, traceable per field.
`SettingWindowViewModel` is a singleton (one shared instance) but mutates instance state outside any lock (_pageType; e.g. `_pageType` at line 20). — SettingWindowViewModel.cs:7
`WelcomeViewModel` is a singleton (one shared instance) but mutates instance state outside any lock (_pageNum, _backEnabled, _nextEnabled; e.g. `_pageNum` at line 19). — WelcomeViewModel.cs:5
`MainViewModel` is a singleton (one shared instance) but mutates instance state outside any lock (lastHistoryIndex, GameModeStatus, _queryText, QueryTextCursorMovedToEnd, _selectedResults, _ignoredQueryText; e.g. `lastHistoryIndex` at line 398). — MainViewModel.cs:33
`Theme` is a singleton (one shared instance) but mutates instance state outside any lock (_oldResource, _oldTheme, BlurEnabled, _themeResizeBorderThickness; e.g. `_oldResource` at line 116). — Theme.cs:23
`PublicAPIInstance` is a singleton (one shared instance) but mutates instance state outside any lock (_theme, _updater, _globalKeyboardHandlers; e.g. `_theme` at line 50). — PublicAPIInstance.cs:41
`Internationalization` is a singleton (one shared instance) but mutates instance state outside any lock (_languageDirectories, _oldResources; e.g. `_languageDirectories` at line 107). — Internationalization.cs:16
`PinyinAlphabet` is a singleton (one shared instance) but mutates instance state outside any lock (currentDoublePinyinTable; e.g. `currentDoublePinyinTable` at line 64). — PinyinAlphabet.cs:15
What to do
Keep singletons stateless or back their state with thread-safe types (Concurrent*/Immutable*); otherwise concurrent callers race.
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.
`Flow.Launcher.Core` is a Domain project but references `Flow.Launcher.Infrastructure`, a Infrastructure project. The clean-architecture rule is that dependencies point INWARD — the domain/application core must not depend on outer layers (infrastructure/web). Invert it: define the abstraction in the inner layer and implement it in the outer one.
Other · Architecture — Whether the codebase has a recognisable, scale-appropriate structure (a named architectural style, or modular enough for its size) rather than being an ad-hoc ball of mud.
Method: Roslyn plus csproj analysis: architecture style detection (DDD, clean, vertical-slice, CQRS) and structure fitness for repo size. Deterministic.
Other · Architecture — Whether interfaces stay focused rather than fat — the Interface-Segregation principle (SOLID 'I').
Method: Roslyn scan: public interface member counts; fat-interface threshold (over 15 members) flagged per type. Deterministic, type-level.
`IPublicAPI` declares 78 members. A wide interface forces every implementer and caller to depend on methods they don't use (the Interface-Segregation 'I' in SOLID). Split it into focused role-interfaces. — IPublicAPI.cs:18
What to do
Split fat interfaces into focused role-interfaces so clients depend only on what they use.
Do you agree with this assessment?
AX8 · Test isolation10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified
Other · Architecture — Whether production projects stay free of references to test projects — tests may depend on production, never the reverse.
Method: Csproj graph: each production project checked for references to test projects (identified by test-framework presence, not name). Zero violations is clean. Deterministic.
Do you agree with this assessment?
C1 · Data Protection0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified
Other · Security — Whether sensitive data is encrypted at rest and in transit and keys are vaulted.
Method: Roslyn plus filesystem scan: encryption presence (EF ColumnEncryption, key-vault references, HTTPS enforcement) and key-derivation KDF detection. Deterministic.
No data-protection or encryption usage (ASP.NET Data Protection, AES, column encryption, PBKDF2) was found — sensitive data at rest may be unprotected. If TDE/KMS/vault is delegated to infrastructure, ignore.
What to do
Encrypt sensitive data at rest (ASP.NET Core Data Protection / column encryption) and manage keys in a vault. Skip if delegated to infra (Postgres TDE, KMS, etc.).
Enforce HTTPS (UseHttpsRedirection / RequireHttpsMetadata) so data in transit is always encrypted.
Other · Code Health — Unreviewed-generation residue: shipped members still throwing NotImplementedException, and placeholder string literals left in non-test, non-generated code. Scored as a quality signature, never as a claim about authorship.
Method: Roslyn syntax scan: NotImplementedException throws and placeholder string literals in non-test, non-generated shipped code. Deterministic, code-shape signature.
A shipped member still throws NotImplementedException — generated scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface. (×14) — BoolToIMEConversionModeConverter.cs:21, BoolToIMEConversionModeConverter.cs:38, CornerRadiusFilterConverter.cs:66, …
What to do
Finish or delete NotImplementedException stubs and replace placeholder literals before shipping.
Other · Code Health — Unfinished work detected by code SHAPE, not keywords: members that only throw a "not implemented" exception, methods that take inputs and return a constant, async methods that never await, dead `if (false)` / `#if false` branches, and skeleton types most of whose members are holes. A real, objective slice of technical debt.
A line of code has been commented out rather than removed — dead weight that rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers). (×29) — WindowsDialog.cs:159, ErrorReporting.cs:49, HotkeyDisplay.xaml.cs:18, …
What to do
Clear the softer debt: remove commented-out code and dead branches, re-enable or delete skipped tests, and replace blanket warning suppressions with targeted ones.
Maturity · Maturity — Whether the repo and its projects have a README, and whether it's substantive and current.
Method: Filesystem scan: README presence, word count, and headings for depth; git history for staleness. Exhaustive across root and project dirs, deterministic.
What to do
Add a 'Testing' section to the root README — how to run the test suite.
Add an 'Architecture' / 'How it works' section to the root README — the high-level shape.
Add a README to the 13 of 17 project(s) that lack one — worth up to 1.5 pts.
Maturity · Maturity — Whether key decisions (ADRs) and the high-level shape (C4/diagrams) are written down.
Method: Filesystem scan: ADR folder/naming conventions or content, plus Mermaid/PlantUML/C4/architecture.md discovery. Exhaustive, deterministic.
No Architecture Decision Records found — no conventional ADR directory, no `NNNN-title.md` documents and nothing ADR-shaped by content. Design rationale recorded elsewhere (a design-notes tree, a mailing list, pull-request discussion) is not visible to this check and is not re-findable per decision, so a future maintainer cannot ask why one choice was made and get an answer.
No C4/PlantUML/Mermaid diagram or architecture.md — the high-level shape isn't documented.
What to do
Record significant decisions one document per decision — dated, stating the context, the decision and its consequences — and keep them together wherever your design docs already live (a conventional `docs/adr/` tree with `NNNN-title.md` names is the most discoverable form).
Add a C4 context/container diagram (Structurizr, PlantUML or Mermaid) or an architecture.md overview.
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.
Readiness · Readiness — Whether an automated pipeline builds and tests every change.
Method: Filesystem scan: CI workflow files (.github/workflows, .gitlab-ci.yml, etc.) for build and test stages. Exhaustive, deterministic.
Do you agree with this assessment?
P10 · Library API & versioning10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged
Readiness · Readiness — For a library: a deliberate (small) public API surface and explicit semantic versioning so consumers can depend on it safely.
Method: Roslyn scan: public API surface area and semantic-versioning markers (SemVer attributes, changelog entries) for libraries. Exhaustive, deterministic.
Readiness · Readiness — Whether SAST, secret/dependency scanning and performance benchmarking are wired in (presence, not runtime).
Method: Filesystem scan: SAST configuration, dependency-update automation, secret scanning, and a benchmark harness or benchmark step — in this repository's own ecosystem. Exhaustive, deterministic.
No static application security testing detected. For this repository's stack, add CodeQL's csharp pack (it analyses VB.NET too), or a security analyzer package (or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language) as a CI step.
What to do
Add a SAST step to CI running what this repository's stack ships: CodeQL's csharp pack (it analyses VB.NET too), or a security analyzer package — or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language — so a security regression fails the build instead of landing.
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.
No CHANGELOG/HISTORY/RELEASES file — what shipped when isn't easy to reconstruct for support or audit. (Versioning/tagging makes releases traceable, but a changelog records the what.)
What to do
Keep a changelog (e.g. Keep-a-Changelog) recording what shipped in each release.
Readiness · Performance — Whether the library protects its performance with benchmarks — a benchmark suite, allocation/memory measurement, and (ideally) a CI gate. Presence is credited as a bonus, never a deduction.
Method: Repo + source scan: BenchmarkDotNet referenced (csproj/source), [Benchmark]/[MemoryDiagnoser] attribute counts, and a benchmark step in CI — scored as a bonus ladder (absence is neutral, never a deduction). Deterministic, presence detection.
No benchmark suite was found. Where code is performance-sensitive, a benchmark guards against silent regressions — but it's a bonus here, not a deduction.
What to do
Add a benchmarking harness for the hot paths and run it in CI to catch regressions (for .NET, a BenchmarkDotNet project with [MemoryDiagnoser] to track allocations).
Readiness · Performance — Whether the code is written to minimise allocations so it doesn't pressure its host's memory manager — buffer/slice views over copies, object pooling, stack or value-type allocation, and buffer writers. Reward-only: credited where present, never penalised where a simpler style is fine.
Raise allocation-aware density on the hot paths — currently 66 use(s) across 50,730 production line(s) (~1.3/1k). More Span/Memory, pooling (ArrayPool/ObjectPool), stackalloc and ValueTask on the allocation-heavy paths climbs this toward 10.
Readiness · Performance — Whether asynchronous code keeps its host responsive — a library awaits with ConfigureAwait(false) (so it never captures and stalls the host's context) and avoids sync-over-async blocking (.Wait()/.GetAwaiter().GetResult()) that wastes threads and risks deadlock.
Method: Production-source scan: sync-over-async blocking (.Wait()/.GetAwaiter().GetResult()) counted everywhere, and — for a library with ≥5 awaits — the share of awaits using ConfigureAwait(false). Deterministic, syntax/text detection.
Other · Code Health — Whether the code avoids sync-over-async (deadlock-prone blocking on tasks) and async void.
Method: Roslyn syntax scan: async methods scanned for .Wait()/.GetAwaiter().GetResult() and async-void outside event handlers. Deterministic, hard fact per invocation.
`async void` can't be awaited and its exceptions crash the process instead of propagating. Return `Task` — or, where the delegate contract requires void (timer/event/callback registrations), make this a thin void shim that awaits a Task-returning inner method inside try/catch so exceptions are contained. (×10) — Msg.xaml.cs:62, MsgWithButton.xaml.cs:62, PublicAPIInstance.cs:183, …
Other · Code Health — Whether async methods accept a CancellationToken so work can be cancelled (adoption curve).
Method: Roslyn scan: every async method (excluding framework-fixed overrides/Blazor handlers) checked for CancellationToken parameter presence. Deterministic, adoption percentage.
Only 41/164 async methods accept a CancellationToken, so in-flight work can't be stopped early when the caller gives up — whatever ends it in your host (shutdown signal, timeout, abandoned request, user cancel). Thread a token through the call chain and honour it at each await and loop; where a method genuinely cannot be interrupted, omitting it is a deliberate choice — judge against your hosting model.
No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started. (×23) — App.xaml.cs:181, ResultHelper.cs:14, SingleInstance.cs:94, …
No CancellationToken parameter — the body observes an ambient token instead (a field or a context object), so the work does stop on cancellation, but a caller cannot cancel this call independently of the owner that created that token. (×2) — ResultHelper.cs:19, SettingsPaneAboutViewModel.cs:106
What to do
Thread a CancellationToken through async methods so work stops promptly on cancellation.
Other · Code Health — Whether exceptions are handled rather than silently swallowed or rethrown with lost stack traces.
Method: Roslyn syntax scan: every catch clause counted; empty catches and bare rethrows flagged. Population is all catch clauses, not estimated. Deterministic, hard fact.
An empty catch block silently discards the error — failures vanish with no log and no rethrow. Log it, handle it, or don't catch it. (×10) — HotKeyMapper.cs:160, MainWindow.xaml.cs:385, DialogJump.cs:163, …
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.
Logging an interpolated string (`$"..."`) collapses the event to plain text — you lose the named, queryable properties structured logging exists for. Use a message template with placeholders: `LogInformation("User {UserId} did {Action}", id, action)`. If these calls go through a logging wrapper that only accepts a pre-formatted string, give the wrapper a template+args overload that forwards to the underlying logger, then migrate call sites to it. (×2) — ShellLinkReader.cs:34, ShellLinkReader.cs:122
Other · Code Health — Whether nullable reference types are enabled and not undermined by heavy `!` suppression.
Method: Roslyn compiler-options scan: NullableContextOptions per project; null-forgiving (!) suppression density per 1k syntax nodes. Deterministic, adoption plus suppression penalty.
1/16 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.
~0.6 `!` suppressions per 1k syntax nodes — 21 suppression(s) across the 37808 syntax node(s) in code where nullable warnings are ENABLED, which is the only code a `!` can suppress anything in (a `!` under `#nullable disable` is inert and is not counted, and its file's nodes are not in the denominator). Each one tells the compiler to trust you about null, suppressing the very safety NRTs provide.
What to do
Enable <Nullable>enable</Nullable> across all projects and resolve warnings rather than suppressing with `!`.
Do you agree with this assessment?
Reference — by lens
The score is the rank-weighted fold of these lenses (worst-heaviest), each including its meta-dimensions; a lens with a Critical contributor is capped at Fair (its band reads "gated by …") and is never the strongest area however high its average.
Not included — 45 check(s) not relevant to this codebase
These checks had nothing to measure here (no tests, no git history, the codebase is small, or the architecture style doesn't apply), so they're omitted above rather than scored low.
AC1 Text alternatives — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC2 Forms & labels — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC3 Page structure — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC4 Keyboard semantics — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC5 ARIA correctness — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC6 Visual & motion safety — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC7 A11y enforcement — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AX7 Slice cohesion — not applicable — not a vertical-slice architecture
AX9 CQS / query purity — no CQRS query handlers detected — query purity is not applicable to this codebase
AXB2 Runtime readiness — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
C2 Access Controls — No access-control surface detected in the analyzed source — no web/app surface to authorize (no HTTP API or web-UI project) and no authorization code at all (no [Authorize]/policies, no imperative guard methods). Access control is therefore N/A here — this is a library/CLI, which is authorized by its CALLER, not by itself. If this codebase grows request handlers, the dimension reactivates and a default-deny posture is expected then.
C3 Audit Trail — Repo shows no audit-logging mechanism (IAuditable, an immutable audit log, an EF SaveChanges interceptor) for sensitive changes — absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control. Record an audit trail in code (or document where it lives) so this dimension can be scored.
C4 Data Retention — Repo shows no data-retention / TTL / cleanup mechanism for personal data — absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control. Define retention periods and a purge/cleanup job (or TTL) in code, or document where retention is enforced, so this dimension can be scored.
C5 Data-Subject Rights — Repo shows no corroborated data-subject-rights mechanism (erasure / export-portability / consent) tied to a subject id or GDPR vocabulary — absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control. Implement erasure, data export/portability and consent tracking over the subject's records.
D11 Test Reliability — Test reliability not measured — no test run produced results
D22 Internal API Consistency — No exposed public API
D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — Bounded contexts not declared
D24 Comment Value — LLM evaluation failed
D25 ADR Conformance — no ADRs to check
D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities — the solution did not restore on the analyzer's .NET SDK (an SDK/target-framework/restore mismatch, common for an older codebase), so there was no restored dependency graph to scan for NuGet CVEs — excluded rather than scored; re-run on an SDK that can restore this solution
D31 IaC & Container Security — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation); nothing to scan.
D33 JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities — No JS/npm manifest or lockfile found outside build output (package.json, package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); no JS dependencies to scan.
D37 Vulnerability-disclosure Policy — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.
D38 OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities — No supported non-.NET dependency lockfile found outside build output (npm package-lock/yarn/pnpm/bun, Go go.mod, Rust Cargo.lock, Maven pom.xml, Gradle lockfiles, Python requirements.txt/poetry.lock/Pipfile.lock/pdm.lock, PHP composer.lock, Ruby Gemfile.lock, Elixir mix.lock, Dart pubspec.lock, Swift Package.resolved); nothing for OSV to scan. A NuGet-only repo stays NotApplicable — .NET CVEs are D30's domain.
D39 IL Efficiency — The target did not build, so no IL was available to measure.
D40 Network Egress Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.
D41 Kernel & Syscall Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.
D42 Runtime Threat Enforcement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.
D7 Architectural Integrity — no checkable ADRs and no dependency cycles — architectural integrity not assessed
D8 Code Coverage — Coverage not measured
DM1 Domain Modelling — not scored — this repository shows only 1 of the 3 signals this check looks for (2 value object(s))
ED1 Event-Driven — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this check looks for
ED5 Idempotency — no mutating command handlers or message consumers detected — idempotency check not applicable
ES1 Event Sourcing — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this check looks for
P12 CI test-gate honesty — Reported, not scored — and nothing was matched here. The coverage check applies to any stack, but the checks for excluded tests, skipped tests and sleep-based synchronisation currently recognise only some ecosystems' test-runner idioms, so on a repository built with another stack the zeros below mean 'not checked', not 'clean'.
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.
P5 DR & Backup — not evidenced — repo shows no backup/RTO/RPO controls; absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control
P7 Outbound HTTP resilience — not applicable — this isn't a service/API/worker
P8 Schema migrations — no EF Core usage detected
P9 Domain vs controller coverage — no coverage report found on disk — produce a coverage report in a standard format (Cobertura — `dotnet test --collect:"XPlat Code Coverage"` with a `coverlet.collector` PackageReference) into the repo working tree before the scan — a CI step is the usual place, since the artefact is commonly gitignored, or wire coverage collection into CI, to enable this cross-layer check
S1 Web-Security Posture — No web surface detected in the analyzed source — no HTTP API or web-UI project (no controllers/minimal-API endpoints, no Razor/Blazor views) and no web middleware (HTTPS redirection, HSTS, security headers, cookies). Transport security, security headers, secure cookies, CSRF/input-validation and middleware-order controls are therefore N/A here — this is a library/CLI/worker, not a web app. Crypto hygiene was still checked and found nothing to flag. If this codebase becomes web-facing, the dimension reactivates automatically.
SC1 Supply-chain hygiene — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
X6 Hand-rolled structured-format parsing — Reported, not scored — this card publishes what it found rather than grading it. Its content is the findings and the key metric above.
X7 Silent fallback defaults — Reported, not scored — this card publishes what it found rather than grading it. Its content is the findings and the key metric above.
X8 JS interop contract — Reported, not scored — this card publishes what it found rather than grading it. Its content is the findings and the key metric above.
Appendix A — Findings (grouped)
The findings behind the scores, grouped by severity, then by dimension and kind. The high-severity issues are enumerated in full below; items per group are capped at 25 with any overflow stated explicitly per group, never silently truncated. The complete machine-readable list of every finding (all severities) is the companion findings.md in this report's bundle.
High: watchdog-sensitive-personal-data-in-log Flow.Launcher.Core/ExternalPlugins/Environments/AbstractPluginEnvironment.cs:124— Special-category or directly-identifying personal data appears to be written to a log or console sink. Logs are copied, shipped to third parties and retained far longer than the data itself is lawfully needed. Log a stable pseudonymous reference instead of the value.
High: watchdog-sensitive-personal-data-in-log Flow.Launcher.Core/Plugin/JsonRPCPlugin.cs:152— Special-category or directly-identifying personal data appears to be written to a log or console sink. Logs are copied, shipped to third parties and retained far longer than the data itself is lawfully needed. Log a stable pseudonymous reference instead of the value.
High: watchdog-sensitive-personal-data-in-log Flow.Launcher.Core/Plugin/JsonRPCPlugin.cs:156— Special-category or directly-identifying personal data appears to be written to a log or console sink. Logs are copied, shipped to third parties and retained far longer than the data itself is lawfully needed. Log a stable pseudonymous reference instead of the value.
High: watchdog-sensitive-personal-data-in-log Flow.Launcher.Core/Plugin/JsonRPCPlugin.cs:176— Special-category or directly-identifying personal data appears to be written to a log or console sink. Logs are copied, shipped to third parties and retained far longer than the data itself is lawfully needed. Log a stable pseudonymous reference instead of the value.
High: watchdog-sensitive-personal-data-in-log Flow.Launcher.Core/Plugin/JsonRPCV2Models/JsonRPCPublicAPI.cs:150— Special-category or directly-identifying personal data appears to be written to a log or console sink. Logs are copied, shipped to third parties and retained far longer than the data itself is lawfully needed. Log a stable pseudonymous reference instead of the value.
High: watchdog-sensitive-personal-data-in-log Flow.Launcher.Core/Plugin/JsonRPCV2Models/JsonRPCPublicAPI.cs:165— Special-category or directly-identifying personal data appears to be written to a log or console sink. Logs are copied, shipped to third parties and retained far longer than the data itself is lawfully needed. Log a stable pseudonymous reference instead of the value.
High: watchdog-sensitive-personal-data-in-log Flow.Launcher.Core/Plugin/PluginConfig.cs:118— Special-category or directly-identifying personal data appears to be written to a log or console sink. Logs are copied, shipped to third parties and retained far longer than the data itself is lawfully needed. Log a stable pseudonymous reference instead of the value.
High: watchdog-sensitive-personal-data-in-log Flow.Launcher.Core/Plugin/PluginConfig.cs:140— Special-category or directly-identifying personal data appears to be written to a log or console sink. Logs are copied, shipped to third parties and retained far longer than the data itself is lawfully needed. Log a stable pseudonymous reference instead of the value.
High: watchdog-sensitive-personal-data-in-log Flow.Launcher.Core/Plugin/PluginConfig.cs:146— Special-category or directly-identifying personal data appears to be written to a log or console sink. Logs are copied, shipped to third parties and retained far longer than the data itself is lawfully needed. Log a stable pseudonymous reference instead of the value.
High: watchdog-sensitive-personal-data-in-log Flow.Launcher.Core/Plugin/PluginManager.cs:188— Special-category or directly-identifying personal data appears to be written to a log or console sink. Logs are copied, shipped to third parties and retained far longer than the data itself is lawfully needed. Log a stable pseudonymous reference instead of the value.
High: watchdog-sensitive-personal-data-in-log Flow.Launcher.Core/Plugin/PluginManager.cs:215— Special-category or directly-identifying personal data appears to be written to a log or console sink. Logs are copied, shipped to third parties and retained far longer than the data itself is lawfully needed. Log a stable pseudonymous reference instead of the value.
High: watchdog-sensitive-personal-data-in-log Flow.Launcher.Core/Plugin/PluginManager.cs:281— Special-category or directly-identifying personal data appears to be written to a log or console sink. Logs are copied, shipped to third parties and retained far longer than the data itself is lawfully needed. Log a stable pseudonymous reference instead of the value.
High: watchdog-sensitive-personal-data-in-log Flow.Launcher.Core/Plugin/PluginManager.cs:287— Special-category or directly-identifying personal data appears to be written to a log or console sink. Logs are copied, shipped to third parties and retained far longer than the data itself is lawfully needed. Log a stable pseudonymous reference instead of the value.
High: watchdog-sensitive-personal-data-in-log Flow.Launcher.Core/Plugin/PluginManager.cs:1164— Special-category or directly-identifying personal data appears to be written to a log or console sink. Logs are copied, shipped to third parties and retained far longer than the data itself is lawfully needed. Log a stable pseudonymous reference instead of the value.
High: watchdog-sensitive-personal-data-in-log Flow.Launcher.Core/Plugin/PluginsLoader.cs:111— Special-category or directly-identifying personal data appears to be written to a log or console sink. Logs are copied, shipped to third parties and retained far longer than the data itself is lawfully needed. Log a stable pseudonymous reference instead of the value.
High: watchdog-sensitive-personal-data-in-log Flow.Launcher.Core/Resource/Internationalization.cs:103— Special-category or directly-identifying personal data appears to be written to a log or console sink. Logs are copied, shipped to third parties and retained far longer than the data itself is lawfully needed. Log a stable pseudonymous reference instead of the value.
High: watchdog-sensitive-personal-data-in-log Flow.Launcher.Core/Resource/Internationalization.cs:174— Special-category or directly-identifying personal data appears to be written to a log or console sink. Logs are copied, shipped to third parties and retained far longer than the data itself is lawfully needed. Log a stable pseudonymous reference instead of the value.
High: watchdog-sensitive-personal-data-in-log Flow.Launcher.Core/Resource/Internationalization.cs:346— Special-category or directly-identifying personal data appears to be written to a log or console sink. Logs are copied, shipped to third parties and retained far longer than the data itself is lawfully needed. Log a stable pseudonymous reference instead of the value.
High: watchdog-sensitive-personal-data-in-log Flow.Launcher.Core/Resource/Internationalization.cs:354— Special-category or directly-identifying personal data appears to be written to a log or console sink. Logs are copied, shipped to third parties and retained far longer than the data itself is lawfully needed. Log a stable pseudonymous reference instead of the value.
High: watchdog-sensitive-personal-data-in-log Flow.Launcher.Core/Resource/Internationalization.cs:389— Special-category or directly-identifying personal data appears to be written to a log or console sink. Logs are copied, shipped to third parties and retained far longer than the data itself is lawfully needed. Log a stable pseudonymous reference instead of the value.
High: watchdog-sensitive-personal-data-in-log Flow.Launcher.Core/Resource/Theme.cs:77— Special-category or directly-identifying personal data appears to be written to a log or console sink. Logs are copied, shipped to third parties and retained far longer than the data itself is lawfully needed. Log a stable pseudonymous reference instead of the value.
High: watchdog-sensitive-personal-data-in-log Flow.Launcher.Core/Resource/Theme.cs:440— Special-category or directly-identifying personal data appears to be written to a log or console sink. Logs are copied, shipped to third parties and retained far longer than the data itself is lawfully needed. Log a stable pseudonymous reference instead of the value.
High: watchdog-sensitive-personal-data-in-log Flow.Launcher.Infrastructure/DialogJump/DialogJump.cs:160— Special-category or directly-identifying personal data appears to be written to a log or console sink. Logs are copied, shipped to third parties and retained far longer than the data itself is lawfully needed. Log a stable pseudonymous reference instead of the value.
High: watchdog-sensitive-personal-data-in-log Flow.Launcher.Infrastructure/DialogJump/DialogJump.cs:243— Special-category or directly-identifying personal data appears to be written to a log or console sink. Logs are copied, shipped to third parties and retained far longer than the data itself is lawfully needed. Log a stable pseudonymous reference instead of the value.
High: watchdog-sensitive-personal-data-in-log Flow.Launcher.Infrastructure/DialogJump/DialogJump.cs:541— Special-category or directly-identifying personal data appears to be written to a log or console sink. Logs are copied, shipped to third parties and retained far longer than the data itself is lawfully needed. Log a stable pseudonymous reference instead of the value.
High: dependabot-missing-cooldown .github/dependabot.yml:8— This Dependabot configuration does not set a cooldown period. Newly published packages can be malicious or unstable. Add a `cooldown` block with `default-days: 7` to each `package-ecosystem` entry under `updates` to wait 7 days before proposing updates to newly published package versions. Reference: https://docs.github.com/en/code-security/dependabot/dependabot-version-updates/configuration-options-for-the-dependabot.yml-file#cooldown. This is a semgrep security-AUDIT rule reporting a POLICY that is absent or weaker than its recommendation, not an exploitable defect. Confirm whether the current setting is a deliberate decision for this repository — and apply the change where it is not; where it is (a policy your release process already enforces elsewhere, or one this repository has consciously opted out of), record the decision and leave the configuration as it is. This configuration file has 2 such entries; one cooldown decision clears them all — reported once.
High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/default_plugins.yml:13— GitHub Actions step uses a mutable tag or branch reference. Tags and branch names can be silently repointed by the action owner, enabling supply-chain attacks — as seen in the trivy-action and kics-github-action compromises. Pin the reference to a full 40-character commit SHA instead, e.g. `uses: actions/checkout@<40-character SHA>`. This step references `actions/checkout@v7`; resolve the SHA it points at today with `gh api repos/actions/checkout/commits/v7 --jq .sha`.
High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/default_plugins.yml:15— GitHub Actions step uses a mutable tag or branch reference. Tags and branch names can be silently repointed by the action owner, enabling supply-chain attacks — as seen in the trivy-action and kics-github-action compromises. Pin the reference to a full 40-character commit SHA instead, e.g. `uses: actions/setup-dotnet@<40-character SHA>`. This step references `actions/setup-dotnet@v6`; resolve the SHA it points at today with `gh api repos/actions/setup-dotnet/commits/v6 --jq .sha`.
High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/default_plugins.yml:38— GitHub Actions step uses a mutable tag or branch reference. Tags and branch names can be silently repointed by the action owner, enabling supply-chain attacks — as seen in the trivy-action and kics-github-action compromises. Pin the reference to a full 40-character commit SHA instead, e.g. `uses: notiz-dev/github-action-json-property@<40-character SHA>`. This step references `notiz-dev/github-action-json-property@release`; resolve the SHA it points at today with `gh api repos/notiz-dev/github-action-json-property/commits/release --jq .sha`.
High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/default_plugins.yml:50— GitHub Actions step uses a mutable tag or branch reference. Tags and branch names can be silently repointed by the action owner, enabling supply-chain attacks — as seen in the trivy-action and kics-github-action compromises. Pin the reference to a full 40-character commit SHA instead, e.g. `uses: softprops/action-gh-release@<40-character SHA>`. This step references `softprops/action-gh-release@v3`; resolve the SHA it points at today with `gh api repos/softprops/action-gh-release/commits/v3 --jq .sha`.
High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/default_plugins.yml:61— GitHub Actions step uses a mutable tag or branch reference. Tags and branch names can be silently repointed by the action owner, enabling supply-chain attacks — as seen in the trivy-action and kics-github-action compromises. Pin the reference to a full 40-character commit SHA instead, e.g. `uses: notiz-dev/github-action-json-property@<40-character SHA>`. This step references `notiz-dev/github-action-json-property@release`; resolve the SHA it points at today with `gh api repos/notiz-dev/github-action-json-property/commits/release --jq .sha`.
High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/default_plugins.yml:73— GitHub Actions step uses a mutable tag or branch reference. Tags and branch names can be silently repointed by the action owner, enabling supply-chain attacks — as seen in the trivy-action and kics-github-action compromises. Pin the reference to a full 40-character commit SHA instead, e.g. `uses: softprops/action-gh-release@<40-character SHA>`. This step references `softprops/action-gh-release@v3`; resolve the SHA it points at today with `gh api repos/softprops/action-gh-release/commits/v3 --jq .sha`.
High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/default_plugins.yml:84— GitHub Actions step uses a mutable tag or branch reference. Tags and branch names can be silently repointed by the action owner, enabling supply-chain attacks — as seen in the trivy-action and kics-github-action compromises. Pin the reference to a full 40-character commit SHA instead, e.g. `uses: notiz-dev/github-action-json-property@<40-character SHA>`. This step references `notiz-dev/github-action-json-property@release`; resolve the SHA it points at today with `gh api repos/notiz-dev/github-action-json-property/commits/release --jq .sha`.
High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/default_plugins.yml:96— GitHub Actions step uses a mutable tag or branch reference. Tags and branch names can be silently repointed by the action owner, enabling supply-chain attacks — as seen in the trivy-action and kics-github-action compromises. Pin the reference to a full 40-character commit SHA instead, e.g. `uses: softprops/action-gh-release@<40-character SHA>`. This step references `softprops/action-gh-release@v3`; resolve the SHA it points at today with `gh api repos/softprops/action-gh-release/commits/v3 --jq .sha`.
High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/default_plugins.yml:107— GitHub Actions step uses a mutable tag or branch reference. Tags and branch names can be silently repointed by the action owner, enabling supply-chain attacks — as seen in the trivy-action and kics-github-action compromises. Pin the reference to a full 40-character commit SHA instead, e.g. `uses: notiz-dev/github-action-json-property@<40-character SHA>`. This step references `notiz-dev/github-action-json-property@release`; resolve the SHA it points at today with `gh api repos/notiz-dev/github-action-json-property/commits/release --jq .sha`.
High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/default_plugins.yml:119— GitHub Actions step uses a mutable tag or branch reference. Tags and branch names can be silently repointed by the action owner, enabling supply-chain attacks — as seen in the trivy-action and kics-github-action compromises. Pin the reference to a full 40-character commit SHA instead, e.g. `uses: softprops/action-gh-release@<40-character SHA>`. This step references `softprops/action-gh-release@v3`; resolve the SHA it points at today with `gh api repos/softprops/action-gh-release/commits/v3 --jq .sha`.
High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/default_plugins.yml:130— GitHub Actions step uses a mutable tag or branch reference. Tags and branch names can be silently repointed by the action owner, enabling supply-chain attacks — as seen in the trivy-action and kics-github-action compromises. Pin the reference to a full 40-character commit SHA instead, e.g. `uses: notiz-dev/github-action-json-property@<40-character SHA>`. This step references `notiz-dev/github-action-json-property@release`; resolve the SHA it points at today with `gh api repos/notiz-dev/github-action-json-property/commits/release --jq .sha`.
High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/default_plugins.yml:142— GitHub Actions step uses a mutable tag or branch reference. Tags and branch names can be silently repointed by the action owner, enabling supply-chain attacks — as seen in the trivy-action and kics-github-action compromises. Pin the reference to a full 40-character commit SHA instead, e.g. `uses: softprops/action-gh-release@<40-character SHA>`. This step references `softprops/action-gh-release@v3`; resolve the SHA it points at today with `gh api repos/softprops/action-gh-release/commits/v3 --jq .sha`.
High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/default_plugins.yml:153— GitHub Actions step uses a mutable tag or branch reference. Tags and branch names can be silently repointed by the action owner, enabling supply-chain attacks — as seen in the trivy-action and kics-github-action compromises. Pin the reference to a full 40-character commit SHA instead, e.g. `uses: notiz-dev/github-action-json-property@<40-character SHA>`. This step references `notiz-dev/github-action-json-property@release`; resolve the SHA it points at today with `gh api repos/notiz-dev/github-action-json-property/commits/release --jq .sha`.
High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/default_plugins.yml:165— GitHub Actions step uses a mutable tag or branch reference. Tags and branch names can be silently repointed by the action owner, enabling supply-chain attacks — as seen in the trivy-action and kics-github-action compromises. Pin the reference to a full 40-character commit SHA instead, e.g. `uses: softprops/action-gh-release@<40-character SHA>`. This step references `softprops/action-gh-release@v3`; resolve the SHA it points at today with `gh api repos/softprops/action-gh-release/commits/v3 --jq .sha`.
High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/default_plugins.yml:176— GitHub Actions step uses a mutable tag or branch reference. Tags and branch names can be silently repointed by the action owner, enabling supply-chain attacks — as seen in the trivy-action and kics-github-action compromises. Pin the reference to a full 40-character commit SHA instead, e.g. `uses: notiz-dev/github-action-json-property@<40-character SHA>`. This step references `notiz-dev/github-action-json-property@release`; resolve the SHA it points at today with `gh api repos/notiz-dev/github-action-json-property/commits/release --jq .sha`.
High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/default_plugins.yml:188— GitHub Actions step uses a mutable tag or branch reference. Tags and branch names can be silently repointed by the action owner, enabling supply-chain attacks — as seen in the trivy-action and kics-github-action compromises. Pin the reference to a full 40-character commit SHA instead, e.g. `uses: softprops/action-gh-release@<40-character SHA>`. This step references `softprops/action-gh-release@v3`; resolve the SHA it points at today with `gh api repos/softprops/action-gh-release/commits/v3 --jq .sha`.
High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/default_plugins.yml:199— GitHub Actions step uses a mutable tag or branch reference. Tags and branch names can be silently repointed by the action owner, enabling supply-chain attacks — as seen in the trivy-action and kics-github-action compromises. Pin the reference to a full 40-character commit SHA instead, e.g. `uses: notiz-dev/github-action-json-property@<40-character SHA>`. This step references `notiz-dev/github-action-json-property@release`; resolve the SHA it points at today with `gh api repos/notiz-dev/github-action-json-property/commits/release --jq .sha`.
High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/default_plugins.yml:211— GitHub Actions step uses a mutable tag or branch reference. Tags and branch names can be silently repointed by the action owner, enabling supply-chain attacks — as seen in the trivy-action and kics-github-action compromises. Pin the reference to a full 40-character commit SHA instead, e.g. `uses: softprops/action-gh-release@<40-character SHA>`. This step references `softprops/action-gh-release@v3`; resolve the SHA it points at today with `gh api repos/softprops/action-gh-release/commits/v3 --jq .sha`.
High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/default_plugins.yml:222— GitHub Actions step uses a mutable tag or branch reference. Tags and branch names can be silently repointed by the action owner, enabling supply-chain attacks — as seen in the trivy-action and kics-github-action compromises. Pin the reference to a full 40-character commit SHA instead, e.g. `uses: notiz-dev/github-action-json-property@<40-character SHA>`. This step references `notiz-dev/github-action-json-property@release`; resolve the SHA it points at today with `gh api repos/notiz-dev/github-action-json-property/commits/release --jq .sha`.
High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/default_plugins.yml:234— GitHub Actions step uses a mutable tag or branch reference. Tags and branch names can be silently repointed by the action owner, enabling supply-chain attacks — as seen in the trivy-action and kics-github-action compromises. Pin the reference to a full 40-character commit SHA instead, e.g. `uses: softprops/action-gh-release@<40-character SHA>`. This step references `softprops/action-gh-release@v3`; resolve the SHA it points at today with `gh api repos/softprops/action-gh-release/commits/v3 --jq .sha`.
High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/default_plugins.yml:245— GitHub Actions step uses a mutable tag or branch reference. Tags and branch names can be silently repointed by the action owner, enabling supply-chain attacks — as seen in the trivy-action and kics-github-action compromises. Pin the reference to a full 40-character commit SHA instead, e.g. `uses: notiz-dev/github-action-json-property@<40-character SHA>`. This step references `notiz-dev/github-action-json-property@release`; resolve the SHA it points at today with `gh api repos/notiz-dev/github-action-json-property/commits/release --jq .sha`.
High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/default_plugins.yml:257— GitHub Actions step uses a mutable tag or branch reference. Tags and branch names can be silently repointed by the action owner, enabling supply-chain attacks — as seen in the trivy-action and kics-github-action compromises. Pin the reference to a full 40-character commit SHA instead, e.g. `uses: softprops/action-gh-release@<40-character SHA>`. This step references `softprops/action-gh-release@v3`; resolve the SHA it points at today with `gh api repos/softprops/action-gh-release/commits/v3 --jq .sha`.
High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/default_plugins.yml:268— GitHub Actions step uses a mutable tag or branch reference. Tags and branch names can be silently repointed by the action owner, enabling supply-chain attacks — as seen in the trivy-action and kics-github-action compromises. Pin the reference to a full 40-character commit SHA instead, e.g. `uses: notiz-dev/github-action-json-property@<40-character SHA>`. This step references `notiz-dev/github-action-json-property@release`; resolve the SHA it points at today with `gh api repos/notiz-dev/github-action-json-property/commits/release --jq .sha`.
High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/default_plugins.yml:280— GitHub Actions step uses a mutable tag or branch reference. Tags and branch names can be silently repointed by the action owner, enabling supply-chain attacks — as seen in the trivy-action and kics-github-action compromises. Pin the reference to a full 40-character commit SHA instead, e.g. `uses: softprops/action-gh-release@<40-character SHA>`. This step references `softprops/action-gh-release@v3`; resolve the SHA it points at today with `gh api repos/softprops/action-gh-release/commits/v3 --jq .sha`.
EmptyCatchBlock Flow.Launcher.Infrastructure/DialogJump/DialogJump.cs:163— 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 Flow.Launcher.Infrastructure/DialogJump/Models/WindowsExplorer.cs:36— 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 Flow.Launcher.Infrastructure/DialogJump/Models/WindowsExplorer.cs:150— 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 Flow.Launcher.Infrastructure/DialogJump/Models/WindowsExplorer.cs:162— 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 Flow.Launcher.Infrastructure/Win32Helper.cs:678— 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 Flow.Launcher.Infrastructure/Win32Helper.cs:699— 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 Flow.Launcher.Infrastructure/Win32Helper.cs:713— 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 Flow.Launcher/Helper/HotKeyMapper.cs:160— 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 Flow.Launcher/MainWindow.xaml.cs:385— 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 Plugins/Flow.Launcher.Plugin.Explorer/Search/Everything/EverythingAPI.cs:206— 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.
NoWarnInCsproj repeated across 11 files Flow.Launcher/Flow.Launcher.csproj:39— The identical NoWarnInCsproj (`FLSG0007`) appears in 11 files (11 occurrences) — a single repo-wide policy (e.g. a Directory.Build.props decision or an idiomatic suppression), not 11 independent debts. Decide it once centrally rather than file-by-file. (Every occurrence still counts toward the score and metrics.)
TodoComment Flow.Launcher.Core/Plugin/PluginConfig.cs:27— // todo use linq when diable plugin is implmented since parallel.foreach + list is not thread saft — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment Flow.Launcher.Core/Plugin/PythonPlugin.cs:50— // TODO: Async Action — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment Flow.Launcher.Infrastructure/Exception/ExceptionFormatter.cs:17— //todo log /display line by line — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment Flow.Launcher.Infrastructure/Logger/Log.cs:115— // todo: not sure we really need that — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment Flow.Launcher.Infrastructure/Storage/JsonStorage.cs:199— // todo give user notification for the backup process — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment Flow.Launcher.Test/Plugins/ProgramPluginTest.cs:18— // TODO: Program.Main relies on static state (cache, locks, program lists, settings), — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment Flow.Launcher/HotkeyControl.xaml.cs:280— // TODO: This is a temporary way to enforce changing only the open flow hotkey to Win, and will be removed by PR #3157
TodoComment Flow.Launcher/HotkeyControlDialog.xaml.cs:53— // TODO: This is a temporary way to enforce changing only the open flow hotkey to Win, and will be removed by PR #3157
TodoComment Flow.Launcher/Resources/Controls/CustomScrollViewerEx.cs:11— // TODO: Use IsScrollAnimationEnabled property in future: https://github.com/iNKORE-NET/UI.WPF.Modern/pull/347
TodoComment Plugins/Flow.Launcher.Plugin.Explorer/Search/Everything/EverythingAPI.cs:155— // todo the types are wrong. Everything expects uint everywhere, but we send int just above/below. how to fix? Is EverythingApiDllImport autogenerated or handmade? — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment Plugins/Flow.Launcher.Plugin.Program/Programs/UWPPackage.cs:554— // TODO: Don't know why, just keep it at the moment — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment Plugins/Flow.Launcher.Plugin.Program/Programs/UWPPackage.cs:591— // todo select from file name like pt run — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment Plugins/Flow.Launcher.Plugin.Program/Programs/UWPPackage.cs:644— // var plated = PlatedImage(logo); // TODO: maybe get plated directly from app package? — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment Plugins/Flow.Launcher.Plugin.Program/Programs/UWPPackage.cs:646— // // todo magic! temp fix for cross thread object — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment Plugins/Flow.Launcher.Plugin.Program/Programs/UWPPackage.cs:722— // // todo use windows theme as background — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment Plugins/Flow.Launcher.Plugin.Shell/Main.cs:491— // todo: remove this code block after release v2.2.0 — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TooManyMethods: MainViewModel Flow.Launcher/ViewModel/MainViewModel.cs:0— TooManyMethods — 1134 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 81 methods. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
TooManyMethods: PublicAPIInstance Flow.Launcher/PublicAPIInstance.cs:0— TooManyMethods — 316 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 81 methods. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
TooManyMethods: MainWindow Flow.Launcher/MainWindow.xaml.cs:0— TooManyMethods — 787 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 58 methods. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
TooManyMethods: PluginManager Flow.Launcher.Core/Plugin/PluginManager.cs:0— TooManyMethods — 537 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 48 methods. The type holds no instance state, so there is no shared data to group its members by. To reduce it, split it by area instead: give each cohesive family of members its own smaller type, so no one type has to be read whole to change one of them.
TooManyMethods: Win32Helper Flow.Launcher.Infrastructure/Win32Helper.cs:0— TooManyMethods — 428 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 48 methods. The type holds no instance state, so there is no shared data to group its members by. To reduce it, split it by area instead: give each cohesive family of members its own smaller type, so no one type has to be read whole to change one of them.
TooManyMethods: Win32 Plugins/Flow.Launcher.Plugin.Program/Programs/Win32.cs:0— TooManyMethods — 417 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 33 methods. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
FileTooLong: ViewModel/MainViewModel.cs Flow.Launcher/ViewModel/MainViewModel.cs:0— FileTooLong — 1164 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). 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: Helper/ShellContextMenu.cs Plugins/Flow.Launcher.Plugin.Explorer/Helper/ShellContextMenu.cs:0— FileTooLong — 947 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). 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: Flow.Launcher/MainWindow.xaml.cs Flow.Launcher/MainWindow.xaml.cs:0— FileTooLong — 821 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). 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: DialogJump/DialogJump.cs Flow.Launcher.Infrastructure/DialogJump/DialogJump.cs:0— FileTooLong — 560 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). 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: Plugin/PluginManager.cs Flow.Launcher.Core/Plugin/PluginManager.cs:0— FileTooLong — 556 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). 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: Flow.Launcher.Plugin.PluginsManager/PluginsManager.cs Plugins/Flow.Launcher.Plugin.PluginsManager/PluginsManager.cs:0— FileTooLong — 513 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). 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: ShellContextMenu Plugins/Flow.Launcher.Plugin.Explorer/Helper/ShellContextMenu.cs:0— ClassTooLong — 649 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 21 methods. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
ClassTooLong: DialogJump Flow.Launcher.Infrastructure/DialogJump/DialogJump.cs:0— ClassTooLong — 543 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 25 methods. The type holds no instance state, so there is no shared data to group its members by. To reduce it, split it by area instead: give each cohesive family of members its own smaller type, so no one type has to be read whole to change one of them.
ClassTooLong: PluginsManager Plugins/Flow.Launcher.Plugin.PluginsManager/PluginsManager.cs:0— ClassTooLong — 503 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 14 methods. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
ClassTooLong: Theme Flow.Launcher.Core/Resource/Theme.cs:0— ClassTooLong — 457 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 28 methods. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
ClassTooLong: Settings Flow.Launcher.Infrastructure/UserSettings/Settings.cs:0— ClassTooLong — 406 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 5 methods. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
Low cohesion: CustomQueryHotkeySetting (LCOM4 5) Flow.Launcher/CustomQueryHotkeySetting.xaml.cs:8— CustomQueryHotkeySetting's methods form 5 groups that share no state and don't call each other — a sign it may have several responsibilities. Review whether it splits into focused classes.
Low cohesion: ResultListBox (LCOM4 5) Flow.Launcher/ResultListBox.xaml.cs:11— ResultListBox's methods form 5 groups that share no state and don't call each other — a sign it may have several responsibilities. Review whether it splits into focused classes.
Low cohesion: CustomShortcutSetting (LCOM4 4) Flow.Launcher/CustomShortcutSetting.xaml.cs:7— CustomShortcutSetting's methods form 4 groups that share no state and don't call each other — a sign it may have several responsibilities. Review whether it splits into focused classes.
Low cohesion: ProgramSetting (LCOM4 4) Plugins/Flow.Launcher.Plugin.Program/Views/ProgramSetting.xaml.cs:19— ProgramSetting's methods form 4 groups that share no state and don't call each other — a sign it may have several responsibilities. Review whether it splits into focused classes.
Low cohesion: SettingsControl (LCOM4 4) Plugins/Flow.Launcher.Plugin.WebSearch/SettingsControl.xaml.cs:14— SettingsControl's methods form 4 groups that share no state and don't call each other — a sign it may have several responsibilities. Review whether it splits into focused classes.
Hotspot: Flow.Launcher/MainWindow.xaml.cs Flow.Launcher/MainWindow.xaml.cs— Flow.Launcher/MainWindow.xaml.cs changed 15 times in last 90 days, max complexity 41. 1 of those changes was a fix/bug commit, so the churn is repair rather than feature work. Before the next change lands here, cover the area it touches with tests, then split that area out of the file so the following change is smaller than this one — a file this often edited pays the complexity back every time.
Hotspot: Plugins/Flow.Launcher.Plugin.Shell/Main.cs Plugins/Flow.Launcher.Plugin.Shell/Main.cs— Plugins/Flow.Launcher.Plugin.Shell/Main.cs changed 9 times in last 90 days, max complexity 15. 1 of those changes was a fix/bug commit, so the churn is repair rather than feature work. Before the next change lands here, cover the area it touches with tests, then split that area out of the file so the following change is smaller than this one — a file this often edited pays the complexity back every time.
Hotspot: Flow.Launcher.Core/Resource/Theme.cs Flow.Launcher.Core/Resource/Theme.cs— Flow.Launcher.Core/Resource/Theme.cs changed 7 times in last 90 days, max complexity 17. Frequent change and high complexity in one file compound: schedule the next change to it to include carving out the part being edited, behind tests written first.
Hotspot: Plugins/Flow.Launcher.Plugin.Program/Programs/Win32.cs Plugins/Flow.Launcher.Plugin.Program/Programs/Win32.cs— Plugins/Flow.Launcher.Plugin.Program/Programs/Win32.cs changed 3 times in last 90 days, max complexity 17. Frequent change and high complexity in one file compound: schedule the next change to it to include carving out the part being edited, behind tests written first.
BarePragmaDisable Flow.Launcher.Core/Plugin/PluginsLoader.cs:6— #pragma warning disable IDE0005 — the disable has no matching restore, so it does not end with the construct that needed it: it runs to the end of the file and silences the rule for everything written below, including code added years later. Close it with the matching restore directive immediately after the construct it covers, or fix the cause and drop the directive entirely.
BarePragmaDisable Flow.Launcher.Plugin/SharedCommands/FilesFolders.cs:7— #pragma warning disable IDE0005 — the disable has no matching restore, so it does not end with the construct that needed it: it runs to the end of the file and silences the rule for everything written below, including code added years later. Close it with the matching restore directive immediately after the construct it covers, or fix the cause and drop the directive entirely.
BarePragmaDisable Plugins/Flow.Launcher.Plugin.WebSearch/SearchSourceViewModel.cs:4— #pragma warning disable IDE0005 — the disable has no matching restore, so it does not end with the construct that needed it: it runs to the end of the file and silences the rule for everything written below, including code added years later. Close it with the matching restore directive immediately after the construct it covers, or fix the cause and drop the directive entirely.
Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) Flow.Launcher.Plugin/SharedModels/MonitorInfo.cs:77— Flow.Launcher.Plugin/SharedModels/MonitorInfo.cs:77-89 | Flow.Launcher.Plugin/SharedModels/MonitorInfo.cs:108-120 — 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) Plugins/Flow.Launcher.Plugin.Program/Views/ProgramSetting.xaml.cs:450— Plugins/Flow.Launcher.Plugin.Program/Views/ProgramSetting.xaml.cs:450-462 | Plugins/Flow.Launcher.Plugin.Sys/SysSettings.xaml.cs:21-33 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice. 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 (13 lines × 2) Plugins/Flow.Launcher.Plugin.WebSearch/SearchSourceSetting.xaml.cs:171— Plugins/Flow.Launcher.Plugin.WebSearch/SearchSourceSetting.xaml.cs:171-183 | Plugins/Flow.Launcher.Plugin.Explorer/Views/ActionKeywordSetting.xaml.cs:102-114 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Plugins/Flow.Launcher.Plugin.WebSearch/SearchSourceSetting.xaml.cs:171` 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.
Change coupling clique: WelcomePage1.xaml.cs, WelcomePage2.xaml.cs, WelcomePage3.xaml.cs, WelcomePage4.xaml.cs, WelcomePage5.xaml.cs Flow.Launcher/Resources/Pages/WelcomePage1.xaml.cs— 5 files — `Flow.Launcher/Resources/Pages/WelcomePage1.xaml.cs`, `Flow.Launcher/Resources/Pages/WelcomePage2.xaml.cs`, `Flow.Launcher/Resources/Pages/WelcomePage3.xaml.cs`, `Flow.Launcher/Resources/Pages/WelcomePage4.xaml.cs`, `Flow.Launcher/Resources/Pages/WelcomePage5.xaml.cs` — all change together with no explicit dependency: a fully-connected co-change clique, not 10 separate couplings. They share one concern (thin parallel siblings over a common abstraction), so extract the shared part into ONE unit and the whole clique's coupling clears at once — you do not need to break each pair individually.
Change coupling clique: SettingsPaneAbout.xaml.cs, SettingsPaneGeneral.xaml.cs, SettingsPaneHotkey.xaml.cs, SettingsPanePluginStore.xaml.cs, SettingsPanePlugins.xaml.cs, SettingsPaneTheme.xaml.cs Flow.Launcher/SettingPages/Views/SettingsPaneAbout.xaml.cs— 6 files — `Flow.Launcher/SettingPages/Views/SettingsPaneAbout.xaml.cs`, `Flow.Launcher/SettingPages/Views/SettingsPaneGeneral.xaml.cs`, `Flow.Launcher/SettingPages/Views/SettingsPaneHotkey.xaml.cs`, `Flow.Launcher/SettingPages/Views/SettingsPanePluginStore.xaml.cs`, `Flow.Launcher/SettingPages/Views/SettingsPanePlugins.xaml.cs`, `Flow.Launcher/SettingPages/Views/SettingsPaneTheme.xaml.cs` — all change together with no explicit dependency: a fully-connected co-change clique, not 15 separate couplings. They share one concern (thin parallel siblings over a common abstraction), so extract the shared part into ONE unit and the whole clique's coupling clears at once — you do not need to break each pair individually.
Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) Flow.Launcher.Core/ExternalPlugins/Environments/TypeScriptEnvironment.cs:37— Flow.Launcher.Core/ExternalPlugins/Environments/TypeScriptEnvironment.cs:37-51 | Flow.Launcher.Core/ExternalPlugins/Environments/TypeScriptV2Environment.cs:37-51 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory: extract the block into a single shared function in that directory and call it from each site, so a change lands once. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Flow.Launcher.Core/ExternalPlugins/Environments/TypeScriptEnvironment.cs:37` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) Flow.Launcher.Core/Plugin/PluginManager.cs:862— Flow.Launcher.Core/Plugin/PluginManager.cs:862-876 | Plugins/Flow.Launcher.Plugin.PluginsManager/Utilities.cs:45-59 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Flow.Launcher.Core/Plugin/PluginManager.cs:862` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) Flow.Launcher.Plugin/SharedCommands/ShellCommand.cs:69— Flow.Launcher.Plugin/SharedCommands/ShellCommand.cs:69-79 | Plugins/Flow.Launcher.Plugin.ProcessKiller/ProcessHelper.cs:124-134 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) Flow.Launcher.Core/Plugin/PluginInstaller.cs:432— Flow.Launcher.Core/Plugin/PluginInstaller.cs:432-442 | Plugins/Flow.Launcher.Plugin.PluginsManager/PluginsManager.cs:658-668 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice. 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 (10 lines × 2) Flow.Launcher.Core/Resource/Theme.cs:475— Flow.Launcher.Core/Resource/Theme.cs:475-484 | Flow.Launcher.Core/Resource/Theme.cs:545-554 — 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 `Flow.Launcher.Core/Resource/Theme.cs:475` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) Plugins/Flow.Launcher.Plugin.WebSearch/SuggestionSources/DuckDuckGo.cs:28— Plugins/Flow.Launcher.Plugin.WebSearch/SuggestionSources/DuckDuckGo.cs:28-37 | Plugins/Flow.Launcher.Plugin.WebSearch/SuggestionSources/Google.cs:21-30 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory: extract the block into a single shared function in that directory and call it from each site, so a change lands once. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Plugins/Flow.Launcher.Plugin.WebSearch/SuggestionSources/DuckDuckGo.cs:28` 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 (9 lines × 2) Flow.Launcher/SelectBrowserWindow.xaml.cs:34— Flow.Launcher/SelectBrowserWindow.xaml.cs:34-42 | Flow.Launcher/SelectFileManagerWindow.xaml.cs:35-43 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory: extract the block into a single shared function in that directory and call it from each site, so a change lands once. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Flow.Launcher/SelectBrowserWindow.xaml.cs:34` 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 (9 lines × 2) Plugins/Flow.Launcher.Plugin.Explorer/Search/ResultManager.cs:425— Plugins/Flow.Launcher.Plugin.Explorer/Search/ResultManager.cs:425-433 | Plugins/Flow.Launcher.Plugin.Explorer/Search/ResultManager.cs:441-449 — 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 `Plugins/Flow.Launcher.Plugin.Explorer/Search/ResultManager.cs:425` 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.
MainWindow.OnLoaded (cyclomatic 41) Flow.Launcher/MainWindow.xaml.cs:125— MainWindow.OnLoaded has cyclomatic complexity 41 (threshold 15). Most of this is not in the body itself: 11 of the 41 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to 3 function literals inside it that branch (lines 286, 229, 223). 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.
StringMatcher.FuzzyMatch (cyclomatic 35) Flow.Launcher.Infrastructure/StringMatcher.cs:59— StringMatcher.FuzzyMatch has cyclomatic complexity 35 (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.
MainViewModel.QueryResultsAsync (cyclomatic 34) Flow.Launcher/ViewModel/MainViewModel.cs:1407— MainViewModel.QueryResultsAsync has cyclomatic complexity 34 (threshold 15). Of this number, 28 points are the body's own statements and 6 belong to 3 function literals inside it that branch. To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
ContextMenu.LoadContextMenus (cyclomatic 33) Plugins/Flow.Launcher.Plugin.Explorer/ContextMenu.cs:30— ContextMenu.LoadContextMenus has cyclomatic complexity 33 (threshold 15). Of this number, 22 points are the body's own statements and 11 belong to 7 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.
JsonRPCPluginSettings.CreateSettingPanel (cyclomatic 29) Flow.Launcher.Core/Plugin/JsonRPCPluginSettings.cs:156— JsonRPCPluginSettings.CreateSettingPanel has cyclomatic complexity 29 (threshold 15). Of this number, 23 points are the body's own statements and 6 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.
PluginsManager.RequestUpdateAsync (cyclomatic 25) Plugins/Flow.Launcher.Plugin.PluginsManager/PluginsManager.cs:243— PluginsManager.RequestUpdateAsync has cyclomatic complexity 25 (threshold 15). Most of this is not in the body itself: 8 of the 25 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to 4 function literals inside it that branch (lines 349, 440, 313, …). 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.
DialogJump.SetupDialogJump (cyclomatic 24) Flow.Launcher.Infrastructure/DialogJump/DialogJump.cs:149— DialogJump.SetupDialogJump has cyclomatic complexity 24 (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.
DialogJump.ForegroundChangeCallback (cyclomatic 23) Flow.Launcher.Infrastructure/DialogJump/DialogJump.cs:488— DialogJump.ForegroundChangeCallback has cyclomatic complexity 23 (threshold 15). Of this number, 22 points are the body's own statements and 1 belongs to one function literal inside it that branches. To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
FilesFolders.TryDeleteDirectoryRobust (cyclomatic 21) Flow.Launcher.Plugin/SharedCommands/FilesFolders.cs:144— FilesFolders.TryDeleteDirectoryRobust 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.
SearchManager.SearchAsync (cyclomatic 21) Plugins/Flow.Launcher.Plugin.Explorer/Search/SearchManager.cs:79— SearchManager.SearchAsync 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.
Main.CreateResultsFromQuery (cyclomatic 21) Plugins/Flow.Launcher.Plugin.ProcessKiller/Main.cs:72— Main.CreateResultsFromQuery has cyclomatic complexity 21 (threshold 15). Of this number, 20 points are the body's own statements and 1 belongs to one function literal inside it that branches. To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
MainWindow.UpdateClockPanelVisibility (cyclomatic 18) Flow.Launcher/MainWindow.xaml.cs:1257— MainWindow.UpdateClockPanelVisibility 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.
PluginManager.InstallPlugin (cyclomatic 18) Flow.Launcher.Core/Plugin/PluginManager.cs:932— PluginManager.InstallPlugin has cyclomatic complexity 18 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
MainWindow.OnKeyDown (cyclomatic 17) Flow.Launcher/MainWindow.xaml.cs:439— MainWindow.OnKeyDown has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
ExceptionFormatter.GetFrameworkVersionFromRegistry (cyclomatic 17) Flow.Launcher.Infrastructure/Exception/ExceptionFormatter.cs:108— ExceptionFormatter.GetFrameworkVersionFromRegistry has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
PluginManager.UninstallPluginAsync (cyclomatic 17) Flow.Launcher.Core/Plugin/PluginManager.cs:1057— PluginManager.UninstallPluginAsync has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
Theme.ColorizeWindow (cyclomatic 17) Flow.Launcher.Core/Resource/Theme.cs:845— Theme.ColorizeWindow has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
Win32.Result (cyclomatic 17) Plugins/Flow.Launcher.Plugin.Program/Programs/Win32.cs:99— Win32.Result has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15). Of this number, 15 points are the body's own statements and 2 belong to one function literal inside it that branches. To reduce it, 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.
QuerySuggestionBoxConverter.Convert (cyclomatic 16) Flow.Launcher/Converters/QuerySuggestionBoxConverter.cs:15— QuerySuggestionBoxConverter.Convert has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
MainWindow.WndProc (cyclomatic 16) Flow.Launcher/MainWindow.xaml.cs:597— MainWindow.WndProc has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
EverythingApi.SearchAsync (cyclomatic 16) Plugins/Flow.Launcher.Plugin.Explorer/Search/Everything/EverythingAPI.cs:78— EverythingApi.SearchAsync has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
D11 · Test Reliability· Test reliability not measured · ×1
Test reliability not measured — no test run produced results — Test reliability NOT MEASURED: the test run produced no results for any test tier, so no test ever ran and flakiness could not be exercised. The cause could not be attributed, so it is excluded from the score rather than read as an absence of tests.
D17 · Explicit Debt· BareSuppressMessage repeated 13 times in 8 files · ×1
BareSuppressMessage repeated 13 times in 8 files Flow.Launcher.Infrastructure/DialogJump/DialogJump.cs:488— The identical BareSuppressMessage (`System.Diagnostics.CodeAnalysis.SuppressMessage`) appears 13 times in 8 files — one decision applied repeatedly (e.g. the same rule silenced on every overload of a fluent API), not 13 independent debts. Decide it once — at the type or project level, or by fixing the underlying pattern — rather than occurrence-by-occurrence. (Every occurrence still counts toward the score and metrics.)
Build failed — The target solution did not build cleanly (errors: 82), which caps Solution Shape at 3/10 — the most basic shape signal is that it compiles. First errors: CS0103: The name 'Localize' does not exist in the current context.
ContextMenu.LoadContextMenus (cognitive 65) Plugins/Flow.Launcher.Plugin.Explorer/ContextMenu.cs:30— ContextMenu.LoadContextMenus has cognitive complexity 65 (threshold 15). Of this number, 40 points are the body's own statements and 25 belong to 7 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.
StringMatcher.FuzzyMatch (cognitive 56) Flow.Launcher.Infrastructure/StringMatcher.cs:59— StringMatcher.FuzzyMatch has cognitive complexity 56 (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.
Main.CreateResultsFromQuery (cognitive 53) Plugins/Flow.Launcher.Plugin.ProcessKiller/Main.cs:72— Main.CreateResultsFromQuery has cognitive complexity 53 (threshold 15). Of this number, 51 points are the body's own statements and 2 belong to one function literal inside it that branches. To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
DialogJump.ForegroundChangeCallback (cognitive 42) Flow.Launcher.Infrastructure/DialogJump/DialogJump.cs:488— DialogJump.ForegroundChangeCallback 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.
MainViewModel.QueryResultsAsync (cognitive 41) Flow.Launcher/ViewModel/MainViewModel.cs:1407— MainViewModel.QueryResultsAsync has cognitive complexity 41 (threshold 15). Of this number, 39 points are the body's own statements and 2 belong to 3 function literals inside it that branch. To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — so group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function. Some of it IS depth: where a check sits inside another whose only job is to reach it, merge the two into one condition, and where an else follows a branch that already returns, drop the trailing else and let the rest of the body continue at one level.
PluginsManager.RequestUpdateAsync (cognitive 40) Plugins/Flow.Launcher.Plugin.PluginsManager/PluginsManager.cs:243— PluginsManager.RequestUpdateAsync has cognitive complexity 40 (threshold 15). Most of this is not in the body itself: 8 of the 40 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to 4 function literals inside it that branch (lines 349, 440, 313, …). 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.
MainWindow.OnLoaded (cognitive 38) Flow.Launcher/MainWindow.xaml.cs:125— MainWindow.OnLoaded has cognitive complexity 38 (threshold 15). Most of this is not in the body itself: 13 of the 38 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to 3 function literals inside it that branch (lines 229, 286, 223). 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.
FilesFolders.TryDeleteDirectoryRobust (cognitive 38) Flow.Launcher.Plugin/SharedCommands/FilesFolders.cs:144— FilesFolders.TryDeleteDirectoryRobust has cognitive complexity 38 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
DialogJump.SetupDialogJump (cognitive 38) Flow.Launcher.Infrastructure/DialogJump/DialogJump.cs:149— DialogJump.SetupDialogJump has cognitive complexity 38 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
ExceptionFormatter.GetFrameworkVersionFromRegistry (cognitive 37) Flow.Launcher.Infrastructure/Exception/ExceptionFormatter.cs:108— ExceptionFormatter.GetFrameworkVersionFromRegistry has cognitive complexity 37 (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.
JsonRPCPluginSettings.CreateSettingPanel (cognitive 30) Flow.Launcher.Core/Plugin/JsonRPCPluginSettings.cs:156— JsonRPCPluginSettings.CreateSettingPanel has cognitive complexity 30 (threshold 15). Of this number, 27 points are the body's own statements and 3 belong to one function literal inside it that branches. To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
MainWindow.WndProc (cognitive 29) Flow.Launcher/MainWindow.xaml.cs:597— MainWindow.WndProc has cognitive complexity 29 (threshold 15). The drivers above price the dispatch low by construction — a dispatch is charged once however many cases it lists, while each branch inside an arm is charged in full — so most of this count is what the case bodies hold, and the arms are where it can be reduced. To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.
MainViewModel.UpdateResultView (cognitive 26) Flow.Launcher/ViewModel/MainViewModel.cs:2291— MainViewModel.UpdateResultView has cognitive complexity 26 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Win32.Result (cognitive 26) Plugins/Flow.Launcher.Plugin.Program/Programs/Win32.cs:99— Win32.Result has cognitive complexity 26 (threshold 15). Of this number, 24 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.
MainViewModel.SetupDialogJumpAsync (cognitive 25) Flow.Launcher/ViewModel/MainViewModel.cs:1957— MainViewModel.SetupDialogJumpAsync has cognitive complexity 25 (threshold 15). Of this number, 17 points are the body's own statements and 8 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.
PluginManager.UninstallPluginAsync (cognitive 25) Flow.Launcher.Core/Plugin/PluginManager.cs:1057— PluginManager.UninstallPluginAsync has cognitive complexity 25 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
Main.NormalizeNumber (cognitive 25) Plugins/Flow.Launcher.Plugin.Calculator/Main.cs:256— Main.NormalizeNumber 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.
AbstractPluginEnvironment.Setup (cognitive 24) Flow.Launcher.Core/ExternalPlugins/Environments/AbstractPluginEnvironment.cs:49— AbstractPluginEnvironment.Setup 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.
DialogJump.InvokeShowDialogJumpWindowAsync (cognitive 23) Flow.Launcher.Infrastructure/DialogJump/DialogJump.cs:365— DialogJump.InvokeShowDialogJumpWindowAsync 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.
PublicAPIInstance.CopyToClipboard (cognitive 21) Flow.Launcher/PublicAPIInstance.cs:183— PublicAPIInstance.CopyToClipboard 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.
HistoryItem.DateTimeAgo (cognitive 21) Flow.Launcher/Storage/HistoryItem.cs:16— HistoryItem.DateTimeAgo has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
Theme.ColorizeWindow (cognitive 21) Flow.Launcher.Core/Resource/Theme.cs:845— Theme.ColorizeWindow has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — so group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function. Some of it IS depth: where a check sits inside another whose only job is to reach it, merge the two into one condition, and where an else follows a branch that already returns, drop the trailing else and let the rest of the body continue at one level.
UWPApp.LogoPathFromUri (cognitive 21) Plugins/Flow.Launcher.Plugin.Program/Programs/UWPPackage.cs:530— UWPApp.LogoPathFromUri 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.
Main.Commands (cognitive 21) Plugins/Flow.Launcher.Plugin.Sys/Main.cs:196— Main.Commands has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15). Most of this is not in the body itself: 0 of the 21 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to 6 function literals inside it that branch (lines 207, 232, 257, …). 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.
EverythingApi.SearchAsync (cognitive 21) Plugins/Flow.Launcher.Plugin.Explorer/Search/Everything/EverythingAPI.cs:78— EverythingApi.SearchAsync has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
PublicAPIInstance.OpenUri (cognitive 20) Flow.Launcher/PublicAPIInstance.cs:441— PublicAPIInstance.OpenUri has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
PluginsManager.InstallOrUpdateAsync (cognitive 20) Plugins/Flow.Launcher.Plugin.PluginsManager/PluginsManager.cs:90— PluginsManager.InstallOrUpdateAsync has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Of this number, 19 points are the body's own statements and 1 belongs to one function literal inside it that branches. To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — so group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function. Some of it IS depth: where a check sits inside another whose only job is to reach it, merge the two into one condition, and where an else follows a branch that already returns, drop the trailing else and let the rest of the body continue at one level.
TranslationHelper.TranslateAllSettings (cognitive 20) Plugins/Flow.Launcher.Plugin.WindowsSettings/Helper/TranslationHelper.cs:17— TranslationHelper.TranslateAllSettings 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.
CustomScrollViewerEx.OnMouseWheel (cognitive 19) Flow.Launcher/Resources/Controls/CustomScrollViewerEx.cs:86— CustomScrollViewerEx.OnMouseWheel has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
DialogJump.GetDialogWindow (cognitive 19) Flow.Launcher.Infrastructure/DialogJump/DialogJump.cs:899— DialogJump.GetDialogWindow has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
PinyinAlphabet.BuildCacheFromContent (cognitive 19) Flow.Launcher.Infrastructure/PinyinAlphabet.cs:118— PinyinAlphabet.BuildCacheFromContent 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.
SearchManager.SearchAsync (cognitive 19) Plugins/Flow.Launcher.Plugin.Explorer/Search/SearchManager.cs:79— SearchManager.SearchAsync has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
ResultHelper.GetResultList (cognitive 19) Plugins/Flow.Launcher.Plugin.WindowsSettings/Helper/ResultHelper.cs:40— ResultHelper.GetResultList 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.
Http.DownloadAsync (cognitive 18) Flow.Launcher.Infrastructure/Http/Http.cs:84— Http.DownloadAsync has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
JsonRPCPluginSettings.InitializeAsync (cognitive 18) Flow.Launcher.Core/Plugin/JsonRPCPluginSettings.cs:39— JsonRPCPluginSettings.InitializeAsync has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
PluginManager.InstallPlugin (cognitive 18) Flow.Launcher.Core/Plugin/PluginManager.cs:932— PluginManager.InstallPlugin has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: this score is breadth rather than depth — many checks laid out side by side rather than nested inside one another, so inverting conditions into early returns has nothing left to flatten. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
Main.Query (cognitive 18) Plugins/Flow.Launcher.Plugin.Calculator/Main.cs:49— Main.Query has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). Of this number, 16 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.
ResultManager.CreateFolderResult (cognitive 18) Plugins/Flow.Launcher.Plugin.Explorer/Search/ResultManager.cs:137— ResultManager.CreateFolderResult has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). Most of this is not in the body itself: 5 of the 18 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to one function literal inside it that branches (line 157). The decisions are inside the literal, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literal's work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have the literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest.
MainWindow.OnKeyDown (cognitive 17) Flow.Launcher/MainWindow.xaml.cs:439— MainWindow.OnKeyDown has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). The drivers above price the dispatch low by construction — a dispatch is charged once however many cases it lists, while each branch inside an arm is charged in full — so most of this count is what the case bodies hold, and the arms are where it can be reduced. To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.
CustomWindowTitleBar.UpdateElementsVisibility (cognitive 17) Flow.Launcher/Resources/Controls/CustomWindowTitleBar.xaml.cs:326— CustomWindowTitleBar.UpdateElementsVisibility has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
MainViewModel.Hide (cognitive 17) Flow.Launcher/ViewModel/MainViewModel.cs:2194— MainViewModel.Hide has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Of this number, 13 points are the body's own statements and 4 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.
PluginConfig.Parse (cognitive 17) Flow.Launcher.Core/Plugin/PluginConfig.cs:22— PluginConfig.Parse 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.
Updater.UpdateAppAsync (cognitive 17) Flow.Launcher.Core/Updater.cs:38— Updater.UpdateAppAsync has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
Main.Query (cognitive 17) Plugins/Flow.Launcher.Plugin.Shell/Main.cs:29— Main.Query has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Of this number, 15 points are the body's own statements and 2 belong to 2 function literals inside it that branch. To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
EverythingApi.EverythingHighlightStringToHighlightList (cognitive 17) Plugins/Flow.Launcher.Plugin.Explorer/Search/Everything/EverythingAPI.cs:218— EverythingApi.EverythingHighlightStringToHighlightList 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.
AbstractPluginEnvironment.PreStartPluginExecutablePathUpdate (cognitive 16) Flow.Launcher.Core/ExternalPlugins/Environments/AbstractPluginEnvironment.cs:182— AbstractPluginEnvironment.PreStartPluginExecutablePathUpdate has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
UWPApp.Result (cognitive 16) Plugins/Flow.Launcher.Plugin.Program/Programs/UWPPackage.cs:397— UWPApp.Result has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Of this number, 12 points are the body's own statements and 4 belong to one function literal inside it that branches. To reduce it, split the body: this score is breadth rather than depth — many checks laid out side by side rather than nested inside one another, so inverting conditions into early returns has nothing left to flatten. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
Main.QueryAsync (cognitive 16) Plugins/Flow.Launcher.Plugin.WebSearch/Main.cs:30— Main.QueryAsync has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Of this number, 14 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.
LLM evaluation failed — JSON parse error: Expected depth to be zero at the end of the JSON payload. There is an open JSON object or array that should be closed. Path: $.notable[5].suggestion | LineNumber: 0 | BytePositionInLine: 1004.
Unpinned build actions — CI references GitHub Actions by a floating ref (@main / @tag) rather than a pinned commit SHA, weakening build integrity. 41 floating ref(s) across 8 workflow file(s), 12 of them mutable BRANCH refs — pin those first. Each floating ref is itemized at file:line by the SAST (D29) lens.
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing· PR-triggered workflow without a permissions block · ×1
PR-triggered workflow without a permissions block — 2 workflow(s) triggered by pull_request declare no `permissions:` block (release_pr.yml, dotnet.yml) and so run with the repository's default GITHUB_TOKEN scope, while 3 sibling workflows in the same repository are already scoped. Pull-request runs build the least-trusted code in the repository; give each of these workflows its own least-privilege block — `permissions: {contents: read}` at the top of the workflow, widened per job only where a job genuinely writes.
Duplicated block (18 lines × 2) Plugins/Flow.Launcher.Plugin.Program/Views/ProgramSetting.xaml.cs:339— Plugins/Flow.Launcher.Plugin.Program/Views/ProgramSetting.xaml.cs:339-356 | Plugins/Flow.Launcher.Plugin.WebSearch/SettingsControl.xaml.cs:82-99 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice.
Duplicated block (13 lines × 4) Plugins/Flow.Launcher.Plugin.Explorer/Views/PreviewPanel.xaml.cs:132— Plugins/Flow.Launcher.Plugin.Explorer/Views/PreviewPanel.xaml.cs:132-144 | Plugins/Flow.Launcher.Plugin.Explorer/Views/PreviewPanel.xaml.cs:163-175 | Plugins/Flow.Launcher.Plugin.Explorer/Views/PreviewPanel.xaml.cs:250-262 | Plugins/Flow.Launcher.Plugin.Explorer/Views/PreviewPanel.xaml.cs:281-293 — all 4 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 `Plugins/Flow.Launcher.Plugin.Explorer/Views/PreviewPanel.xaml.cs:132` 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 (12 lines × 2) Flow.Launcher/Msg.xaml.cs:23— Flow.Launcher/Msg.xaml.cs:23-34 | Flow.Launcher/MsgWithButton.xaml.cs:23-34 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory: extract the block into a single shared function in that directory and call it from each site, so a change lands once.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) Plugins/Flow.Launcher.Plugin.BrowserBookmark/ChromiumBookmarkLoader.cs:169— Plugins/Flow.Launcher.Plugin.BrowserBookmark/ChromiumBookmarkLoader.cs:169-176 | Plugins/Flow.Launcher.Plugin.BrowserBookmark/FirefoxBookmarkLoader.cs:154-161 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory: extract the block into a single shared function in that directory and call it from each site, so a change lands once. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) Flow.Launcher.Plugin/Result.cs:93— Flow.Launcher.Plugin/Result.cs:93-99 | Flow.Launcher.Plugin/Result.cs:128-134 — 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 `Flow.Launcher.Plugin/Result.cs:93` 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 (5 lines × 2) Flow.Launcher.Core/Plugin/PluginInstaller.cs:47— Flow.Launcher.Core/Plugin/PluginInstaller.cs:47-51 | Plugins/Flow.Launcher.Plugin.PluginsManager/PluginsManager.cs:144-148 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice.
Coverage not measured — The test suite couldn't be built/run in-image and no coverage report is committed, so line coverage was not measured — and it is EXCLUDED from the score rather than scored on a LoC-ratio proxy. No coverage collector was found in your CI either, so there is no existing report to hand us: add a coverage collector to your test run and commit (or publish) its Cobertura/OpenCover/lcov output anywhere in the repo, or make the suite runnable in-image, and real coverage will be measured.
Off-boarding risk: anonymized user #1 — If anonymized user #1 becomes unavailable, 27 significant file(s) lose their only recent owner: Flow.Launcher.Core/Plugin/PluginManager.cs, Flow.Launcher.Infrastructure/DialogJump/DialogJump.cs, Flow.Launcher.Core/Plugin/JsonRPCPluginSettings.cs, Plugins/Flow.Launcher.Plugin.Program/Views/ProgramSetting.xaml.cs, Flow.Launcher/Storage/TopMostRecord.cs, Flow.Launcher.Core/ExternalPlugins/Environments/AbstractPluginEnvironment.cs, Flow.Launcher.Infrastructure/Http/Http.cs, Flow.Launcher/ViewModel/PluginViewModel.cs (+19 more). Pair on, review, or document these before any departure.
D16 · Bus Factor· Further sole-owners (lower concentration) · ×1
Further sole-owners (lower concentration) — 4 other contributor(s) are each the sole owner of a small amount of code below the off-boarding threshold — folded into the bus-factor score and metrics (32 single-owned of 165 analysed files in total, counted over production source files of roughly 100 lines or more, excluding tests, vendored, generated and example/demo trees, largest first). They are anonymized user #2 (2 file(s)), anonymized user #3 (1 file(s)), anonymized user #4 (1 file(s)), anonymized user #5 (1 file(s)) — spread or document their files in the same way, at lower priority than the named off-boarding risks above.
D19 · Documentation Quality· The Plugins Manager README is a stub ("Reference this package to develop a plugin for [Flow Launcher](https · ×1
The Plugins Manager README is a stub ("Reference this package to develop a plugin for [Flow Launcher](https://github.com/Flow-Launcher/Flow.Launcher).") with no content. Flow.Launcher.Plugin.PluginsManager/README.md— Add a short description of the plugins manager and link to the general plugin development guide.
No ADRs found — No ADRs found at common paths; consider documenting architectural decisions in Docs/ADL/ or similar.
D23 · Boundary Type-Coupling· Bounded contexts not declared · ×1
Bounded contexts not declared — At 44739 LoC spread over 17 projects the codebase is large and multi-module, so explicit bounded contexts are needed. Name this codebase's bounded contexts (≥2 module groups, e.g. per subsystem) so cross-boundary type coupling can be assessed. Declare them in `.codehealth/config.yaml` at the repository root (create it if absent), mapping each context name to the module-path or namespace prefixes that belong to it — e.g. `architecture:` → `contexts:` → `Billing: ["src/billing", "Acme.Billing"]`, `Catalog: ["src/catalog", "Acme.Catalog"]`.
D26 · Project Cohesion· Projects may be oversized for their cohesion · ×1
Projects may be oversized for their cohesion — 1 of 17 project(s) overshoot their size bounds, lowering Project Cohesion to 9.2/10. The most over is `Flow.Launcher.Plugin.Explorer` (6062 LoC, 56 public types across 13 namespaces). Review these for cohesion — split a project that spans unrelated responsibilities.
D28 · Secrets (history)· Rotate the exposed credentials · ×1
Rotate the exposed credentials — git history can't be un-committed — Some of these secrets are in git HISTORY: deleting the file does not remove them (the commit persists on every clone, fork and backup). The remediation is to ROTATE each historically-exposed credential and treat it as compromised — not to delete the file. Rewriting history is disruptive and unreliable across existing forks. (Working-tree-only secrets — no commit — can instead be removed from the file and moved to a secret store.)
D34 · Knowledge Freshness· Further orphaned files (smaller) · ×1
Further orphaned files (smaller) — 2 of 166 analysed file(s) have no living knowledge left — their last meaningful change has decayed away, so if one breaks, no one currently understands it (counted over production source files of roughly 100 lines or more, excluding tests, vendored, generated and example/demo trees, largest first). None is large enough to earn a read-through of its own, so this row stands in for the per-file rows rather than raising one each — largest first: Flow.Launcher.Infrastructure/Hotkey/RegisteredHotkeyData.cs, Flow.Launcher.Core/ExternalPlugins/CommunityPluginStore.cs. Attach the read to the next change that touches one of them: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for, so the knowledge comes back at the cost of a change you were making anyway.
No build provenance — No SLSA provenance generation or build attestation found in CI — nothing binds a released artifact to the build that produced it, so a consumer cannot tell your artifact from a substituted one. On GitHub Actions, `actions/attest-build-provenance` (or slsa-github-generator) emits one from the job's own OIDC identity; elsewhere, run `cosign attest` over the released artifact from the release pipeline and publish the attestation beside it.
No artifact signing — No artifact signing found in CI — sign your released artifacts with whatever your ecosystem ships (a GPG/minisign detached signature — or `cosign sign-blob` — over the release archives, or over a checksum file published alongside them, Authenticode via signtool, or `dotnet nuget sign` for packages) so consumers can verify what you built.
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing· No SBOM · ×1
No SBOM — No SBOM generation or committed SBOM found — produce one with what your ecosystem ships (`sbom-tool generate` (install it with `dotnet tool install --global Microsoft.Sbom.DotNetTool`) or `dotnet CycloneDX` over the solution, `syft` (or `anchore/sbom-action` in CI) over the source tree or released image). Publish it as a release asset (`*.spdx.json` / `*.cdx.json`) so consumers can see what they are installing.
D22 · Internal API Consistency· No exposed public API · ×1
No exposed public API — No intentionally-exposed types (IsPackable or .Contracts) to evaluate.
Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail
Every external tool invocation behind a deep-scan dimension — the tool, its captured version, the exact command, how many findings it yielded, and a link to the retained raw output. To reproduce any finding: check out the same commit and run the command shown (repo-relative — never an absolute scratch path). The complete raw scanner output is retained verbatim under artifacts/raw/ (indexed in artifacts/raw/index.json); per-invocation exit codes and wall-clock durations are in sidecar.json — kept out of this table so the rendered report stays byte-identical across runs of the same commit.
dotnet: not applicable — the solution did not restore on the analyzer's .NET SDK (an SDK/target-framework/restore mismatch, common for an older codebase), so there was no restored dependency graph to scan for NuGet CVEs — excluded rather than scored; re-run on an SDK that can restore this solution
trivy: not applicable — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation); nothing to scan.
trivy: not applicable — No JS/npm manifest or lockfile found outside build output (package.json, package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); no JS dependencies to scan.
disclosure: not applicable — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.
runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.
runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.
runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.
0
—
Run 019fd17c-7a4d-785e-91a0-0d5c661c4d8a · every finding is also locatable in findings.md, and the complete scoring record (with exit codes + durations) in sidecar.json.
Appendix C — Personal-data map
Every field, property and record parameter whose name is conventional personal data — 3 field(s) across 1 category, each with an exact repo-relative file:line. This is the data inventory a compliance review starts from — right-to-erasure, retention, minimisation. Detected by name with a deliberately specific classifier (the same one the GDPR dimensions use, so CardDefinition or FileName don't trip); informational — it feeds no score.
Issues: 105 · Warnings: 145 · Recommendations: 12 · Info: 45 — Appendix A · all findings · full markdown report.
Generated by Watchdog — deterministic code-health analysis. 05-08-2026 @ 10:33 UTC.
Downloadable artifacts
Machine-readable and reproducible from this commit + frozen rubric — drop them straight into a contract appendix, a CRA dossier, or a downstream SCA / VEX tool.