GaloyMoney/es-entity

Executive summary

GaloyMoney/es-entity scores 55 out of 100 and is rated Adequate, while seven of its eight lenses score higher still: Architecture, Domain Modelling and Event Sourcing at 100, Performance at 91 and Code Health at 90, all rated Exemplary, and Production Readiness at 67 and Maturity at 62, both rated Adequate. The project hasn't declared a stable release yet, so its lenses are rated against a lower bar than a released product's, while the score itself is worked out as for any repository.

The score is lower than those seven because the weakest lens counts most, and here that is Security and Compliance, which scores 35 and is rated Weak. Its Supply-chain Provenance & Signing dimension scores 0 out of 10, and until that reaches 4, Security and Compliance can't be rated higher than Adequate. The first actions are to encrypt sensitive data at rest (encrypt the fields with aes-gcm or chacha20poly1305 before they are written, or open the store encrypted — SQLCipher for rusqlite/sqlx, MongoDB CSFLE) and manage keys in a vault (AWS KMS / Secrets Manager through aws-sdk-kms, GCP KMS / Secret Manager, Azure Key Vault, HashiCorp Vault through vaultrs) and to resolve the 2 Leaked secret finding(s) in Secret Scanning, and if Security and Compliance rose to 70, the score would rise from 55 to about 70.

22 findings are critical: 20 in Static Analysis (SAST) and two in Secret Scanning.

Watchdog couldn't measure 18 dimensions in this code, among them Code Coverage, Test Reliability and Navigability, so they are left out of the score. The product code is 38,071 lines, which would take an estimated 0.4 person-years, around €64,000, to rebuild.

Code Health 90 ★ Exemplary Architecture 100 ★ Exemplary Maturity 62 Adequate, capped by Architecture documentation Production Readiness 67 Adequate, capped by Secret Scanning Security and Compliance 35 Weak, capped by Supply-chain Provenance & Signing and Data Protection Domain Modelling 100 ★ Exemplary Event Sourcing 100 ★ Exemplary Performance 91 ★ Exemplary

A lens is capped at Adequate while one of its dimensions scores below 4 out of 10, however well the rest of the lens does. That way a serious problem in one place always shows in the lens's rating.

How the score is built: what each lens counts for The lenses don't count equally. The weakest lens counts most, the next weakest a little less, and so on, so a weak area pulls the score down instead of being averaged away. In the bar below, each part's width shows how much that lens counts and its colour shows its rating. Improving the widest part moves the score most, and as that lens improves, it counts for less, because another lens becomes the weakest.

Security and Compliance 35 · counts for 45%Maturity 62 · counts for 25%Production Readiness 67 · counts for 14%Code Health 90 · counts for 8%Performance 91 · counts for 4%Architecture 100 · counts for 2%Domain Modelling 100 · counts for 1%Event Sourcing 100 · counts for 1%

If Security and Compliance rose from 35 to 70, the lowest score rated Strong, the score would rise from 55 to about 70.

Code composition: what the lines of code are

Product code 60%Tests 40%

New since the last survey: 28 findings

These 28 critical or serious findings weren't in the previous survey, on 7 October 2026.

Cyclomatic Complexity · CreateFn::to_tokens (cyclomatic 21) es-entity-macros/src/repo/create_fn.rs
Cyclomatic Complexity · ErrorTypes::generate (cyclomatic 18) es-entity-macros/src/repo/error_types.rs
Cyclomatic Complexity · RepositoryOptions::ensure_keys (cyclomatic 16) es-entity-macros/src/repo/options/mod.rs
Cognitive Complexity · CreateFn::to_tokens (cognitive 33) es-entity-macros/src/repo/create_fn.rs
Cognitive Complexity · RepositoryOptions::ensure_keys (cognitive 20) es-entity-macros/src/repo/options/mod.rs
Cognitive Complexity · Import::parse (cognitive 19) errlanes-derive/src/composition/imports.rs
Cognitive Complexity · CreateAllFn::to_tokens (cognitive 19) es-entity-macros/src/repo/create_all_fn.rs
Cognitive Complexity · errlanes::reqwest::lane_table (cognitive 17) errlanes/src/reqwest.rs
God Classes · FileTooLong: src/lift.rs errlanes-derive/src/lift.rs
God Classes · ClassTooLong: CreateFn es-entity-macros/src/repo/create_fn.rs
God Classes · FileTooLong: repo/create_fn.rs es-entity-macros/src/repo/create_fn.rs
God Classes · ClassTooLong: Columns es-entity-macros/src/repo/options/columns.rs
Code Duplication · Members sharing a duplicated core (10 members, 50+ identical tokens) es-entity-macros/src/repo/create_all_fn.rs
Code Duplication · Duplicated block (23 lines × 2) es-entity-macros/src/repo/update_all_fn.rs
Code Duplication · Duplicated block (20 lines × 2) es-entity-macros/src/repo/create_all_fn.rs
Code Duplication · Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) errlanes/src/dynamic.rs
Secret Scanning · REDACTED
Secret Scanning · REDACTED
Churn × Complexity Hotspots · Hotspot: es-entity-macros/src/repo/create_fn.rs es-entity-macros/src/repo/create_fn.rs
Churn × Complexity Hotspots · Hotspot: es-entity-macros/src/repo/error_types.rs es-entity-macros/src/repo/error_types.rs
Churn × Complexity Hotspots · Hotspot: es-entity-macros/src/repo/options/mod.rs es-entity-macros/src/repo/options/mod.rs
Churn × Complexity Hotspots · Hotspot: errlanes-derive/src/composition.rs errlanes-derive/src/composition.rs
Churn × Complexity Hotspots · Hotspot: errlanes-derive/src/composition/imports.rs errlanes-derive/src/composition/imports.rs
Dependency Vulnerabilities · REDACTED
Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED
Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED
Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED
Data Protection · No data-protection/encryption migrations/20260929000001_v2_constraint_shapes.sql

Watchdog compares every finding with the previous survey's. A finding that has only moved to another line in the same file counts as the same finding, so only new findings appear here. Advisory notes from the AI model are left out, because the model words them afresh in every survey.

Fixed since the last survey: 8 findings

These 8 critical or serious findings were in the previous survey, on 7 October 2026, and are gone from this one.

Code Duplication · Members sharing a duplicated core (10 members, 50+ identical tokens) es-entity-macros/src/repo/create_all_fn.rs
Code Duplication · Duplicated block (22 lines × 2) es-entity-macros/src/repo/update_all_fn.rs
Code Duplication · Duplicated block (21 lines × 2) es-entity-macros/src/repo/create_all_fn.rs
Code Duplication · Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) errlanes/src/record.rs
Code Duplication · Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) errlanes/src/dynamic.rs
Dependency Vulnerabilities · Medium vulnerability: [GHSA redacted] REDACTED
Change Coupling · Change coupling: list_for_filters_fn.rs ↔ list_for_fn.rs es-entity-macros/src/repo/list_for_filters_fn.rs
Supply-chain Provenance & Signing REDACTED

Rebuild cost: about €64,000 · Estimate

Cost to rebuild	€21,000 to €110,000, for 352 to 1,116 hours of work, about 0.4 person-years for one engineer
Difficulty of the problem	Standard, judged from the kind of software and how it is built. Code that solves a harder problem, such as payments or medical bookings, costs more per line to write.
Quality factor	×0.8 at a score of 55. Better code takes more work to write, so the factor is ×1.0 at a score of 70, lower below it and higher above it.
Size	Medium: 38,071 lines of product code

How the estimate is made: Watchdog prices the hours a team would need to write this code again, at €60 to €95 an hour. Declarations and boilerplate are priced at a fast rate and logic at a slower one, and the logic is then multiplied by the difficulty of the problem and by the quality factor. The estimate can be about 30% off either way, and it moves most with the hourly rate and the difficulty. For this code, every line is priced as straight logic, which keeps the estimate on the low side.

Top priorities

The three actions that raise the score most for the work they take. The full ranked list is in the Roadmap.

Skip if delegated to infra (Postgres TDE, KMS, etc.).

Raises the score by about 17 points · Medium effort · Data Protection

Resolve the 2 Leaked secret finding(s) in Secret Scanning — start with REDACTED, REDACTED.

Raises the score by about 4 points · Low effort · Secret Scanning

Resolve the 3 REDACTED finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing — start with REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED.

Raises the score by about 2 points · Low effort · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing

Diagnosis: what the measurements show together

Each conclusion below combines several dimensions into one point that no single dimension shows, and lists the measurements it rests on.

Where the investment is most exposed · Value at risk

This code would cost about €64,000 to build again, about 0.4 person-years of work. Its weakest lens is Security and Compliance, at 35 (Weak). Security and Compliance is about how well the product is protected, and how it handles personal data. Because the weakest lens counts most in the score, work on Security and Compliance also moves the score most.

Based on: the rebuild estimate · the Security and Compliance grade · how much each lens counts

What to do: Start with the Security and Compliance actions in Top priorities.

If you do one thing first · First action

Encrypt sensitive data at rest (encrypt the fields with aes-gcm or chacha20poly1305 before they are written, or open the store encrypted — SQLCipher for rusqlite/sqlx, MongoDB CSFLE) and manage keys in a vault (AWS KMS / Secrets Manager through aws-sdk-kms, GCP KMS / Secret Manager, Azure Key Vault, HashiCorp Vault through vaultrs). Of all the actions in this report, it raises the score most for the work it takes: about 17 points for medium effort. The next survey will show the change in the score.

Based on: the ranked actions in Top priorities, by score gain and effort

Architecture — module dependency graph

Project dependencies, layered top-to-bottom; arrows show direction. Any dashed red edge points upward or sideways — a layering smell or cycle. A clean layered graph has none.

Architecture: which parts of the code depend on which

The code is divided into modules, groups of code that each handle one part of the product, and a module depends on another when it uses code from it. The table lists the modules both down the side and across the top, in an order where each module should only use modules listed above it. A number in a cell means the module on that row uses the module in that column, and it counts the pairs of building blocks (types) that connect them. The one thing to look for is a mark above the diagonal line. It means two or more modules use each other in a loop (a dependency cycle), so none of them can be changed, tested or released on its own.

100 modules, with 151 dependencies between them. 2 loops run through 8 of the modules, marked above the diagonal.

The table shows the 40 modules with the most connections; 60 more are left out to keep it readable.

Which modules use which. The module on each row uses the module in each column, and the number counts the pairs of types that connect them. A cell above the diagonal is part of a loop.
uses →	1 errlanes.fail.sealed	2 es_entity.events	3 es_entity_macros.entity	4 es_entity_macros.index_catalog	5 es_entity_macros.repo.options.columns	6 es_entity_macros.repo.options.delete	7 errlanes.fail	8 errlanes.profile	9 errlanes.result_ext	10 es_entity.operation.hooks	11 es_entity_macros.repo.options.id	12 errlanes.lane	13 es_entity.id_source	14 es_entity_macros.repo.options	15 errlanes.carrier.kind	16 es_entity.traits	17 es_entity_macros.repo.create_all_fn	18 es_entity_macros.repo.create_fn	19 es_entity_macros.repo.delete_fn	20 es_entity_macros.repo.error_types	21 es_entity_macros.repo.hydrate_nested	22 es_entity_macros.repo.scope	23 es_entity_macros.repo.update_all_fn	24 errlanes.carrier	25 errlanes_derive.composition.imports	27 es_entity_macros.repo.find_all_fn	28 es_entity_macros.repo.find_by_fn	29 es_entity_macros.repo.list_by_fn	30 es_entity.clock.sleep	31 es_entity_macros.repo.combo_cursor	32 es_entity_macros.repo.list_for_fn	33 es_entity.clock.handle	37 es_entity.operation.with_time	38 es_entity.operation	39 es_entity.operation.savepoint
1 errlanes.fail.sealed
2 es_entity.events
3 es_entity_macros.entity
4 es_entity_macros.index_catalog
5 es_entity_macros.repo.options.columns
6 es_entity_macros.repo.options.delete
7 errlanes.fail	3											10			3
8 errlanes.profile	1
9 errlanes.result_ext	2														2									2
10 es_entity.operation.hooks																																		1
11 es_entity_macros.repo.options.id					1
12 errlanes.lane							1	2							1									1
13 es_entity.id_source	3	1						1
14 es_entity_macros.repo.options				1	1	1					2
15 errlanes.carrier.kind									4			1												4
16 es_entity.traits		3											1
17 es_entity_macros.repo.create_all_fn					1						1			1
18 es_entity_macros.repo.create_fn					1						1			2
19 es_entity_macros.repo.delete_fn					1	1								1
20 es_entity_macros.repo.error_types				1										3
21 es_entity_macros.repo.hydrate_nested					1	1								1
22 es_entity_macros.repo.scope														2
23 es_entity_macros.repo.update_all_fn					1									1
24 errlanes.carrier							2					1			3
25 errlanes_derive.composition.imports															2
26 es_entity_fuzz.fuzz_targets.fuzz_event_hydration		3	1										1			2
27 es_entity_macros.repo.find_all_fn														1								1
28 es_entity_macros.repo.find_by_fn					1	1								1								1
29 es_entity_macros.repo.list_by_fn					2	2								1								1
30 es_entity.clock.sleep																									2
31 es_entity_macros.repo.combo_cursor					1									1														1
32 es_entity_macros.repo.list_for_fn					1	1								1								1						1
33 es_entity.clock.handle																													2
34 es_entity_macros.repo														1			1	1	1	1	1		1			1	1	1			1
35 es_entity_macros.repo.list_for_filters_fn				1	2	1								2								2								1
36 es_entity.clock.global																													2			2
37 es_entity.operation.with_time																																1		2
38 es_entity.operation										1																						3	1
39 es_entity.operation.savepoint										2																						1		2
40 es_entity.operation.batch																																			1

Uses a module listed above itPart of a loopThe module itself

At a glance — Code Health · 90% · Exemplary ·

The Good

D1 · Rust Cyclomatic Complexity 7.4 D3 · Rust God Classes 7.1 D4 · Rust Code Duplication 9.4 D17 · Rust Explicit Debt 10.0 X1 · Repo Async correctness 10.0 X21 · Repo Side-effecting pattern guard 10.0 X27 · Repo Collection changed while being enumerated 10.0 X28 · Repo Index access outside its own emptiness guard 10.0 X29 · Repo Per-element action decided by a fixed element 10.0 X30 · Repo Support guard that admits what it rejects 10.0 X4 · Repo Structured logging 10.0

The Bad

D2 · Rust Cognitive Complexity 5.1

At a glance — Architecture · 100% · Exemplary ·

The Good

D5 · Rust Coupling 10.0 D6 · Rust Cohesion (LCOM4) 10.0 D26 · Rust Project Cohesion 10.0 D35 · Rust Change Coupling 9.8 AX10 · Repo Code composition 10.0 AX3 · Repo Project dependency cycles 10.0 AX4 · Repo Dependency direction 10.0 AX8 · Repo Test isolation 10.0 AX9 · Repo CQS / query purity 10.0

The Ugly

D22 · Rust Internal API Consistency 4.0

At a glance — Maturity · 62% · Adequate · gated by M2 ·

The Good

D15 · Rust Churn × Complexity Hotspots 9.8 D16 · Rust Bus Factor 6.8 D19 · Rust Documentation Quality 9.0 D21 · Rust Naming Consistency 10.0 D34 · Rust Knowledge Freshness 10.0 M1 · Repo Documentation (README) 7.8 M3 · Repo Folder & project structure 10.0 M4 · Repo Documentation accuracy 10.0

The Ugly

M2 · Repo Architecture documentation 2.0

At a glance — Readiness · 67% · Adequate · gated by D13 ·

The Good

D9 · Rust Test Distribution 10.0 D12 · Rust Dependency Hygiene 9.4 D14 · Rust License Compliance 10.0 P1 · Repo CI/CD gates 10.0 P2 · Repo Observability 9.0 P3 · Repo Security & performance tooling 8.0 P6 · Repo Release Hygiene 10.0 P8 · Repo Schema migrations 10.0

The Bad

P10 · Repo Library API & versioning 6.0 P4 · Repo Deployment & Rollback 5.0

The Ugly

D13 · Rust Secret Scanning 0.0

At a glance — Security · 35% · Weak · gated by D36, C1 ·

The Good

D28 · Rust Secrets (history) 10.0 D30 · Rust Dependency Vulnerabilities 8.5 D31 · Rust IaC & Container Security 10.0 D37 · Rust Vulnerability-disclosure Policy 10.0 D43 · Rust Malicious Dependencies 10.0 D44 · Rust Platform End-of-Life 10.0 X14 · Repo Bypassable address classification 10.0 X15 · Repo Unvalidated length from an untrusted reader 10.0

The Bad

D29 · Rust Static Analysis (SAST) 6.4

The Ugly

D36 · Rust Supply-chain Provenance & Signing 0.0 C1 · Repo Data Protection 0.0

At a glance — Domain Modelling · 100% · Exemplary ·

The Good

DM4 · Repo Rich vs anemic domain model 10.0 DM5 · Repo Encapsulated state 10.0

At a glance — Event Sourcing · 100% · Exemplary ·

The Good

ES1 · Repo Fold determinism 10.0 ES2 · Repo Immutable events 10.0

At a glance — Performance · 91% · Exemplary ·

The Good

PF1 · Repo Benchmark discipline 8.5 PF3 · Repo Async & latency hygiene 10.0

Security & Compliance — OWASP Top-10 mapping

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

OWASP category	Findings	Severity
A05:2025 — Injection	22	High / Critical
A03:2025 — Software Supply Chain Failures	16	Medium
A07:2025 — Authentication Failures	2	High / Critical

Roadmap

Immediately secure sensitive data by implementing encryption at rest and managing keys in a dedicated vault, while resolving the two leaked secrets found in configuration files. Concurrently, address supply-chain risks by fixing workflow permissions and document key architectural decisions to ensure long-term maintainability. Finally, reduce single points of failure by distributing ownership of critical code areas among the team.

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 (encrypt the fields with aes-gcm or chacha20poly1305 before they are written, or open the store encrypted — SQLCipher for rusqlite/sqlx, MongoDB CSFLE) and manage keys in a vault (AWS KMS / Secrets Manager through aws-sdk-kms, GCP KMS / Secret Manager, Azure Key Vault, HashiCorp Vault through vaultrs). Skip if delegated to infra (Postgres TDE, KMS, etc.).	+16.8 pts	Medium	Data Protection
Resolve the 2 Leaked secret finding(s) in Secret Scanning — start with REDACTED, REDACTED.	+3.6 pts	Low	Secret Scanning
Resolve the 3 REDACTED finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing — start with REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED.	+2.1 pts	Low	Supply-chain Provenance & Signing
Record your significant design decisions. Write one short document per decision, giving its date, the situation, the decision and its consequences, and keep them together with your other design documents. A docs/adr folder with each file named by number and title is the easiest place to find them.	+4.2 pts	Medium	Architecture documentation
Resolve the 1 Further sole-owners (lower concentration) finding(s) in Bus Factor.	+1.3 pts	Low	Bus Factor
Resolve the 1 Off-boarding risk finding(s) in Bus Factor.	+1.3 pts	Low	Bus Factor
Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED.	+1.1 pts	Low	Static Analysis (SAST)
Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED.	+1.1 pts	Low	Static Analysis (SAST)

File quality

Per-file score 0–10 — a quality signature. Of 44 files carrying findings, judged against the Preview bar: 5% slop · 13% mixed · 82% near-clean.

File	Score	Band	Worst signal
REDACTED	1.4	Slop	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED	2.7	Slop	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED	3.0	Mixed	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED	4.8	Mixed	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED	5.1	Mixed	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
es-entity-macros/src/repo/find_by_fn.rs	5.6	Mixed	Cyclomatic Complexity: FindByFn::to_tokens (cyclomatic 17)
REDACTED	5.8	Mixed	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED	5.8	Mixed	Dependency Vulnerabilities: Medium CVE: REDACTED
es-entity-macros/src/repo/list_by_fn.rs	7.0	Near-clean	Cyclomatic Complexity: ListByFn::to_tokens (cyclomatic 16)
es-entity-macros/src/repo/options/columns.rs	7.0	Near-clean	Cyclomatic Complexity: Columns::validate_virtual (cyclomatic 16)
es-entity-macros/src/repo/list_for_filters_fn.rs	7.0	Near-clean	Cyclomatic Complexity: ListForFiltersFn::generate_by_fn (cyclomatic 34)
es-entity-macros/src/repo/create_fn.rs	7.0	Near-clean	Cyclomatic Complexity: CreateFn::to_tokens (cyclomatic 21)
es-entity-macros/src/repo/create_all_fn.rs	7.0	Near-clean	Cognitive Complexity: CreateAllFn::to_tokens (cognitive 19)
errlanes-derive/src/lift.rs	7.0	Near-clean	Cyclomatic Complexity: errlanes_derive::lift::derive (cyclomatic 38)
errlanes-derive/src/classify.rs	7.0	Near-clean	Cyclomatic Complexity: errlanes_derive::classify::derive_laned_enum (cyclomatic 31)
es-entity-macros/src/index_catalog.rs	7.1	Near-clean	Cyclomatic Complexity: es_entity_macros::index_catalog::apply_statement (cyclomatic 29)
errlanes-derive/src/rejection.rs	7.1	Near-clean	Cyclomatic Complexity: errlanes_derive::rejection::derive (cyclomatic 56)
es-entity-macros/src/repo/list_for_fn.rs	7.1	Near-clean	Cyclomatic Complexity: ListForFn::to_tokens (cyclomatic 17)
es-entity-macros/src/repo/find_all_fn.rs	7.1	Near-clean	Code Duplication: Members sharing a duplicated core (5 members, 50+ identical tokens)
errlanes-derive/src/composition/imports.rs	7.2	Near-clean	Cyclomatic Complexity: errlanes_derive::composition::imports::finish (cyclomatic 37)

How the grades work

Every finding carries one of four grades. Three say how serious it is. The fourth says this survey could not settle it — and it is a grade, not a gap.

Critical — 22

A definite problem that already costs you something and drags the score down: a missing authorisation check, a dependency with a known exploit, a build that does not reproduce. Failure here tends to cause failures elsewhere.

Serious — 163

Likely wrong, but not failing yet. It degrades the codebase over a longer horizon and can cause failures elsewhere — not urgent this week, not something to carry for two years either.

Minor — 17

Recorded, with no effect on how the codebase functions. Present so the survey is complete, not because it needs doing.

Could not be resolved — 22

Something this survey could not settle from the outside, and which could be critical or serious. Either a control was required and no positive evidence of it exists in the repository — a backup job that nothing shows was ever restored from proves nothing about restores — or our own analysis could not run over that part of the tree. This is not a clean result. These are excluded from the score rather than awarded a pass, so the number on the cover neither rewards nor penalises them: if you act on this survey without resolving them, you carry that risk yourself. Each one is named under Limitations.

Methodology & how to trust this report

Watchdog is a deep, periodic assessment — run each sprint, monthly, or quarterly, taking the time to go wider and deeper than a quick check and surfacing in one coherent report what you'd otherwise piece together from a dozen separate tools. It scores deterministically: the same commit yields the same score, every run. 55 of 59 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); 4 documentation/naming judgement(s) are LLM-assisted and labelled advisory. Overall confidence is 0.9 — the weighted average across measured dimensions; it falls as more of the score leans on LLM-assisted judgement and rises when it's fully tool-backed.

Every figure here is one of three kinds, and we label which: ✓ Measured — a deterministic fact (LoC, complexity, coverage); ~ Modeled — an estimate from a stated model (cost, effort, value-at-risk), always a range with its assumptions, never a precise fact; ◐ Advisory — an LLM prose judgement. We never present a modelled estimate as if it were measured. Perfect or absent scores carry their provenance too (ADR-0011): ✓ Tool-verified means the property itself was measured across the surface; ○ Nothing flagged means the probes came back clean — a claim bounded by what a repository can show; ⊘ Not evidenced means a working control (a tested restore, an automated rollback) showed no positive evidence — absence of evidence is not evidence of a control, so it's excluded from the score rather than awarded a spurious 10; ◐ Sampled · advisory marks an LLM verdict over a bounded sample — advisory, never a deterministic measurement.

What we checked — 59 dimensions across the health lenses

D1D2D3D4D5D6D9D12D13D14D15D16D17D19D21D22D26D28D29D30D31D34D35D36D37D43D44AX10AX3AX4AX8AX9C1DM4DM5ES1ES2M1M2M3M4P1P10P2P3P4P6P8PF1PF3X1X14X15X21X27X28X29X30X4

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, 182 of 202 do; the remainder are repo-wide signals — a dimension-level measurement, not a single line. (Every path in this report is repo-relative by construction: paths are normalized at the producer and the report is rejected if any rooted path leaks through.)
Is there a tool behind the number? Every score below names the method that produced it — Roslyn, git, a scanner, or (for a handful of documentation/naming dimensions) an LLM labelled sampled · advisory — not a narrative.
Does re-running give the same result? Run it again on the same commit and the score — and this report, byte for byte — is identical. A report whose numbers move between runs is describing the run, not the code.

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

Tools & methods

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

Method	Backs	Version	Evaluator
Roslyn static analysis	Complexity, cohesion, coupling, dead code, API surface, layering	5.3.0	✓ deterministic
Native secret scanner	Hardcoded secrets / credentials	1.0.0	✓ deterministic
Watchdog duplication detector (in-process)	Code duplication	1.0.0	✓ deterministic
Coverage (coverlet / dotnet-coverage)	Line & branch coverage	10.0.400	✓ deterministic
NuGet / dotnet	Outdated, vulnerable & deprecated dependencies	10.0.400	✓ deterministic
git / LibGit2Sharp	Churn hotspots, knowledge concentration, history	2.43.0 · 0.31.0	✓ deterministic
gitleaks · semgrep · trivy · checkov	Secrets in history, SAST, CVEs, IaC & container, PII / GDPR	1.86.0 · 0.69.3 · 3.2.533	✓ deterministic
LLM (sampled · advisory)	Documentation quality, ADR conformance, naming — sampled over a bounded sample; advisory, never a deterministic measurement	Local LLM	◐ LLM · sampled · advisory

Every finding is locatable in findings.md. Run 01a160aa-8a4e-7861-8746-0a108653d605.

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

Run transparency — what happened this run

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

D8 Code Coverage — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Coverage NOT MEASURED: test source is present (.rs) but the built-in coverage collector has no runner for this repository's ecosystem — so this suite was never executed by it. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a defect in the repo. To have real coverage read, produce a coverage report in a standard format (lcov — `cargo install cargo-llvm-cov`, then `cargo llvm-cov --lcov --output-path lcov.info`) and commit it — a hosted scan measures a clone of the repository, so a report that exists only in a working tree, a CI runner's or your own, never reaches it; the artefact is commonly gitignored, so `git add -f` that one file (or un-ignore its path) and commit it alongside the code it measures. You can widen what we reach: optional: produce a coverage report in a standard format (lcov — `cargo install cargo-llvm-cov`, then `cargo llvm-cov --lcov --output-path lcov.info`) and commit it — a hosted scan measures a clone of the repository, so a report that exists only in a working tree, a CI runner's or your own, never reaches it; the artefact is commonly gitignored, so `git add -f` that one file (or un-ignore its path) and commit it alongside the code it measures — then the real number is read on the next scan.
D11 Test Reliability — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Test source is present (.rs) and this repository declares a Cargo test suite (repository root, 144 test files), but it was not re-run: no test result was produced. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
D27 Navigability — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Navigability is taken over call sites whose callee resolved. For C# that population includes calls into referenced assemblies; for this language only calls declared inside the repository count, so the abstention threshold reads the repository's use of its standard library as a resolution failure. That is a limit of this analyzer, not a build problem in this repository.
AX6 Interface segregation — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is computed over the public interfaces this run's compilations declare, and none was loaded, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
GD1 Unfinished & placeholder code — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, F#, JavaScript/TypeScript, Dart, Ruby and Scala source only, and no C#, F#, JavaScript/TypeScript, Dart, Ruby or Scala was found, and this repository's Rust is not read yet, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
IC1 Incompleteness & stubs — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Dart, Ruby and Scala source only, and no C#, JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Dart, Ruby or Scala was found, and this repository's Rust is not read yet, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X12 Unreachable branch — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala and Kotlin source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala or Kotlin was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X13 Undrained process stream — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala and Kotlin source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala or Kotlin was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X16 Unfloored truncation loop — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, PHP, Dart, Ruby, Scala and Kotlin source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, PHP, Dart, Ruby, Scala or Kotlin was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X17 Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala and Kotlin source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala or Kotlin was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X18 Disposal-pattern correctness — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Kotlin, Dart, Ruby, Scala and PHP source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Kotlin, Dart, Ruby, Scala or PHP was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X19 Unrestored process-global state — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Kotlin, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala and PHP source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Kotlin, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala or PHP was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X22 Contradicted release guard — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and Java, TypeScript/JavaScript, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala, Kotlin and PHP source only, and no C# was loaded, and this repository's Rust is not read yet, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X23 Unguarded diagnostic materialisation — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, F#, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala, Kotlin and PHP source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, F#, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala, Kotlin or PHP was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X24 Document value interpolated into markup unescaped — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Scala, Ruby and Python source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Scala, Ruby or Python was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X25 Inert configuration knob — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Kotlin, Scala, PHP, Erlang, Python, Dart and Ruby source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Kotlin, Scala, PHP, Erlang, Python, Dart or Ruby was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X3 Exception handling — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and PHP, Java, Kotlin, Python, Ruby, Scala, Dart, Swift, Erlang, Go and JavaScript/TypeScript source only, and no C# was loaded and no PHP, Java, Kotlin, Python, Ruby, Scala, Dart, Swift, Erlang, Go, JavaScript or TypeScript was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X5 Nullable reference types — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax and MSBuild project configuration, TypeScript source and its tsconfig files, Java source and its package and module declarations, PHP source and its PHPStan and Psalm configuration, Dart source and its pubspec language version, Ruby source and its Sorbet and Steep configuration, Scala source and its build's explicit-nulls, WartRemover and Scalafix settings, and Kotlin source only, and no C# was loaded, no TypeScript was found, and this repository's Rust is not read yet, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.

Repo exclusion declarations (.gitattributes linguist-generated/vendored, .editorconfig generated_code): none declared — every source file was scored.

Limitations & what we did not check

Watchdog assesses the repository exactly as committed, and only the repository. By design it does not reach outside the source tree: the live cloud account, the running CI/CD pipeline, the host's branch-protection and approval rules, the production configuration, or a restore actually exercised against a backup are all out of scope. That boundary is a feature, not a gap — a repo-relative, deterministic scan re-runs identically on any commit and every finding opens at a real file and line, where a live audit can neither be reproduced nor traced. The visible consequence is that controls which leave no in-repo evidence are reported as "not evidenced" and excluded from the score rather than awarded a number a static scan cannot justify.

Per-dimension blind spots

For each dimension that was measured, what a static, repo-only scan structurally cannot see — the honest edge of the measurement, not a failure of it.

D1 Cyclomatic Complexity: Cyclomatic complexity counts branches statically — it cannot tell an essential decision tree from accidental tangle, nor see complexity that lives in data or configuration (large switch-case token tables, DSL lexers/parsers, data-as-code rule tables) rather than control flow: a tokenizer's many single-character cases read as high complexity though each branch is trivial.
D2 Cognitive Complexity: Cognitive-complexity heuristics approximate how hard code is to follow; genuine domain difficulty and well-named intent that eases reading are not captured.
D3 God Classes: "God class" is sized by members and responsibilities visible in the type — a deliberately broad facade over a coherent subsystem can read the same as an accidental grab-bag. For front-end JS the file-length check is cohesion-aware (a single-responsibility module — one class/IIFE — earns a 3× threshold), but cohesion is approximated from top-level declarations, not true dependency structure.
D4 Code Duplication: Duplication is token-similarity — an in-process token-stream comparison over sliding windows, with type-aware normalization — so it finds copy-paste, not semantic duplication expressed differently. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, protobuf/OpenAPI stubs, model snapshots) is EXCLUDED — its repetition is the tool's, not the team's — so the score reflects hand-written duplication only.
D5 Coupling: Coupling is measured between projects/assemblies — runtime coupling through DI, reflection, messaging or shared databases is invisible to a static reference graph.
D6 Cohesion (LCOM4): LCOM4 cohesion is syntactic — it infers connectivity from which methods touch which fields/methods by name, not from real runtime behaviour or intent.
D9 Test Distribution: The test-pyramid shape is inferred from project/folder naming and references, with a single test host bucketed per-file by its path tier and content signals — a suite that names tiers unconventionally and gives no per-file signal can still be mis-bucketed.
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.
D19 Documentation Quality: Documentation quality is judged by an LLM over a bounded sample of docs — it reads what is written, not whether the docs match the running system, and it is advisory, not a measurement. Its critique rows are drawn from a closed category vocabulary and each row means the same thing in every run, so two scans can be compared row by row; the SET that fires is still a sample, and does not repeat exactly. Measured on one frozen input, six scans at one engine SHA: 2-5 critique rows per scan, 8 distinct rows across the six, 3 of those 8 seen in only one scan. So a D19 row is evidence about the documentation, but a COUNT of D19 rows is not a quantity — never read a change in it as an improvement or a regression.
D21 Naming Consistency: Naming quality is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it assesses clarity/consistency of the names it sees, not domain-correctness, and is advisory.
D22 Internal API Consistency: API-surface coherence is an LLM judgement over a sample of the public surface — consistency of intent across the whole API is approximated, not exhaustively verified.
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.
D28 Secrets (history): Secret-history scanning sweeps the git log for known patterns — a secret that predates the available history, or never matched a signature, is not found (clean means "nothing matched in the history we can see").
D29 Static Analysis (SAST): SAST findings are pattern-based (semgrep) — it finds classes of bug it has rules for; logic flaws, auth/authorization gaps and issues needing runtime context are out of reach (and clean means "no rule matched").
D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities: CVE matching depends on accurate package/version metadata and on the advisory databases — a vulnerability with no published advisory, or in code not declared as a dependency, is not seen. Coverage needs a RESOLVED graph: an unpinned requirements.txt, or a pom without a resolved build, yields partial coverage rather than a clean verdict. An ecosystem the analyzer cannot scan is reported as unmeasured, never as clean.
D31 IaC & Container Security: IaC scanning checks Dockerfiles/Terraform/Kubernetes against best-practice rules — it cannot see the live cloud account, runtime configuration, or drift between the committed config and what is actually deployed.
D34 Knowledge Freshness: Freshness is decayed commit RECENCY, not comprehension — code read often but rarely committed reads as orphaned, and stable code that genuinely needs no changes is penalised the same as forgotten code; bot/squash commits distort it like the bus factor.
D35 Change Coupling: Change coupling is co-change in COMMITS — files split across separate commits, or coupled only through a shared config/build step, read as uncoupled, and a sweeping commit (rename/format) is excluded so it doesn't couple everything. It shows that files change together, not WHY: a high coupling can be a healthy cohesive pair as readily as a hidden leak.
D43 Malicious Dependencies: Only packages some vulnerability database has already NAMED as malicious are seen — a compromise published in the last hours, or never reported at all, is invisible here, and this dimension reading 10 is not evidence that a dependency is trustworthy. There is no typosquat or dependency-confusion analysis: a package nobody has reported is simply absent from the feeds. Coverage is the dependency scan's: an ecosystem that could not be scanned is disclosed as unmeasured, never as clean.
D44 Platform End-of-Life: The support table is FROZEN, so it goes out of date by losing RECALL: a release that ended support after the table was written is missed until the table is refreshed, and this dimension reading 10 is not evidence that a platform is current. Only platforms the repository DECLARES in a place this pass reads are seen — a runtime named only in a Dockerfile (D31's subject), in a CI workflow (D29's), or in a file this pass does not parse (go.mod, a Gemfile ruby directive) is invisible here, which is why a repository declaring none of them abstains rather than scoring. Only frameworks with a PUBLISHED support policy are tracked: React, Flask and Express publish none, so their age cannot be judged and their absence from a report is not a statement that they are supported.
AX10 Code composition: Role is inferred from namespace/folder convention, not semantics — a domain concept living in a folder named "Services" reads as application, and the split is lines-of-code, not business value. The business-logic-share score is a SOFT, FLOORED signal: it contributes to the Architecture lens but is floored at the Critical gate, so an infrastructure-heavy design (a gateway, an ETL, a driver) is legitimately low without being nuked to zero.
AX9 CQS / query purity: Handlers are found by interface/name convention — a query handler using neither is not seen. Mutation is a resolved write/publish invocation (SaveChanges/repository/bus), so a write hidden behind a hand-rolled wrapper, reflection, or a string-keyed service locator resolves to a non-persistence type and isn't flagged; it detects that a query writes state, not whether the write is a legitimate read-side cache update. Clean means "no resolved write/publish in a query body", not a proof of CQS purity.
DM4 Rich vs anemic domain model: Behaviour is detected as state mutation inside a method body — a method that enforces an invariant by validating-and-throwing without mutating reads as a query, and mutation delegated through an interface the scan can't resolve isn't credited; entities with zero public properties still drop out of the population. It detects that state changes, not whether the rule is correct.
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, D21, D22, M4 (model: Local LLM). For these, a model reads a bounded sample and sets the numeric score; each names its own sample and method on its card. They are sampled and advisory by design: they vary at the margins between runs and are never a deterministic measurement. Every other score in this report is tool-computed at confidence 1.0.

Dimensions

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity7.4 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 7.4 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

15 function(s) exceeded the cyclomatic complexity threshold of 15; the worst was errlanes_derive::rejection::derive at 56.

errlanes_derive::rejection::derive (cyclomatic 56) · ×6errlanes-derive/src/rejection.rs:183

ListForFiltersFn::generate_by_fn (cyclomatic 34)es-entity-macros/src/repo/list_for_filters_fn.rs:725

es_entity_macros::index_catalog::apply_statement (cyclomatic 29)es-entity-macros/src/index_catalog.rs:339

CreateFn::to_tokens (cyclomatic 21)es-entity-macros/src/repo/create_fn.rs:81

ErrorTypes::generate (cyclomatic 18)es-entity-macros/src/repo/error_types.rs:144

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

What to do

Bring the 15 bodies over 15 down to 15 or less in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with errlanes_derive::rejection::derive (cyclomatic 56), errlanes_derive::lift::derive (cyclomatic 38), errlanes_derive::composition::imports::finish (cyclomatic 37). — This score is capped by its worst body, so a finding fixed alone moves it by almost nothing — the next one down takes its place. Refactoring these 15 together lifts Cyclomatic Complexity from 7.4 to about 10.0/10, projected with the scoring formula itself and assuming each lands exactly at 15.
Enforce Cyclomatic Complexity in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

Detailed fixes: d1_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D2 · Cognitive Complexity5.1 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 5.1 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

31 function(s) exceeded the cognitive complexity threshold of 15; the worst was errlanes_derive::rejection::derive at 118.

errlanes_derive::rejection::derive (cognitive 118) · ×10errlanes-derive/src/rejection.rs:183

es_entity_macros::index_catalog::apply_statement (cognitive 53) · ×4es-entity-macros/src/index_catalog.rs:339

Columns::validate_virtual (cognitive 24) · ×2es-entity-macros/src/repo/options/columns.rs:210

ListForFiltersFn::generate_by_fn (cognitive 74)es-entity-macros/src/repo/list_for_filters_fn.rs:725

FindByFn::to_tokens (cognitive 50)es-entity-macros/src/repo/find_by_fn.rs:119

+ 13 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

What to do

Bring the 4 bodies over 60 down to 60 or less in Cognitive Complexity — start with errlanes_derive::rejection::derive (cognitive 118), errlanes_derive::composition::imports::finish (cognitive 79), ListForFiltersFn::generate_by_fn (cognitive 74). — This score is capped by its worst body, so a finding fixed alone moves it by almost nothing — the next one down takes its place. Refactoring these 4 together lifts Cognitive Complexity from 5.1 to about 6.1/10, projected with the scoring formula itself and assuming each lands exactly at 60; a cleaner split scores higher.
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 Classes7.1 / 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.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 7.1 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

32 over-large unit(s) detected — types, modules or files that carry too much.

MethodTooLong: CreateFn.to_tokens · ×17es-entity-macros/src/repo/create_fn.rs:81

FunctionTooLong: errlanes_derive::rejection::derive · ×5errlanes-derive/src/rejection.rs:183

FileTooLong: repo/list_for_filters_fn.rs · ×5es-entity-macros/src/repo/list_for_filters_fn.rs

ClassTooLong: ListForFiltersFn · ×3es-entity-macros/src/repo/list_for_filters_fn.rs:313

TooManyMethods: RepositoryOptions · ×2es-entity-macros/src/repo/options/mod.rs:106

What to do

Resolve the 17 MethodTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with list_for_filters_fn.rs (2), mod.rs (2), create_fn.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (17 warning-level).
Resolve the 5 FunctionTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with rejection.rs, classify.rs, lift.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (5 warning-level).
Resolve the 5 FileTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with list_for_filters_fn.rs, lift.rs, columns.rs. — 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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D4 · Code Duplication9.4 / 10Stronggated by 51 serious findings✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 9.4 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

48 duplicated block group(s) detected. A further 3 rows report members as variants of one another; they aggregate block groups already counted above and are not themselves counted.

Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) · ×6es-entity-macros/src/repo/combo_cursor.rs:162

Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) · ×6errlanes/src/fail.rs:516

Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) · ×3es-entity-macros/src/repo/combo_cursor.rs:147

Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) · ×3es-entity-macros/src/repo/create_fn.rs:253

Duplicated block (18 lines × 2) · ×2es-entity-macros/src/repo/list_by_fn.rs:643

+ 28 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

What to do

Resolve the 6 Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with combo_cursor.rs, error_classifier.rs, list_by_fn.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (6 warning-level).
Resolve the 6 Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with find_by_fn.rs (2), columns.rs (2), fail.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (6 warning-level).
Resolve the 3 Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with combo_cursor.rs, find_all_fn.rs, list_by_fn.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 warning-level).
Enforce Code Duplication in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.

Detailed fixes: d4_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D5 · Coupling10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

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

4 production modules (Cargo), 0 dependency cycle(s), 0 unstable depended-on module(s). Read from the build's own module declarations; 0 module(s) off the main sequence, with abstractness counted on 2 of the 4 (the rest declare no modelled class or interface, export only macros, declare types in source no model reads, or have no source directory of their own).

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d5_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D6 · Cohesion (LCOM4)10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether a class's methods are focused on a single responsibility.

Method: LCOM4 cohesion per production class with at least two methods: connected components of methods sharing state or calls, computed syntactically. Deterministic, not a proxy.

Coverage: Exhaustive · type-level: LCOM4 cohesion computed over every production class — the population is all types, not a name convention.

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

0 of 64 classes have LCOM4 above 3.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d6_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D9 · Test Distribution10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether the test suite has a healthy mix of unit / integration / end-to-end tests.

Method: Test projects classified (Unit/Integration/BDD/E2E) from compiled metadata; test methods counted exhaustively across projects with placement-agnostic disk fallback. Deterministic.

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

928 test methods: 396 unit, 532 integration, 0 BDD, 0 e2e. The Rust suite contributes 928 `#[test]` function(s) across 144 file(s) declaring at least one; its unit/integration split is Cargo's own — 92 of those file(s) are integration-test targets under a crate's tests/ directory, and the rest are #[test] functions compiled into the crate they test.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d9_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D12 · Dependency Hygiene~~9.7~~ 9.4 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether dependencies are current, secure, and not bloated.

Method: Manifest scan via dotnet list package across all projects; worst-signal-per-package deduction (saturating for vulnerabilities, capped-linear for deprecation/outdated) per KLoC. Exhaustive, deterministic.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 9.4 / 10 · rule-coverage 97% · ceiling Verified

6 outdated, 0 yanked direct Cargo dependencies. 32 of 33 direct crates were graded against crates.io (0 not published there, 1 not resolved by a committed REDACTED). Only DIRECT edges are graded: a transitive crate cannot be moved past what its parent's requirement admits, so reporting one would be advice its owner cannot take. A newer release is reported only where this repository's OWN requirement already admits it, so the remedy is `cargo update` and never a manifest edit — which means a release outside the declared range is deliberately NOT charged, because a written-down constraint is a decision rather than a defect. Note that a bare requirement is a CARET, and for a 0.x crate its ceiling is the minor. Whether any crate is UNMAINTAINED is not graded — crates.io publishes no maintenance status, and release age does not stand in for one. Known CVEs in this dependency graph are D30's question, read from REDACTED there.

Outdated: opentelemetry · ×6

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d12_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D13 · Secret Scanning0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

2 secret(s) detected.

REDACTED

What to do

Resolve the 2 Leaked secret finding(s) in Secret Scanning — start with REDACTED, REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 issue-level).
Enforce Secret Scanning in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

Detailed fixes: d13_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

0 of 317 shipped crate(s) use a banned license. Licences were resolved from crates.io over the crates a consumer compiles — this repository's REDACTED closed over its manifests' `[dependencies]` and `[build-dependencies]`. Crates it asks for ONLY under `[dev-dependencies]` are excluded: they are not compiled by anything that depends on this repository. This repository publishes itself under Apache-2.0, which is its own choice and is not judged here.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d14_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots9.8 / 10Stronggated by 14 serious findings✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

Top hotspots: es-entity-macros/src/repo/list_for_filters_fn.rs (17×34=578); errlanes-derive/src/rejection.rs (10×56=560); errlanes-derive/src/lift.rs (12×38=456)

Hotspot: es-entity-macros/src/repo/list_for_filters_fn.rs · ×14es-entity-macros/src/repo/list_for_filters_fn.rs:725

What to do

Resolve the 14 Hotspot finding(s) in Churn × Complexity Hotspots — start with list_for_filters_fn.rs, rejection.rs, lift.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (14 warning-level).

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D16 · Bus Factor6.8 / 10Adequate✓ 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.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 6.8 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

28 source file(s) have their living knowledge concentrated in one author (≥90% of recent, decayed contribution). The largest is es-entity-macros/src/repo/mod.rs. Counted over 87 of the 99 production source files in this repository: the rest are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over.

Off-boarding risk: anonymized user #1

Further sole-owners (lower concentration)

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 Debt10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

What it measures: Acknowledged debt left in the code — TODOs, dead code, suppressed warnings.

Method: Roslyn syntactic debt markers (suppressions/TODO/FIXME/HACK/empty-catch/commented-code/Obsolete) plus SymbolFinder dead-code analysis; weighted-debt-per-KLoC density deducted 2.0x per unit. Deterministic, exhaustive.

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

0 deducted task-comment markers across 38071 LoC (0.0/KLoC) → score 10.0. Task comments only: this repository's language is read without a compiler, so D17's suppression, dead-code and commented-out-code arms did not run and this score counts fewer marker kinds than a .NET repository's would.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d17_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D19 · Documentation QualityExemplary◐ Sampled · advisory

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.

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

The repository's root README (es-entity) is clear and complete: it states what the project does (Event Sourcing Entity Framework for Rust that simplifies building event-sourced apps with PostgreSQL), lists its features (event-sourced, idempotent, testable; minimal boilerplate, compile-time verified SQL queries, optimistic concurrency, pagination), gives a book link, API docs link, GitHub repo link, and a license badge. The errlanes README is the directory-level README documenting that directory — it explains what errors are, how lanes categorize them, the Fault/Fail carrier enums, the lanes! macro, and an example of fault selection with code (Fault<Transient, Fatal>), plus links to specific error types and lifting across domain boundaries. Both documents are well written for their audiences.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d19_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D21 · Naming ConsistencyExemplary◐ Sampled · 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.

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

0 naming inconsistencies across 0 sampled symbols.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d21_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D22 · Internal API ConsistencyWeak◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

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

4 API inconsistencies across a 400-member sample of 150 exposed types.

Inconsistent naming and return types for classification logic. `Fault.classify` returns a `Fault`, while `Classify.classify` returns a `Fail`. `ResultExt.classify` returns a `Result`. The verb 'classify' is used for operations that produce different result types (`Fault` vs `Fail`), creating confusion about which error carrier is being produced.

Confusing duplication of 'narrow' operations. `ResultExt` has `narrow_rejected` and `narrow_rejected_with`. Additionally, there are separate types `NarrowRejectedLane` and `NarrowRejectedBy` with their own `narrow` methods. This suggests that `ResultExt` methods might be wrappers or aliases for these types, or that the API exposes both builder-pattern types and extension methods redundantly.

Inconsistent conversion methods. `Fail` has `into_fault()` directly. `ResultExt` has both `into_fault()` and `into_fail()`. This creates ambiguity: should a user call `result.into_fault()` or `result.into_fail().into_fault()`? The existence of `into_fail` on `ResultExt` suggests a two-step process that isn't mirrored in the `Fail` type itself (which doesn't have an `into_result` or similar obvious reverse, but the asymmetry is notable).

Inconsistent API for installing manual clocks. `Clock` uses `install_manual` and returns a `ClockController`. `ClockHandle` uses `manual` and returns a tuple `(Self, ClockController)`. The naming (`install_manual` vs `manual`) and return types differ for functionally similar operations (switching to manual mode).

What to do

Resolve the 1 Inconsistent naming and return types for classification logic.… finding(s) in Internal API Consistency. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 Confusing duplication of 'narrow' operations. `ResultExt` has… finding(s) in Internal API Consistency. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 Inconsistent conversion methods. `Fail` has `into_fault()` directly.… finding(s) in Internal API Consistency. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D26 · Project Cohesion10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether each project is a focused, coherent unit rather than an oversized grab-bag.

Method: Project size overshoot penalties (LoC / public-type count / namespace count, 2-of-3 flag) weighted by log magnitude. Exhaustive across projects, deterministic, LLM-independent.

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

0 of 4 build units (Cargo) flagged as possibly oversized/incoherent.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d26_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D28 · Secrets (history)10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

What it measures: Whether any secrets were ever committed — scanned across the full git history, not just now.

Method: Secret scan via TWO gitleaks detect passes in an isolated checkout — the full git history, then a second --no-git pass over the working tree as it stands — merged and de-duplicated by (rule, file, line); each match flagged High. Both invocations are recorded in the audit trail. Exhaustive; when the tool is absent, or when its output cannot be parsed into the expected shape, the dimension is WITHHELD as an explicit measurement gap on our side — unscored and excluded from the lens, never a hedged middling score.

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

gitleaks scanned the full history AND the current working tree and found no secrets.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d28_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)6.4 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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).

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 6.4 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

22 finding(s): 0 critical, 20 high, 2 medium, 0 low. 18 unpinned-GitHub-Actions row(s) are reported here but scored by D36 (supply-chain provenance), which measures that posture as `pinned_actions` — one pinning decision is charged once, not once per lens.

REDACTED

What to do

Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).
Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).
No action in Static Analysis (SAST) — all 18 REDACTED finding(s) are reported here at file:line but scored by D36 (supply-chain provenance), so none is charged to this dimension. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (18 issue-level, 0 of them charged here).

Detailed fixes: d29_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities8.5 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether any dependency has a known published vulnerability (CVE), direct or transitive, in ANY ecosystem the repository declares — Dart pub, Elixir and Erlang via Hex, Go modules, Java and Kotlin via Maven/Gradle, JavaScript/npm, .NET/NuGet, PHP/Composer, Python/PyPI, RubyGems, Rust/Cargo and Swift.

Method: Dependency-CVE scan across every ecosystem the repository declares, scored ONCE. Three sources are unioned and deduplicated by advisory identity (rule id + alias closure, CVE<->GHSA) scoped to package+version, keeping the worst severity: `osv-scanner --recursive` over osv.dev for Dart pub, Elixir/Hex (and Erlang, whose `rebar.lock` syft first converts to a CycloneDX SBOM the scanner reads, with rows attributed back to the lock), Go, Java and Kotlin via Maven/Gradle (and Scala, whose sbt build's pinned direct declarations are written into a CycloneDX SBOM the scanner reads, with rows attributed back to the build file), npm, PHP/Composer, Python/PyPI, RubyGems, Rust/Cargo and Swift; `trivy fs --scanners vuln` for npm lockfiles; and `dotnet list package --vulnerable --include-transitive` for NuGet (with per-advisory collapse of the project x target-framework fan-out), plus a DECLARED-dependency arm that resolves a published gem's gemspec against rubygems.org where no Gemfile.lock is committed. `SeverityScore(c,h,m,l, normalizer 8.0)`. NotApplicable only when NO ecosystem is readable; if any applicable ecosystem could not be scanned the findings are REPORTED and the score is withheld. Supersedes the npm and OSV arms, retired 2026-09-05.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 8.5 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

8 finding(s): 0 critical, 0 high, 8 medium, 0 low.

REDACTED

What to do

Resolve the 4 Medium advisory (unsound) finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with REDACTED (4). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 warning-level).
Resolve the 3 Medium advisory (unmaintained) finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with REDACTED (3). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 Medium CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D31 · IaC & Container Security10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

What it measures: Whether Dockerfiles / Terraform / Kubernetes config follow security best practices.

Method: IaC/container misconfiguration scan via trivy config (Dockerfile/Terraform/K8s/Helm/CloudFormation); severity rules to 0-10 moderate normalizer. NotApplicable without manifests. Exhaustive, deterministic.

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

trivy and checkov found no infrastructure-as-code or container misconfigurations.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d31_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D34 · Knowledge Freshness10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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.

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

Every significant source file has living knowledge — recently and meaningfully worked. Counted over 87 of the 99 production source files in this repository: the rest are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d34_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D35 · Change Coupling9.8 / 10Stronggated by 1 serious finding✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether files that change together actually belong together — pairs that repeatedly co-change in git history despite having no explicit code dependency, surfacing the hidden/logical coupling (and boundaries in the wrong place) a static scan can't see.

Method: Pairwise co-occurrence over the per-commit file sets in git history (production source only — tests and generated dropped): Degree-of-Coupling = shared ÷ min individual revisions, reported above noise floors (each file ≥10 revisions, ≥5 shared commits, ≥50% strength); sweeping commits excluded. Deterministic over fixed history.

Coverage: Population: PRODUCTION source files only — test and generated files are dropped before pairing, so a class co-changing with its own test (trivially ~100%) can't drown the real production↔production coupling. Pairs ranked by Degree-of-Coupling. A non-source file is never a coupling PARTICIPANT either: documentation, schemas, config and data files are dropped with the rest, so a code↔docs pair — a command and the reference page that restates it — is not reported however strongly the two co-change; nor is coupling that runs THROUGH a build step or config file.

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

Strongest change-coupling: find_by_fn.rs↔list_for_fn.rs 55%

Change coupling: find_by_fn.rs ↔ list_for_fn.rses-entity-macros/src/repo/find_by_fn.rs:1

What to do

Resolve the 1 Change coupling finding(s) in Change Coupling — start with find_by_fn.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).

Detailed fixes: d35_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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.

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

0/4 supply-chain integrity signals present (provenance, signing, SBOM, pinned actions).

REDACTED

+ 1 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

What to do

Resolve the 3 REDACTED finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing — start with REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

Detailed fixes: d36_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D37 · Vulnerability-disclosure Policy10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether the repository publishes a coordinated-vulnerability-disclosure policy (SECURITY.md or security.txt) with a reporting contact, so finders know how to report a vulnerability. Presence of a policy file with a contact, not whether the policy is adequate or honoured.

Method: Vulnerability-disclosure policy read deterministically from the repo: a SECURITY.md (root/.github/docs) or .well-known/security.txt / security.txt, regex-checked for a reporting contact (email / URL / mailto). Present + contact → 10; present without a contact → 4; NotApplicable when no policy file exists (it may live off-repo). Detects the policy file's presence + contact, not its adequacy.

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

A vulnerability-disclosure policy (SECURITY.md) is published with a reporting contact.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d37_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D43 · Malicious Dependencies10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether any dependency the repository declares is published as MALICIOUS rather than merely vulnerable — a package that is an attacker's work, in any ecosystem osv-scanner reads. Scored apart from D30 because the answer is binary: there is no safe version to upgrade to, and the fix is to remove the package and rotate every credential it could have read.

Method: The same dependency scan D30 reads, partitioned on the scanner's own classification rather than rescanned: a row is MALICIOUS when its id is in the `MAL-` space (the ossf/malicious-packages feed) OR its `database_specific.cwe_ids` carries `CWE-506` ("Embedded Malicious Code"). Both channels are structural; the summary text is deliberately NOT read, because a malicious-package record whose summary says only "Critical severity vulnerability" is a real shape ([GHSA redacted]) and a text matcher misses it. Scored BINARY: any surviving row is 0, whatever its severity and however many CVEs sit beside it — a hostile dependency is not a quantity. Applicability and degradation are D30's: NotApplicable only when no ecosystem is readable, and an unscannable ecosystem degrades rather than reading clean. SCORED, not informational.

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

No dependency in any ecosystem this repository declares is published as malicious.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d43_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D44 · Platform End-of-Life10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether anyone still ships security patches for the platform this repository RUNS ON — the runtime it pins and the framework majors its own constraints hold it to. Separate from D12 because the question differs: a current Django on an end-of-life Python is perfectly up to date and completely unsupported, and the fix is a migration rather than a version bump. What the repository says it merely SUPPORTS is never charged.

Method: End-of-life PLATFORM read from the repository's own declarations and graded against a FROZEN, dated table of vendor support dates — no network, no feed, no API, so this dimension answers identically inside a closed scan fence. Two subjects: a RUNTIME the project pins (a single or all-end-of-life TargetFramework, a .nvmrc or .python-version, a requires-python CAP) and a FRAMEWORK major a dependency constraint cannot move off (a caret, tilde or exact version; `vue@^2.7.16` pins Vue 2). A FLOOR is deliberately never charged — `requires-python = ">=3.8"` states what a package SUPPORTS, not what it runs on — and a multi-target project is charged only when EVERY target is out of support. Runtime 4.0/product capped 8.0, framework 1.5 capped 4.5. The table is safe to freeze because a statement about support that ended in the past cannot become false: it loses recall as it ages, never precision, and a test asserts every entry predates the freeze date. Disjoint from D31 (a container image's OS layer) and D29 (the toolchain a CI workflow installs). Abstains when the repository declares no platform this pass reads — never scores it clean.

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

0 end-of-life runtime(s) and 0 end-of-life framework(s), read from 1 platform declaration(s) and 0 dependency declaration(s). This dimension reads what the repository says about ITSELF — a pinned target framework, a version file, a capped requires-python, a Rust toolchain pin, a framework major a constraint cannot move off. A FLOOR is deliberately never charged: `requires-python = ">=3.8"` states what the package SUPPORTS, not what it runs on, and a well-maintained library declares exactly that while running its own CI on a current release. The end-of-life facts are FROZEN and dated, so this dimension needs no network and answers identically inside a closed scan fence; as the table ages it loses recall and never precision, because a statement about support that ended in the past cannot become false. The OS layer of a container image is D31's question and the toolchain a CI workflow installs is D29's; this row is neither.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d44_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions

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

AX10 · Code composition10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Architecture — How the codebase splits by code ROLE — domain, application, infrastructure, test, generated. The significance map behind the knowledge/coupling weighting, and a DDD signal in its own right: a thin domain core under fat infrastructure is the anemic-domain smell, quantified. How each file's role is decided, because the split is only as good as that: a generated name or a build-output tree makes it Generated, a test project makes it Test, and otherwise the file's NAMESPACE and PATH words are matched against fixed vocabularies in a fixed ORDER — domain, then infrastructure, then application — so a file whose words hit two layers is counted under the earlier one. A production file matching none of them counts as application, so that share reads 'application or unclassified' rather than a measured application layer. Roles come from naming convention, never from what the code does. On this repository the split was taken from the source tree on disk rather than from a loaded .NET workspace, so a file's role is decided by its PATH segments alone — no declared namespace was available to add to the evidence — and generated output is excluded from the census entirely rather than counted as a generated share.

Method: Roslyn line-count by code ROLE: every source file classified Domain/Application/Infrastructure/Test/Generated by namespace + path convention (the shared CodeRoleClassifier), then significant lines summed per role. Deterministic; the advisory score is the business-logic (domain+application) share of production code.

Coverage: Population: ALL source files, each bucketed into ONE of five roles (Domain/Application/Infrastructure/Test/Generated) by namespace + path convention — a file whose layer isn't named in the convention falls to Application (the neutral default), and the split is line-count, not semantic depth or business value.

What to do

The domain core is a small share of production code, but most of the rest matched no layer vocabulary at all — so this is not yet an anemic-domain finding. The namespace/path convention could not place that code, which makes the composition above a statement about the naming, not about the design. Name the layers (or check that the repository's conventions differ from the ones this check knows) before reading a thin domain into it.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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?

AX9 · CQS / query purity10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Architecture — Whether read (query) handlers stay side-effect-free — a query that writes persistent state or raises events breaks CQS and makes reads unsafe to retry, cache, or route to a read replica.

Method: Roslyn scan: CQRS handlers classified query-vs-command by interface (IQueryHandler/ICommandHandler/IRequestHandler<TQuery,TResult>) and name convention (*Query/Get*/Find* vs *Command); each query handler's body checked for persistent-state writes (SaveChanges/repository Add-Update) or event publishes by resolved invocation. Deterministic, type-level, exhaustive over the detected handlers.

Coverage: Population: CQRS handlers identified by IQueryHandler/ICommandHandler/IRequestHandler interface + *Query/Get*/Find*/*Command NAME convention; query purity then checked exhaustively within that set — a query handler using neither convention is invisible, and mutation is a resolved persistence/publish CALL, not full dataflow.

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 encryption usage (RustCrypto's aes-gcm/chacha20poly1305 encrypting, ring or aws-lc-rs aead sealing, orion, libsodium's secretbox, openssl symm, age, SQLCipher keyed by PRAGMA key, pgcrypto, MongoDB client-side field-level encryption, the OS keyring) was found, and this repository persists personal data in the model cited here — sensitive data at rest may be unprotected. If TDE/KMS/vault is delegated to infrastructure, ignore. — migrations/20260929000001_v2_constraint_shapes.sql:5

What to do

Encrypt sensitive data at rest (encrypt the fields with aes-gcm or chacha20poly1305 before they are written, or open the store encrypted — SQLCipher for rusqlite/sqlx, MongoDB CSFLE) and manage keys in a vault (AWS KMS / Secrets Manager through aws-sdk-kms, GCP KMS / Secret Manager, Azure Key Vault, HashiCorp Vault through vaultrs). Skip if delegated to infra (Postgres TDE, KMS, etc.).
Enforce HTTPS on the server that receives this data: terminate TLS in it (axum-server/actix bind_rustls, tonic ServerTlsConfig, a tokio-rustls acceptor) and send Strict-Transport-Security, or run it behind a TLS-terminating proxy, so data in transit is always encrypted.

Do you agree with this assessment?

DM4 · Rich vs anemic domain model10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Domain Modelling — Whether domain entities own their behaviour (invariant-enforcing commands) rather than being data-only structs driven by a foreign service.

Method: Roslyn (DDD-gated): entity method BODIES classified mutator-vs-query — only methods that mutate the entity's own declared state count as invariant-protecting behaviour, so a getter/passthrough doesn't rescue an anemic class. Deterministic, exhaustive over domain-layer entities.

Coverage: Population: entities by name/base convention; rich-vs-anemic judged by classifying each method body mutator-vs-query — logic-bearing domain types outside the convention are invisible.

Do you agree with this assessment?

DM5 · Encapsulated state10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Domain Modelling — Whether a domain type's identity-bearing field stays immutable — a `pub` mutable field under a hand-rolled Hash/PartialEq breaks the value-identity invariant.

Method: Roslyn (DDD-gated): entities scanned for publicly writable state — public setters, and (C#/VB) own mutable collections handed out through an auto-property, a public field or a bare-field expression getter, where a computed/copying getter is never charged. One finding per entity; score softened when Marten/EF rehydration frameworks present. Deterministic, framework-aware.

Coverage: Population: entities by convention; encapsulation (setter shape) checked exhaustively within the set.

Do you agree with this assessment?

ES1 · Fold determinism10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Event Sourcing — Whether the recovery-replay fold is deterministic — state derived purely from each event's own fields, no clock/random/IO on the replay path.

Method: Roslyn syntax scan (event-sourcing gated): Apply/When folds checked for forbidden tokens (DateTime.Now, Guid.NewGuid, Random, IO), stripped of comments/strings. Deterministic, hard fact per fold.

Do you agree with this assessment?

ES2 · Immutable events10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Event Sourcing — Whether domain events stay immutable (private fields, set once) rather than carrying mutable state.

Method: Roslyn scan (event-sourcing gated): persisted events checked for public setters; immutability verified per property/field. Deterministic, hard fact.

Do you agree with this assessment?

M1 · Documentation (README)7.8 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

What to do

Add an 'Architecture' / 'How it works' section to the root README — the high-level shape.
Add a README to the 3 of 4 project(s) that lack one — worth up to 1.5 pts.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

No Architecture Decision Records found — no conventional ADR directory, no numbered `NNNN-title` documents in any markup this check reads, and nothing ADR-shaped by content. Design rationale recorded elsewhere (a design-notes tree, a mailing list, pull-request discussion) is not visible to this check and is not re-findable per decision, so a future maintainer cannot ask why one choice was made and get an answer.

What to do

Record your significant design decisions. Write one short document per decision, giving its date, the situation, the decision and its consequences, and keep them together with your other design documents. A docs/adr folder with each file named by number and title is the easiest place to find them.

Do you agree with this assessment?

M3 · Folder & project structure10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

M4 · Documentation accuracy10.0 / 10Exemplary◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

P1 · CI/CD gates10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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 & versioning6.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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; off .NET, a library is the ecosystem's publication act (an npm package that is not private and names an entry point, a PyPI distribution with a build system, a Rust library crate, a Maven/Gradle module that publishes, a Go module with no package main, a gemspec, a Composer library, a SwiftPM library product, a pub.dev or Hex package), its surface is the share of types the language model records as public (Rust, Swift, Java, Kotlin, Go, Dart; not measured where the model records no type visibility or, as in TypeScript, only module-level export), and its version is read from the manifest, a semver CHANGELOG, release tooling or semver git tags. Exhaustive, deterministic.

185/251 types (74%) declared in the published library are public. For a library, every public type is a stability contract — keep implementation types off the surface and expose only the intended API.

What to do

Keep implementation types off the public surface (Rust: `pub(crate)`, or keep the module private) so internals can change without breaking consumers.

Do you agree with this assessment?

P2 · Observability9.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Readiness · Readiness — Whether the code is diagnosable in production — structured logging, tracing/metrics, health checks.

Method: Filesystem/Roslyn scan: structured-logging frameworks (Serilog, NLog), OpenTelemetry, and health-check endpoint patterns. Exhaustive, deterministic.

What to do

Add a health-check endpoint (a /health route on your axum/actix router) so orchestrators and load balancers can probe liveness/readiness.

Do you agree with this assessment?

P3 · Security & performance tooling8.0 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

Method: Filesystem scan: SAST configuration, dependency-update automation, secret scanning, and a benchmark harness or benchmark step — in this repository's own ecosystem. Exhaustive, deterministic.

What to do

Your ecosystem's static analyzer is declared as a dependency but is not wired into CI — run it as a required step on push/PR (e.g. `composer phpstan` / `mix sobelow` / `bundle exec brakeman` / the spotbugs Gradle task / `sbt scalafixAll --check` / `golangci-lint run` / `rebar3 lint`) so a regression fails the build instead of relying on someone running it locally.
Dependabot is configured but does not watch `github-actions` — add that `package-ecosystem` entry to .github/dependabot.yml so those dependencies get the same automatic update and advisory pressure as the ones it already covers.
Add gitleaks/trufflehog in CI to block PRs that introduce committed secrets.

Do you agree with this assessment?

P4 · Deployment & Rollback5.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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.

Deployment automation exists but no readiness/liveness probes, rolling-update strategy, lifecycle hooks or migration job were evidenced — a bad release is harder to detect and reverse.

What to do

Add readiness/liveness probes and a rolling-update (or blue/green) strategy so a bad release is caught and rolled back automatically.
The pipeline declares a deployment environment, but whether required reviewers / protection rules are attached to it lives in repository settings we cannot read — confirm the gate is enforced before production promotion.

Do you agree with this assessment?

P6 · Release Hygiene10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Readiness · Readiness — Whether releases are traceable — a maintained changelog and explicit version stamping.

Method: Filesystem scan: changelog file presence and version tags in csproj or git tags. Exhaustive, deterministic.

Do you agree with this assessment?

P8 · Schema migrations10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Readiness · Readiness — Whether database schema changes go through versioned migrations rather than being auto-created from the model at startup.

Method: Roslyn scan: EF Core DbContext for a versioned migrations directory versus bare EnsureCreated usage; off .NET, a file scan of dependency manifests, migration histories (Flyway, Liquibase, Alembic, Django, Rails, Prisma, TypeORM, Knex/Sequelize, golang-migrate, goose, Laravel, Doctrine, Diesel/sqlx) and schema auto-create in production source or config. Exhaustive, deterministic.

Do you agree with this assessment?

PF1 · Benchmark discipline8.5 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Readiness · Performance — Whether the code protects its performance with benchmarks — a benchmark suite, allocation/memory measurement, and (ideally) a CI gate. Presence is credited as a bonus, never a deduction.

Method: Repo + source scan: BenchmarkDotNet referenced (csproj/source), [Benchmark]/[MemoryDiagnoser] attribute counts, and a benchmark step in CI; off .NET, the same ladder over Go testing.B, Rust criterion/#[bench]/divan, JMH/kotlinx-benchmark, pytest-benchmark/asv/pyperf, tinybench/mitata/vitest bench/benchmark.js and Swift package-benchmark — scored as a bonus ladder (absence is neutral, never a deduction). Deterministic, presence detection.

Do you agree with this assessment?

PF3 · Async & latency hygiene10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Readiness · Performance — Whether asynchronous code stays responsive — it avoids sync-over-async blocking (a .NET .Wait()/.GetAwaiter().GetResult(), a time.sleep or blocking HTTP call inside a Python coroutine, a *Sync call inside an async JavaScript function, block_on inside a Rust async fn, runBlocking inside a Kotlin suspend function, block() inside a Reactor publisher) that stalls a thread or event loop and risks deadlock, and, where the code is a reusable library on .NET, awaits with ConfigureAwait(false) so it never captures and stalls its caller's context.

Method: Production-source scan: sync-over-async blocking counted everywhere — .Wait()/.GetAwaiter().GetResult() in .NET; off .NET, read from the language model, a blocking call inside an async function (Python, TS/JS, Rust, Kotlin, Swift, Dart) or inside a Java method returning a Reactor Mono/Flux or a Scala method returning a Future or effect — and, for a .NET library with ≥5 awaits, the share of awaits using ConfigureAwait(false). Deterministic, syntax/text detection.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X1 · Async correctness10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X14 · Bypassable address classification10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Security — Whether a hand-rolled public/private IP check can be walked past — a method that unwraps IPv4-mapped IPv6 but returns the opposite verdict for the same host written as IPv4-compatible, 6to4 or NAT64.

Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: methods that unwrap IPv4-mapped IPv6 and hand-roll IPv4 range carve-outs, checked for whether the IPv6 branch also accounts for the IPv4-compatible, 6to4 and NAT64 embeddings. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X15 · Unvalidated length from an untrusted reader10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Security — Whether a length read out of the stream being parsed is bounded before it is allocated or read — an unchecked count taken from the input lets the input choose the allocation.

Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: integer lengths read from a BinaryReader and spent on a bulk read or an array allocation, checked for any comparison or bounding call on the value anywhere in the method. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X21 · Side-effecting pattern guard10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a `when` guard is free of side effects — a guard that increments a counter or assigns while deciding whether its arm matches applies that change during PATTERN MATCHING, on an arm that may not be selected, and skips it entirely when a short-circuit to its left answers first.

Method: Roslyn syntax: `when` guards on case labels and switch-expression arms, read for a mutation (`++`/`--`/assignment) sitting in a position the guard's own `&&`/`||`/`??`/`?:`/`?.` can skip. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X27 · Collection changed while being enumerated10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a `for` loop leaves the `RefCell` it is walking alone — safe Rust rejects a body that changes the collection its loop borrows at compile time, except through interior mutability: a `RefCell` borrowed in the loop's header stays borrowed until the loop ends, so a `borrow_mut()` of it inside the body panics with `already borrowed: BorrowMutError` and the remaining elements are never seen.

Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: `foreach` statements whose body calls a structural mutator (`Add`/`Remove`/`Clear`/`Insert`/…) on the very expression the loop is enumerating. Two arms. ARM A — the source is a concrete fragile BCL collection, or a live `Keys`/`Values` view over one, and the mutator resolves to that same collection's own member; concurrent and immutable collections and arrays are outside the population by construction, since their enumerators survive a structural change. ARM B — the source is an argument-less accessor CALL on a receiver whose body is in source: the accessor must return a stored field VERBATIM and a sibling member must structurally change that same field, both read off the implementations rather than from the members' names. A mutation the loop provably exits immediately after (`break`/`return`/`throw`/`goto`), or one written inside a nested loop or a lambda, is counted and never reported. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X28 · Index access outside its own emptiness guard10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a condition that tests a value for emptiness indexes that same value only where the test holds — an `||` written one parenthesis too far to the left leaves an index access outside the guard beside it, so the empty case the guard exists to anticipate reaches the index and throws.

Method: Roslyn syntax only, no semantic model: the OUTERMOST `&&`/`||` of every boolean condition, read for a symbol the condition tests for emptiness (`string.IsNullOrEmpty`/`IsNullOrWhiteSpace`, a `Length`/`Count` comparison against a literal, `Any()`, a `Length`/`Count` pattern, or a comparison against `""`) and ALSO indexes. Each `symbol[...]` access is placed by a boolean-reachability walk from the access up to the outermost connective: an access is COVERED when some enclosing step has it in the right operand and the left operand, under the truth value that step forces, proves the symbol non-empty — a recursion over `&&`/`||` whose true- and false-directions are asymmetric. A finding needs BOTH an uncovered access and a covered one on the same symbol in the same condition, which is the agreeing twin that separates a misplaced parenthesis from an unrelated length test. Bare index accesses with no emptiness test in the condition are neither counted nor reported; a non-identifier receiver and a lambda nested inside the condition are outside the population. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X29 · Per-element action decided by a fixed element10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a decision taken once per element is taken ABOUT that element — a test inside a counted loop that reads a fixed subscript of the very collection its guarded statement indexes by the loop variable applies element zero's answer to all of them, so the elements that differ from it are all handled wrongly, and in the same direction.

Method: Roslyn syntax only, no semantic model: every `for` statement declaring exactly ONE loop variable, and every `if` inside its body that is not under a nested loop or a lambda. A site enters the population when the `if`’s condition never mentions the loop variable while the statement it guards indexes some collection by that variable ALONE (`c[i]`; `c[i + 1]` and `c[i, j]` are outside it). A finding additionally needs the AGREEING TWIN at the same-collection grain: the condition must read THAT SAME collection at a subscript that does not move — written into the condition, or reached through a local declared BEFORE the loop, so an alias bound inside the body is not followed. Both collection expressions must be simple identifiers. On a repository with no .NET source the same rule reads JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (tests included, bundles and vendored paths not): a `for (let|var|const x = …; …; …)` with one declarator and a braced body, an alias followed only when it is declared before the loop in a block that encloses it and never assigned inside the loop. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X30 · Support guard that admits what it rejects10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a guard written as a NEGATED `||` says what its author meant — `!(a || b || x != k)` is `!a && !b && x == k` by De Morgan, so a bail-out that mixes capabilities the code needs with a fault it refuses turns inside out: it fires only where the capabilities are ABSENT, and lets every value the fault term names walk straight into the body that cannot handle it.

Method: Roslyn syntax only, no semantic model: every logical-not whose operand is a parenthesised `||` chain of two or more disjuncts, flattened (a left-nested `a || b || c` read once would see `(a || b)` as one disjunct). A site enters the population on that shape alone. A finding additionally needs the disjuncts to DISAGREE in polarity: at least one bare boolean read — an identifier or member access, never an invocation, which is a predicate rather than a capability flag — and at least one `x != <constant>`, the only form that negates into an exact-value pin (`== null` negates into a looser requirement and is outside the fault set). Consistently-polarised disjunctions, all-fault or all-capability, are counted and never reported; a negated `&&` is outside the population entirely. No same-receiver gate: it was measured to cost a real defect and remove no false positive. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

Method: Roslyn syntax scan: every log call-site counted; interpolated-string first-argument violations flagged. Population is all log calls, not estimated. On a repository with no .NET source it reads JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (test, vendored and minified paths not) with the same rule: a `trace`/`debug`/`info`/`warn`/`error`/`fatal`/`verbose`/`silly`/`http`/`log` call on a receiver named for a logger, in a package whose own or an enclosing `package.json` declares a logger that carries values as fields (pino, pino-http, nestjs-pino, Fastify, winston, bunyan, tslog, LogTape, roarr), whose first deciding argument is a template literal with substitutions; an object-literal fields argument is stepped over, a plain string message clears the call. Python is read the same way: a `debug`/`info`/`warning`/`error`/`exception`/`critical`/`log` call on a logger in a file that imports the standard library’s `logging` or structlog (loguru, which formats at the call, is not judged), whose message is a whole f-string with a non-constant field; a `%`-formatted, `.format()`-ed or concatenated message is not convicted, as in C#. PHP is read the same way: a PSR-3 level call (`emergency`…`debug`, `log`) on a logger (`$logger`, `$this->logger`, Laravel’s `Log::`, `logger()`, `\Drupal::logger()`) in a package whose `composer.json` requires a PSR-3 logger or a framework that hands one out (psr/log, Monolog, Laravel, Symfony, Drupal, CakePHP), or a file that imports one, whose message is a double-quoted string interpolating a variable; a single-quoted message clears the call, and `sprintf` or `.` concatenation is not convicted, as in C#. Dart is read the same way: a `trace`/`debug`/`info`/`warn`/`error`/`fatal` call on Sentry’s structured logger (`Sentry.logger`) whose message is a whole string literal interpolating a value (`$name`, `${…}`); the `Sentry.logger.fmt` template API clears the call. Dart that logs only through loggers with one message and no fields (package:logging, package:logger, talker, dart:developer) is not applicable rather than a reach gap. Ruby is read the same way: a `trace`/`debug`/`info`/`warn`/`error`/`fatal` call on the console gem’s `Console` (declared by a Gemfile, gemspec or Gemfile.lock, or required) or, where SemanticLogger, Ougai or dry-logger is declared or required, on a receiver named for a logger (`logger`, `@logger`, `Rails.logger`, `log`), whose first deciding argument is, as the whole argument, a double-quoted string interpolating a non-constant value (`#{…}`, `#@ivar`); a plain literal clears the call, keyword arguments are the fields, and a block, `%`-format or `+` concatenation is not convicted. Ruby that logs only through the standard Logger (Rails.logger) is not applicable rather than a reach gap. Deterministic.

Do you agree with this assessment?

Reference — by lens

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

Lens	Score	Rating	Impact
Code Health	90%	Exemplary	Solid.
Architecture	100%	Exemplary	Solid.
Maturity	62%	Adequate — gated by M2	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Readiness	67%	Adequate — gated by D13	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Security	35%	Weak — gated by D36, C1	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Domain Modelling	100%	Exemplary	Strongest area.
Event Sourcing	100%	Exemplary	Solid.
Performance	91%	Exemplary	Solid.

Unscored — 2 check(s) recorded observations but carry no score

These checks ran and found something, but they do not carry a score — either by design (an advisory check reports evidence rather than grading it) or because they could not be scored here. They are excluded from the score for that reason, not because there was nothing to see.

X7 Silent fallback defaults — 1 observation(s) recorded · Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score.
X9 Subsumed condition operand — 1 observation(s) recorded · Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score.

Not evidenced — 4 control(s) we could not find positive evidence for

These checks grade a working control, and the repository shows no evidence of one. That is deliberately not scored as a zero: a repository cannot show an ops runbook, a database TTL or an infrastructure-side audit log, so absence of evidence here is not evidence the control is missing. It is also not a statement that the check is irrelevant to this codebase — the thing it grades applies; we just could not see it. Excluded from the score either way.

C3 Audit Trail — Repo shows no audit-logging mechanism (an audit-log table or model — a struct, Diesel table, SeaORM entity or SQL migration table named for it — a SeaORM ActiveModelBehavior hook or database trigger that records each change, or an event-sourced store beside one) 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.
P5 DR & Backup — not evidenced — repo shows no backup/RTO/RPO controls; absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control

Not included — 61 check(s) not relevant to this codebase

These checks had nothing to measure here (no tests, no git history, the codebase is small, or the architecture style doesn't apply), so they're omitted above rather than scored low.

AC1 Text alternatives — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC2 Forms & labels — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC3 Page structure — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC4 Keyboard semantics — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC5 ARIA correctness — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC6 Visual & motion safety — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC7 A11y enforcement — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AX1 Captive dependencies — Not applicable: Rust with no dependency-injection crate has no container to hand one lifetime's instance to another — every value is owned by the code that builds it, and the borrow checker rejects a longer-lived value keeping a borrow of a shorter-lived one.
AX2 Stateful singletons — Not applicable: Rust's compiler refuses unsynchronised shared mutation — a value shared across threads must be Sync — so the race this check looks for cannot be written.
AX5 Architecture & structure — not assessed — architecture style/structure is computed from a project graph (projects, types, module namespaces) that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
AX6 Interface segregation — not assessed — interface segregation is computed over a type surface that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
AX7 Slice cohesion — not applicable — not a vertical-slice architecture
AXB1 Runtime evidence locked — no reproducible boot — This repository has nothing the runtime tiers could boot or serve — no markup, no UI framework or web-server dependency, no UI component source, no native UI project and no API definition — nothing here is a surface to boot — so runtime a11y/egress/header evidence has no subject here. Not applicable: this is neither a gap in the scan nor a finding about your code.
C2 Access Controls — No access-control surface detected in the analyzed source — this repository starts no server another machine can reach (no actix-web HttpServer, axum::serve, Rocket launch, warp::serve, poem or salvo Server, tonic Server::builder, hyper or tiny_http server outside examples and tests, none bound beyond loopback). Access control is therefore N/A here — a crate is authorized by the application that serves it, not by itself. If this codebase grows request handlers, the dimension reactivates and a default-deny posture is expected then.
D10 Test Quality — ~25231 lines of test source are present (.rs) but no test cases reached the test census for this repository — no test root we could resolve declared them, or the files we read declare no cases in a test framework we recognise — so skipped/assertion-free tests couldn't be counted. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository.
D11 Test Reliability — Test reliability not included — the .rs suite was found but not re-run
D18 Solution Shape — D18 scores the shape of a .NET solution; this repository has no .NET solution or project files, so the dimension does not apply.
D20 ADR Quality — N/A — ADRs are expected on deployable products with a user-facing host, not consumed libraries; no ADR log is required here.
D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — No bounded-context organisation was detected either — neither a context-shaped layout, nor 2+ sibling source directories each declaring an aggregate root, nor 2+ projects each declaring an entity of their own. Declaring this codebase's bounded contexts (≥2) would let cross-boundary type coupling 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"]`.
D24 Comment Value — No inline comments to assess — comment value is not applicable here.
D25 ADR Conformance — no ADRs to check
D27 Navigability — D27 counts a call into the standard library or a dependency as unresolved for this repository's language (.rs), so too few call sites counted as resolved to assess navigability. Not scored: this is a gap in the analyzer, not a verdict about this repository.
D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — No personal data was found crossing a boundary the PII/GDPR ruleset checks — nothing written to a log or console sink, placed in a URL or query string, or persisted to browser storage. That is a clean result for the LEAK surface only: this ruleset detects personal data escaping, it does not inventory the personal data a repository holds, so it is not evidence that this repository has no personal-data surface. The personal-data map (Appendix C) and the C1-C5 compliance cards are what speak to that.
D39 IL Efficiency — D39 measures the IL emitted by a .NET build; this repository has no .NET solution or project files, so the dimension does not apply.
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 project-reference graph for the cycle pass to read — so this dimension makes no claim about dependency cycles in either direction (where this repository's language has an import-cycle lens, cycles are reported there). Architectural integrity not assessed
D8 Code Coverage — Coverage not included — suite not readable by the collector
DM1 Aggregate boundaries — this Rust crate declares no domain aggregate (a struct with private state and its own command methods), so DM1's aggregate-boundary read has no population to be taken over
DM2 Strongly-typed ids — the crate defines newtype typed-ids but declares no domain aggregate that could carry an id — so DM2's adoption ratio has no population to be taken over
DM3 Integration-event coupling — not applicable: no DDD domain layer was detected (no aggregate, entity or value-object structure), so there is no domain model for this card to grade
DM6 Domain ↔ infrastructure boundary — this Rust crate maps no type to a persistence framework (diesel/sea-orm/sqlx), so DM6's domain↔infrastructure fusion read has no population to be taken over
DM7 Repository granularity — not applicable: no DDD domain layer was detected (no aggregate, entity or value-object structure), so there is no domain model for this card to grade
ED2 Event/command shape — not scored — deciding whether a command has more than one competing handler requires resolving the call graph, and a call made through an inferred or generic receiver has no resolvable owner in the source. Reported as guidance rather than measured
ED5 Idempotency — no mutating command handlers or message consumers detected — idempotency check not applicable
GD1 Unfinished & placeholder code — no source files were read — this check reads C#, F#, JavaScript/TypeScript, Dart, Ruby and Scala, and none was read for this repository's product. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
IC1 Incompleteness & stubs — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
P12 CI test-gate honesty — Reported, not scored — and nothing was matched here. The coverage check applies to any stack, and the automatic-re-run check to any GitHub-Actions workflow, but the checks for excluded tests, skipped tests and sleep-based synchronisation currently recognise only some ecosystems' test-runner idioms, so on a repository built with another stack the zeros below mean 'not checked', not 'clean'.
P7 Outbound HTTP resilience — not applicable — no HTTP server, API framework or worker entry point was found in the Rust source, so there is no service whose uptime a failing dependency could take down
P9 Domain vs controller coverage — no coverage report found on disk — produce a coverage report in a standard format (lcov — `cargo install cargo-llvm-cov`, then `cargo llvm-cov --lcov --output-path lcov.info`) and commit it — a hosted scan measures a clone of the repository, so a report that exists only in a working tree, a CI runner's or your own, never reaches it; the artefact is commonly gitignored, so `git add -f` that one file (or un-ignore its path) and commit it alongside the code it measures, or wire coverage collection into CI, to enable this cross-layer check
PF2 Allocation hygiene — Not applicable: Rust spells out every heap allocation and makes borrowed slices (&[T], &str) its ordinary parameter types, so the allocation-aware style this card rewards elsewhere is the language's baseline rather than a rung to climb.
S1 Web-Security Posture — No web surface: 97 Rust file(s) were read for weak hashes and ciphers, key material fixed in the source, disabled TLS certificate validation and obsolete TLS versions, and none was found. This repository serves no HTTP of its own — no HTTP-server crate (actix-web, axum, Rocket, warp, poem, tide, salvo, tonic, a hyper server, …) among its Cargo manifests' run-time dependencies, and no server started in its production source — so HTTPS enforcement, HSTS, cookie flags and input validation are N/A here, as they are for a C# library or worker. If this codebase starts serving HTTP, the dimension reactivates automatically.
X10 Duplicated predicate — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
X12 Unreachable branch — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X13 Undrained process stream — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X16 Unfloored truncation loop — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X17 Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X18 Disposal-pattern correctness — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X19 Unrestored process-global state — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X2 Cancellation propagation — no C# was loaded; this repository's Rust was read, and no request in it can be cancelled by a caller — a Rust request takes no token: a future is cancelled by dropping it, from outside the call (select!, a timeout, an aborted task), and reqwest, hyper and tonic take none
X20 Mistyped argument guard — This check asks whether an argument guard reports an EMPTY value as a NULL one, which needs a language that throws a null-specific argument exception — .NET's ArgumentNullException, the JVM's NullPointerException, Dart's ArgumentError.notNull. This repository contains none of those languages: the ones it is written in have a single exception for a bad argument, so there is no pair of exceptions to confuse and nothing here for it to assess. Not a gap in the analyzer and not a finding about your code.
X22 Contradicted release guard — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X23 Unguarded diagnostic materialisation — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X24 Document value interpolated into markup unescaped — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X25 Inert configuration knob — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X26 Unsynchronised callback handoff — Not applicable: this check looks for a collection written by a callback on one thread while the body waiting on it touches it on another, and in this repository's languages no collection is reachable from two threads at once. Rust's compiler refuses the unsynchronised version: a collection shared between a callback's thread and the waiting body must be `Sync`, which a `Vec`, `VecDeque` or `HashMap` is only behind a `Mutex`/`RwLock`, so the race this check looks for cannot be written in safe Rust. Not a gap in the analyzer and not a finding about your code.
X3 Exception handling — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X32 Type resolved by simple name across every loaded assembly — This check is about how a .NET program searches the assemblies loaded into its process for a type, and this repository contains no .NET source, so there is nothing here for it to assess. Not a gap in the analyzer and not a finding about your code.
X5 Nullable reference types — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X6 Hand-rolled structured-format parsing — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.

Appendix A — Findings (grouped)

The findings behind the scores, grouped by severity, then by dimension and kind. The high-severity issues are enumerated in full below; items per group are capped at 25 with any overflow stated explicitly per group, never silently truncated. The complete machine-readable list of every finding (all severities) is the companion findings.md in this report's bundle.

Critical — 22 finding(s)

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

D13 · Secret Scanning · Leaked secret · ×2

REDACTED
REDACTED

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED · ×1

REDACTED

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED · ×1

REDACTED

Serious — 163 finding(s)

D3 · God Classes · MethodTooLong · ×17

MethodTooLong: CreateFn.to_tokens es-entity-macros/src/repo/create_fn.rs:81 — MethodTooLong — to_tokens runs 460 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 360 over it, 4.60× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
MethodTooLong: ListForFiltersFn.generate_by_fn es-entity-macros/src/repo/list_for_filters_fn.rs:725 — MethodTooLong — generate_by_fn runs 366 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 266 over it, 3.66× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
MethodTooLong: UpdateAllFn.build es-entity-macros/src/repo/update_all_fn.rs:101 — MethodTooLong — build runs 273 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 173 over it, 2.73× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
MethodTooLong: EsRepo.to_tokens es-entity-macros/src/repo/mod.rs:169 — MethodTooLong — to_tokens runs 232 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 132 over it, 2.32× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
MethodTooLong: CreateAllFn.to_tokens es-entity-macros/src/repo/create_all_fn.rs:65 — MethodTooLong — to_tokens runs 221 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 121 over it, 2.21× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
MethodTooLong: ListForFn.to_tokens es-entity-macros/src/repo/list_for_fn.rs:141 — MethodTooLong — to_tokens runs 203 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 103 over it, 2.03× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
MethodTooLong: UpdateFn.to_tokens es-entity-macros/src/repo/update_fn.rs:64 — MethodTooLong — to_tokens runs 200 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 100 over it, 2.00× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
MethodTooLong: ListByFn.to_tokens es-entity-macros/src/repo/list_by_fn.rs:466 — MethodTooLong — to_tokens runs 181 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 81 over it, 1.81× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
MethodTooLong: ErrorTypes.generate es-entity-macros/src/repo/error_types.rs:144 — MethodTooLong — generate runs 179 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 79 over it, 1.79× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
MethodTooLong: FindByFn.to_tokens es-entity-macros/src/repo/find_by_fn.rs:119 — MethodTooLong — to_tokens runs 168 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 68 over it, 1.68× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
MethodTooLong: ForgetFn.to_tokens es-entity-macros/src/repo/forget_fn.rs:53 — MethodTooLong — to_tokens runs 160 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 60 over it, 1.60× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
MethodTooLong: DeleteFn.to_tokens es-entity-macros/src/repo/delete_fn.rs:60 — MethodTooLong — to_tokens runs 130 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 30 over it, 1.30× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
MethodTooLong: ListForFiltersFn.to_tokens es-entity-macros/src/repo/list_for_filters_fn.rs:1267 — MethodTooLong — to_tokens runs 128 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 28 over it, 1.28× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
MethodTooLong: EsQuery.to_tokens es-entity-macros/src/query/mod.rs:26 — MethodTooLong — to_tokens runs 127 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 27 over it, 1.27× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
MethodTooLong: PersistEventsFn.to_tokens es-entity-macros/src/repo/persist_events_fn.rs:35 — MethodTooLong — to_tokens runs 125 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 25 over it, 1.25× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
MethodTooLong: PersistEventsBatchFn.to_tokens es-entity-macros/src/repo/persist_events_batch_fn.rs:35 — MethodTooLong — to_tokens runs 108 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 8 over it, 1.08× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
MethodTooLong: SnapshotFns.in_impl_tokens es-entity-macros/src/repo/snapshot_fns.rs:35 — MethodTooLong — in_impl_tokens runs 101 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 1 over it, 1.01× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.

D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots · Hotspot · ×14

Hotspot: es-entity-macros/src/repo/list_for_filters_fn.rs es-entity-macros/src/repo/list_for_filters_fn.rs:725 — es-entity-macros/src/repo/list_for_filters_fn.rs changed 17 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 34 in ListForFiltersFn::generate_by_fn at line 725. 3 of those changes were fix/bug commits, and the other 14 changed it for other reasons — this file is under both repair and feature pressure. Before the next change lands here, make sure the area it touches is under test, then split that area out of the file so the following change is smaller than this one — a file this often edited pays the complexity back every time. Counted over 2026-07-23..2026-10-21, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-07-23 12:18:08 +00:00' --until='2026-10-21 12:18:08 +00:00' --full-history --no-merges -- es-entity-macros/src/repo/list_for_filters_fn.rs`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Hotspot: errlanes-derive/src/rejection.rs errlanes-derive/src/rejection.rs:183 — errlanes-derive/src/rejection.rs changed 10 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 56 in errlanes_derive::rejection::derive at line 183. 1 of those changes was a fix/bug commit, and the other 9 changed it for other reasons — this file is under both repair and feature pressure. Before the next change lands here, make sure the area it touches is under test, then split that area out of the file so the following change is smaller than this one — a file this often edited pays the complexity back every time. Counted over 2026-07-23..2026-10-21, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-07-23 12:18:08 +00:00' --until='2026-10-21 12:18:08 +00:00' --full-history --no-merges -- errlanes-derive/src/rejection.rs`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Hotspot: errlanes-derive/src/lift.rs errlanes-derive/src/lift.rs:423 — errlanes-derive/src/lift.rs changed 12 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 38 in errlanes_derive::lift::derive at line 423. Frequent change and high complexity in one file compound: schedule the next change to it to include carving out the part being edited, with the area under test before it moves. Counted over 2026-07-23..2026-10-21, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-07-23 12:18:08 +00:00' --until='2026-10-21 12:18:08 +00:00' --full-history --no-merges -- errlanes-derive/src/lift.rs`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Hotspot: es-entity-macros/src/repo/create_fn.rs es-entity-macros/src/repo/create_fn.rs:81 — es-entity-macros/src/repo/create_fn.rs changed 18 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 21 in CreateFn::to_tokens at line 81. 4 of those changes were fix/bug commits, and the other 14 changed it for other reasons — this file is under both repair and feature pressure. Before the next change lands here, make sure the area it touches is under test, then split that area out of the file so the following change is smaller than this one — a file this often edited pays the complexity back every time. Counted over 2026-07-23..2026-10-21, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-07-23 12:18:08 +00:00' --until='2026-10-21 12:18:08 +00:00' --full-history --no-merges -- es-entity-macros/src/repo/create_fn.rs`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Hotspot: es-entity-macros/src/repo/error_types.rs es-entity-macros/src/repo/error_types.rs:144 — es-entity-macros/src/repo/error_types.rs changed 16 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 18 in ErrorTypes::generate at line 144. 5 of those changes were fix/bug commits, and the other 11 changed it for other reasons — this file is under both repair and feature pressure. Before the next change lands here, make sure the area it touches is under test, then split that area out of the file so the following change is smaller than this one — a file this often edited pays the complexity back every time. Counted over 2026-07-23..2026-10-21, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-07-23 12:18:08 +00:00' --until='2026-10-21 12:18:08 +00:00' --full-history --no-merges -- es-entity-macros/src/repo/error_types.rs`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Hotspot: es-entity-macros/src/index_catalog.rs es-entity-macros/src/index_catalog.rs:339 — es-entity-macros/src/index_catalog.rs changed 8 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 29 in es_entity_macros::index_catalog::apply_statement at line 339. 4 of those changes were fix/bug commits, and the other 4 changed it for other reasons — this file is under both repair and feature pressure. Before the next change lands here, make sure the area it touches is under test, then split that area out of the file so the following change is smaller than this one — a file this often edited pays the complexity back every time. Counted over 2026-07-23..2026-10-21, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-07-23 12:18:08 +00:00' --until='2026-10-21 12:18:08 +00:00' --full-history --no-merges -- es-entity-macros/src/index_catalog.rs`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Hotspot: es-entity-macros/src/repo/options/mod.rs es-entity-macros/src/repo/options/mod.rs:494 — es-entity-macros/src/repo/options/mod.rs changed 14 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 16 in RepositoryOptions::ensure_keys at line 494. 3 of those changes were fix/bug commits, and the other 11 changed it for other reasons — this file is under both repair and feature pressure. Before the next change lands here, make sure the area it touches is under test, then split that area out of the file so the following change is smaller than this one — a file this often edited pays the complexity back every time. Counted over 2026-07-23..2026-10-21, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-07-23 12:18:08 +00:00' --until='2026-10-21 12:18:08 +00:00' --full-history --no-merges -- es-entity-macros/src/repo/options/mod.rs`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Hotspot: errlanes-derive/src/classify.rs errlanes-derive/src/classify.rs:470 — errlanes-derive/src/classify.rs changed 7 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 31 in errlanes_derive::classify::derive_laned_enum at line 470. 2 of those changes were fix/bug commits, and the other 5 changed it for other reasons — this file is under both repair and feature pressure. Before the next change lands here, make sure the area it touches is under test, then split that area out of the file so the following change is smaller than this one — a file this often edited pays the complexity back every time. Counted over 2026-07-23..2026-10-21, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-07-23 12:18:08 +00:00' --until='2026-10-21 12:18:08 +00:00' --full-history --no-merges -- errlanes-derive/src/classify.rs`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Hotspot: es-entity-macros/src/repo/options/columns.rs es-entity-macros/src/repo/options/columns.rs:210 — es-entity-macros/src/repo/options/columns.rs changed 13 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 16 in Columns::validate_virtual at line 210. 1 of those changes was a fix/bug commit, and the other 12 changed it for other reasons — this file is under both repair and feature pressure. Before the next change lands here, make sure the area it touches is under test, then split that area out of the file so the following change is smaller than this one — a file this often edited pays the complexity back every time. Counted over 2026-07-23..2026-10-21, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-07-23 12:18:08 +00:00' --until='2026-10-21 12:18:08 +00:00' --full-history --no-merges -- es-entity-macros/src/repo/options/columns.rs`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Hotspot: es-entity-macros/src/repo/list_by_fn.rs es-entity-macros/src/repo/list_by_fn.rs:466 — es-entity-macros/src/repo/list_by_fn.rs changed 12 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 16 in ListByFn::to_tokens at line 466. 2 of those changes were fix/bug commits, and the other 10 changed it for other reasons — this file is under both repair and feature pressure. Before the next change lands here, make sure the area it touches is under test, then split that area out of the file so the following change is smaller than this one — a file this often edited pays the complexity back every time. Counted over 2026-07-23..2026-10-21, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-07-23 12:18:08 +00:00' --until='2026-10-21 12:18:08 +00:00' --full-history --no-merges -- es-entity-macros/src/repo/list_by_fn.rs`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Hotspot: es-entity-macros/src/repo/list_for_fn.rs es-entity-macros/src/repo/list_for_fn.rs:141 — es-entity-macros/src/repo/list_for_fn.rs changed 11 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 17 in ListForFn::to_tokens at line 141. Frequent change and high complexity in one file compound: schedule the next change to it to include carving out the part being edited, with the area under test before it moves. Counted over 2026-07-23..2026-10-21, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-07-23 12:18:08 +00:00' --until='2026-10-21 12:18:08 +00:00' --full-history --no-merges -- es-entity-macros/src/repo/list_for_fn.rs`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Hotspot: es-entity-macros/src/repo/find_by_fn.rs es-entity-macros/src/repo/find_by_fn.rs:119 — es-entity-macros/src/repo/find_by_fn.rs changed 8 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 17 in FindByFn::to_tokens at line 119. Frequent change and high complexity in one file compound: schedule the next change to it to include carving out the part being edited, with the area under test before it moves. Counted over 2026-07-23..2026-10-21, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-07-23 12:18:08 +00:00' --until='2026-10-21 12:18:08 +00:00' --full-history --no-merges -- es-entity-macros/src/repo/find_by_fn.rs`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Hotspot: errlanes-derive/src/composition.rs errlanes-derive/src/composition.rs:14 — errlanes-derive/src/composition.rs changed 5 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 24 in errlanes_derive::composition::schema at line 14. Frequent change and high complexity in one file compound: schedule the next change to it to include carving out the part being edited, with the area under test before it moves. Counted over 2026-07-23..2026-10-21, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-07-23 12:18:08 +00:00' --until='2026-10-21 12:18:08 +00:00' --full-history --no-merges -- errlanes-derive/src/composition.rs`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
Hotspot: errlanes-derive/src/composition/imports.rs errlanes-derive/src/composition/imports.rs:346 — errlanes-derive/src/composition/imports.rs changed 3 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 37 in errlanes_derive::composition::imports::finish at line 346. Frequent change and high complexity in one file compound: schedule the next change to it to include carving out the part being edited, with the area under test before it moves. Counted over 2026-07-23..2026-10-21, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-07-23 12:18:08 +00:00' --until='2026-10-21 12:18:08 +00:00' --full-history --no-merges -- errlanes-derive/src/composition/imports.rs`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · errlanes_derive · ×10

errlanes_derive::rejection::derive (cognitive 118) errlanes-derive/src/rejection.rs:183 — errlanes_derive::rejection::derive has cognitive complexity 118 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 49 (98 pts), match/switch 5 (10 pts), boolean chains 9, loops 1 (nesting depth added 54). 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.
errlanes_derive::composition::imports::finish (cognitive 79) errlanes-derive/src/composition/imports.rs:346 — errlanes_derive::composition::imports::finish has cognitive complexity 79 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 17 (49 pts), loops 12 (19 pts), boolean chains 6, match/switch 2 (5 pts) (nesting depth added 42). 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.
errlanes_derive::lift::derive (cognitive 67) errlanes-derive/src/lift.rs:423 — errlanes_derive::lift::derive has cognitive complexity 67 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 15 (37 pts), loops 10 (14 pts), boolean chains 9, match/switch 3 (7 pts) (nesting depth added 30). 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.
errlanes_derive::classify::derive_laned_enum (cognitive 56) errlanes-derive/src/classify.rs:470 — errlanes_derive::classify::derive_laned_enum has cognitive complexity 56 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 18 (28 pts), match/switch 5 (16 pts), loops 6 (9 pts), boolean chains 3 (nesting depth added 24). 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.
errlanes_derive::composition::schema (cognitive 41) errlanes-derive/src/composition.rs:14 — errlanes_derive::composition::schema has cognitive complexity 41 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 17 (30 pts), loops 4 (6 pts), boolean chains 5 (nesting depth added 15). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
errlanes_derive::std_error::rewrite_literal (cognitive 35) errlanes-derive/src/std_error.rs:228 — errlanes_derive::std_error::rewrite_literal has cognitive complexity 35 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (26 pts), match/switch 2 (5 pts), loops 2 (4 pts) (nesting depth added 23). 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.
errlanes_derive::std_error::emit (cognitive 22) errlanes-derive/src/std_error.rs:428 — errlanes_derive::std_error::emit has cognitive complexity 22 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 5 (10 pts), match/switch 3 (7 pts), loops 3 (5 pts) (nesting depth added 11). 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.
errlanes_derive::classify::parse_classify_meta (cognitive 18) errlanes-derive/src/classify.rs:49 — errlanes_derive::classify::parse_classify_meta has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 5 (12 pts), match/switch 2 (5 pts), loops 1 (nesting depth added 10). 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.
errlanes_derive::composition::expand (cognitive 17) errlanes-derive/src/composition.rs:163 — errlanes_derive::composition::expand has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 5 (12 pts), loops 3 (4 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 8). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
errlanes_derive::instrument::inject_fields (cognitive 16) errlanes-derive/src/instrument.rs:92 — errlanes_derive::instrument::inject_fields has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 5 (12 pts), boolean chains 3, loops 1 (nesting depth added 7). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · errlanes_derive · ×6

errlanes_derive::rejection::derive (cyclomatic 56) errlanes-derive/src/rejection.rs:183 — errlanes_derive::rejection::derive has cyclomatic complexity 56 (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.
errlanes_derive::lift::derive (cyclomatic 38) errlanes-derive/src/lift.rs:423 — errlanes_derive::lift::derive has cyclomatic complexity 38 (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.
errlanes_derive::composition::imports::finish (cyclomatic 37) errlanes-derive/src/composition/imports.rs:346 — errlanes_derive::composition::imports::finish has cyclomatic complexity 37 (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.
errlanes_derive::classify::derive_laned_enum (cyclomatic 31) errlanes-derive/src/classify.rs:470 — errlanes_derive::classify::derive_laned_enum has cyclomatic complexity 31 (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.
errlanes_derive::composition::schema (cyclomatic 24) errlanes-derive/src/composition.rs:14 — errlanes_derive::composition::schema 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.
errlanes_derive::classify::parse_classify_meta (cyclomatic 20) errlanes-derive/src/classify.rs:49 — errlanes_derive::classify::parse_classify_meta has cyclomatic complexity 20 (threshold 15). 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. Where every arm is uniform — the same kind of value, with no behaviour of its own — a table keyed by the case is the shorter form; wherever the arms carry different data or different behaviour, keep them as cases, because collapsing those trades an explicit, reviewable set of cases for nothing.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) · ×6

Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) es-entity-macros/src/repo/combo_cursor.rs:162 — es-entity-macros/src/repo/combo_cursor.rs:162-168 | es-entity-macros/src/repo/list_by_fn.rs:299-305 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) es-entity-macros/src/repo/error_classifier.rs:194 — es-entity-macros/src/repo/error_classifier.rs:194-200 | es-entity-macros/src/repo/error_classifier.rs:206-212 — 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 (7 lines × 2) es-entity-macros/src/repo/list_by_fn.rs:469 — es-entity-macros/src/repo/list_by_fn.rs:469-475 | es-entity-macros/src/repo/list_for_fn.rs:143-149 — before extracting anything, compare `es-entity-macros/src/repo/list_by_fn.rs` and `es-entity-macros/src/repo/list_for_fn.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 15 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 234 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) errlanes/src/dynamic.rs:136 — errlanes/src/dynamic.rs:136-142 | errlanes/src/dynamic.rs:146-152 — 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 (7 lines × 2) es-entity-macros/src/repo/create_fn.rs:221 — es-entity-macros/src/repo/create_fn.rs:221-227 | es-entity-macros/src/repo/delete_fn.rs:104-110 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) errlanes-derive/src/rejection.rs:587 — errlanes-derive/src/rejection.rs:587-593 | errlanes-derive/src/rejection.rs:599-605 — 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.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) · ×6

Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) errlanes/src/fail.rs:516 — errlanes/src/fail.rs:516-521 | errlanes/src/fail.rs:536-541 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) es-entity-macros/src/repo/error_classifier.rs:97 — es-entity-macros/src/repo/error_classifier.rs:97-102 | es-entity-macros/src/repo/error_types.rs:434-439 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) es-entity-macros/src/repo/find_by_fn.rs:50 — es-entity-macros/src/repo/find_by_fn.rs:50-55 | es-entity-macros/src/repo/find_by_fn.rs:120-125 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) es-entity-macros/src/repo/options/columns.rs:314 — es-entity-macros/src/repo/options/columns.rs:314-319 | es-entity-macros/src/repo/options/columns.rs:329-334 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) es-entity-macros/src/repo/options/columns.rs:457 — es-entity-macros/src/repo/options/columns.rs:457-462 | es-entity-macros/src/repo/options/columns.rs:639-644 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) es-entity-macros/src/repo/find_by_fn.rs:283 — es-entity-macros/src/repo/find_by_fn.rs:283-288 | es-entity-macros/src/repo/list_for_fn.rs:310-319 — before extracting anything, compare `es-entity-macros/src/repo/find_by_fn.rs` and `es-entity-macros/src/repo/list_for_fn.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 5 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 56 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.

D3 · God Classes · FunctionTooLong · ×5

FunctionTooLong: errlanes_derive::rejection::derive errlanes-derive/src/rejection.rs:183 — FunctionTooLong — errlanes_derive::rejection::derive runs 358 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 258 over it, 3.58× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
FunctionTooLong: errlanes_derive::classify::derive_laned_enum errlanes-derive/src/classify.rs:470 — FunctionTooLong — errlanes_derive::classify::derive_laned_enum runs 177 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 77 over it, 1.77× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
FunctionTooLong: errlanes_derive::lift::derive errlanes-derive/src/lift.rs:423 — FunctionTooLong — errlanes_derive::lift::derive runs 165 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 65 over it, 1.65× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
FunctionTooLong: errlanes_derive::composition::imports::finish errlanes-derive/src/composition/imports.rs:346 — FunctionTooLong — errlanes_derive::composition::imports::finish runs 138 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 38 over it, 1.38× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
FunctionTooLong: es_entity_macros::index_catalog::apply_statement es-entity-macros/src/index_catalog.rs:339 — FunctionTooLong — es_entity_macros::index_catalog::apply_statement runs 104 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 4 over it, 1.04× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.

D3 · God Classes · FileTooLong · ×5

FileTooLong: repo/list_for_filters_fn.rs es-entity-macros/src/repo/list_for_filters_fn.rs — FileTooLong — 934 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted), about 83% of them inside a single declaration: ListForFiltersFn (3 blocks, 313-1446). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 434 over it, 1.87× the bar. Moving the declarations that sit BESIDE it into sibling files will not shorten this file. Extract from INSIDE that declaration instead: lift each cohesive group of its body — the parts that share the same inputs and are named together — into its own unit in a sibling file, and have the original call them.
FileTooLong: src/lift.rs errlanes-derive/src/lift.rs — FileTooLong — 857 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 357 over it, 1.71× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
FileTooLong: options/columns.rs es-entity-macros/src/repo/options/columns.rs — FileTooLong — 822 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 322 over it, 1.64× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
FileTooLong: repo/create_fn.rs es-entity-macros/src/repo/create_fn.rs — FileTooLong — 520 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted), about 99% of them inside a single declaration: CreateFn (3 blocks, 10-720). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 20 over it, 1.04× the bar. Moving the declarations that sit BESIDE it into sibling files will not shorten this file. Extract from INSIDE that declaration instead: lift each cohesive group of its body — the parts that share the same inputs and are named together — into its own unit in a sibling file, and have the original call them.
FileTooLong: src/classify.rs errlanes-derive/src/classify.rs — FileTooLong — 508 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 8 over it, 1.02× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · es_entity_macros · ×4

es_entity_macros::index_catalog::apply_statement (cognitive 53) es-entity-macros/src/index_catalog.rs:339 — es_entity_macros::index_catalog::apply_statement has cognitive complexity 53 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (27 pts), loops 6 (15 pts), match/switch 4 (10 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 33). 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.
es_entity_macros::index_catalog::strip_comments (cognitive 29) es-entity-macros/src/index_catalog.rs:653 — es_entity_macros::index_catalog::strip_comments has cognitive complexity 29 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 6 (14 pts), loops 4 (10 pts), boolean chains 5 (nesting depth added 14). 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.
es_entity_macros::index_catalog::split_statements (cognitive 28) es-entity-macros/src/index_catalog.rs:695 — es_entity_macros::index_catalog::split_statements has cognitive complexity 28 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (19 pts), loops 3 (7 pts), boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 16). 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.
es_entity_macros::repo::options::columns::substitute_value_placeholder (cognitive 16) es-entity-macros/src/repo/options/columns.rs:1120 — es_entity_macros::repo::options::columns::substitute_value_placeholder has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 4 (10 pts), loops 2 (4 pts), match/switch 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 9). 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.

D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities · Medium advisory (unsound) · ×4

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

D3 · God Classes · ClassTooLong · ×3

ClassTooLong: ListForFiltersFn es-entity-macros/src/repo/list_for_filters_fn.rs:313 — ClassTooLong — 773 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted), 9 methods, 3 blocks, lines 313-1446. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 373 over it, 1.93× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
ClassTooLong: CreateFn es-entity-macros/src/repo/create_fn.rs:10 — ClassTooLong — 514 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted), 0 methods, 3 blocks, lines 10-720. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 114 over it, 1.29× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
ClassTooLong: Columns es-entity-macros/src/repo/options/columns.rs:5 — ClassTooLong — 410 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted), 32 methods, 3 blocks, lines 5-693. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 10 over it, 1.03× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.

D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities · Medium advisory (unmaintained) · ×3

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing REDACTED · ×3

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

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

Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) es-entity-macros/src/repo/combo_cursor.rs:147 — es-entity-macros/src/repo/combo_cursor.rs:147-160 | es-entity-macros/src/repo/list_by_fn.rs:284-297 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once.
Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) es-entity-macros/src/repo/find_all_fn.rs:94 — es-entity-macros/src/repo/find_all_fn.rs:94-107 | es-entity-macros/src/repo/find_by_fn.rs:182-195 — before extracting anything, compare `es-entity-macros/src/repo/find_all_fn.rs` and `es-entity-macros/src/repo/find_by_fn.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 48 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) es-entity-macros/src/repo/list_by_fn.rs:371 — es-entity-macros/src/repo/list_by_fn.rs:371-384 | es-entity-macros/src/repo/list_for_fn.rs:35-48 — before extracting anything, compare `es-entity-macros/src/repo/list_by_fn.rs` and `es-entity-macros/src/repo/list_for_fn.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 15 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 234 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.

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

Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) es-entity-macros/src/repo/create_fn.rs:253 — es-entity-macros/src/repo/create_fn.rs:253-262 | es-entity-macros/src/repo/update_fn.rs:301-310 — before extracting anything, compare `es-entity-macros/src/repo/create_fn.rs` and `es-entity-macros/src/repo/update_fn.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 30 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) es-entity-macros/src/repo/list_for_filters_fn.rs:121 — es-entity-macros/src/repo/list_for_filters_fn.rs:121-130 | es-entity-macros/src/repo/list_for_filters_fn.rs:141-150 — 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 (10 lines × 2) es-entity-macros/src/repo/events_write.rs:130 — es-entity-macros/src/repo/events_write.rs:130-139 | es-entity-macros/src/repo/events_write.rs:150-159 — 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.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Columns · ×2

Columns::validate_virtual (cognitive 24) es-entity-macros/src/repo/options/columns.rs:210 — Columns::validate_virtual has cognitive complexity 24 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 13 (21 pts), match/switch 1 (2 pts), loops 1 (nesting depth added 9). 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.
Columns::validate_scope (cognitive 19) es-entity-macros/src/repo/options/columns.rs:98 — Columns::validate_scope has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (13 pts), loops 4 (5 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 6). 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.

D3 · God Classes · TooManyMethods · ×2

TooManyMethods: RepositoryOptions es-entity-macros/src/repo/options/mod.rs:106 — TooManyMethods — 50 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 20 over it, 1.67× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
TooManyMethods: Columns es-entity-macros/src/repo/options/columns.rs:5 — TooManyMethods — 32 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 2 over it, 1.07× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.

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

Duplicated block (18 lines × 2) es-entity-macros/src/repo/list_by_fn.rs:643 — es-entity-macros/src/repo/list_by_fn.rs:643-660 | es-entity-macros/src/repo/list_for_fn.rs:343-360 — before extracting anything, compare `es-entity-macros/src/repo/list_by_fn.rs` and `es-entity-macros/src/repo/list_for_fn.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 15 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 234 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (18 lines × 2) es-entity-macros/src/repo/list_by_fn.rs:699 — es-entity-macros/src/repo/list_by_fn.rs:699-716 | es-entity-macros/src/repo/list_for_fn.rs:402-419 — before extracting anything, compare `es-entity-macros/src/repo/list_by_fn.rs` and `es-entity-macros/src/repo/list_for_fn.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 15 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 234 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.

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

Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) es-entity-macros/src/repo/create_all_fn.rs:215 — es-entity-macros/src/repo/create_all_fn.rs:215-227 | es-entity-macros/src/repo/update_all_fn.rs:167-179 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once.
Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) es-entity-macros/src/repo/delete_fn.rs:122 — es-entity-macros/src/repo/delete_fn.rs:122-134 | es-entity-macros/src/repo/update_fn.rs:295-307 — before extracting anything, compare `es-entity-macros/src/repo/delete_fn.rs` and `es-entity-macros/src/repo/update_fn.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 33 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.

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

Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) es-entity-macros/src/repo/list_for_filters_fn.rs:1176 — es-entity-macros/src/repo/list_for_filters_fn.rs:1176-1184 | es-entity-macros/src/repo/list_for_filters_fn.rs:1348-1356 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) es-entity-macros/src/repo/options/columns.rs:1090 — es-entity-macros/src/repo/options/columns.rs:1090-1098 | es-entity-macros/src/repo/options/columns.rs:1171-1179 — 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.

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

Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) errlanes-derive/src/rejection.rs:274 — errlanes-derive/src/rejection.rs:274-281 | errlanes-derive/src/rejection.rs:446-453 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) es-entity-macros/src/repo/list_by_fn.rs:402 — es-entity-macros/src/repo/list_by_fn.rs:402-409 | es-entity-macros/src/repo/list_by_fn.rs:467-474 — 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.

C1 · Data Protection · No data-protection/encryption · ×1

No data-protection/encryption migrations/20260929000001_v2_constraint_shapes.sql:5 — No encryption usage (RustCrypto's aes-gcm/chacha20poly1305 encrypting, ring or aws-lc-rs aead sealing, orion, libsodium's secretbox, openssl symm, age, SQLCipher keyed by PRAGMA key, pgcrypto, MongoDB client-side field-level encryption, the OS keyring) was found, and this repository persists personal data in the model cited here — sensitive data at rest may be unprotected. If TDE/KMS/vault is delegated to infrastructure, ignore.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · ListForFiltersFn · ×1

ListForFiltersFn::generate_by_fn (cyclomatic 34) es-entity-macros/src/repo/list_for_filters_fn.rs:725 — ListForFiltersFn::generate_by_fn has cyclomatic complexity 34 (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.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · es_entity_macros · ×1

es_entity_macros::index_catalog::apply_statement (cyclomatic 29) es-entity-macros/src/index_catalog.rs:339 — es_entity_macros::index_catalog::apply_statement has cyclomatic complexity 29 (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.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · CreateFn · ×1

CreateFn::to_tokens (cyclomatic 21) es-entity-macros/src/repo/create_fn.rs:81 — CreateFn::to_tokens has cyclomatic complexity 21 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · ErrorTypes · ×1

ErrorTypes::generate (cyclomatic 18) es-entity-macros/src/repo/error_types.rs:144 — ErrorTypes::generate has cyclomatic complexity 18 (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.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · FindByFn · ×1

FindByFn::to_tokens (cyclomatic 17) es-entity-macros/src/repo/find_by_fn.rs:119 — FindByFn::to_tokens 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.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · ListForFn · ×1

ListForFn::to_tokens (cyclomatic 17) es-entity-macros/src/repo/list_for_fn.rs:141 — ListForFn::to_tokens 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.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · ListByFn · ×1

ListByFn::to_tokens (cyclomatic 16) es-entity-macros/src/repo/list_by_fn.rs:466 — ListByFn::to_tokens 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.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Columns · ×1

Columns::validate_virtual (cyclomatic 16) es-entity-macros/src/repo/options/columns.rs:210 — Columns::validate_virtual 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.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · RepositoryOptions · ×1

RepositoryOptions::ensure_keys (cyclomatic 16) es-entity-macros/src/repo/options/mod.rs:494 — RepositoryOptions::ensure_keys 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.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · ListForFiltersFn · ×1

ListForFiltersFn::generate_by_fn (cognitive 74) es-entity-macros/src/repo/list_for_filters_fn.rs:725 — ListForFiltersFn::generate_by_fn has cognitive complexity 74 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 25 (43 pts), loops 9 (22 pts), match/switch 2 (6 pts), boolean chains 3 (nesting depth added 35). 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.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · FindByFn · ×1

FindByFn::to_tokens (cognitive 50) es-entity-macros/src/repo/find_by_fn.rs:119 — FindByFn::to_tokens has cognitive complexity 50 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 21 (44 pts), loops 2 (3 pts), boolean chains 2, match/switch 1 (nesting depth added 24). 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.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · ListForFn · ×1

ListForFn::to_tokens (cognitive 40) es-entity-macros/src/repo/list_for_fn.rs:141 — ListForFn::to_tokens has cognitive complexity 40 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 19 (33 pts), loops 2 (3 pts), boolean chains 2, match/switch 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 16). 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.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · ListByFn · ×1

ListByFn::to_tokens (cognitive 37) es-entity-macros/src/repo/list_by_fn.rs:466 — ListByFn::to_tokens has cognitive complexity 37 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 17 (30 pts), loops 2 (3 pts), boolean chains 2, match/switch 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 15). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · CreateFn · ×1

CreateFn::to_tokens (cognitive 33) es-entity-macros/src/repo/create_fn.rs:81 — CreateFn::to_tokens has cognitive complexity 33 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 28, match/switch 5. 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.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · ErrorTypes · ×1

ErrorTypes::generate (cognitive 26) es-entity-macros/src/repo/error_types.rs:144 — ErrorTypes::generate has cognitive complexity 26 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (14 pts), match/switch 3 (6 pts), boolean chains 4, loops 2 (nesting depth added 9). 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.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Mapping · ×1

Mapping::parse (cognitive 24) errlanes-derive/src/lift.rs:280 — Mapping::parse has cognitive complexity 24 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (18 pts), match/switch 2 (5 pts), loops 1 (nesting depth added 13). 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.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · RepositoryOptions · ×1

RepositoryOptions::ensure_keys (cognitive 20) es-entity-macros/src/repo/options/mod.rs:494 — RepositoryOptions::ensure_keys has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (13 pts), boolean chains 6, loops 1 (nesting depth added 5). 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.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · CommitHooks · ×1

CommitHooks::execute_pre (cognitive 20) src/operation/hooks.rs:601 — CommitHooks::execute_pre has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 4 (13 pts), loops 2 (5 pts), match/switch 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 13). 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.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Import · ×1

Import::parse (cognitive 19) errlanes-derive/src/composition/imports.rs:24 — Import::parse has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (13 pts), match/switch 1 (3 pts), loops 1 (2 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 9). 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.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · CreateAllFn · ×1

CreateAllFn::to_tokens (cognitive 19) es-entity-macros/src/repo/create_all_fn.rs:65 — CreateAllFn::to_tokens has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 18, boolean chains 1. 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.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · StructRegistration · ×1

StructRegistration::parse (cognitive 18) errlanes-derive/src/lift.rs:963 — StructRegistration::parse has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 5 (15 pts), match/switch 1 (2 pts), loops 1 (nesting depth added 11). 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.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · UpdateAllFn · ×1

UpdateAllFn::build (cognitive 18) es-entity-macros/src/repo/update_all_fn.rs:101 — UpdateAllFn::build has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10, match/switch 6 (7 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 1). 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.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · errlanes · ×1

errlanes::reqwest::lane_table (cognitive 17) errlanes/src/reqwest.rs:29 — errlanes::reqwest::lane_table has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (13 pts), boolean chains 2, loops 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 4). 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.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · EsQuery · ×1

EsQuery::to_tokens (cognitive 17) es-entity-macros/src/query/mod.rs:26 — EsQuery::to_tokens has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 14, match/switch 1 (2 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 1). 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.

D22 · Internal API Consistency · Inconsistent naming and return types for classification logic. `Fault.classify` returns a `Fault`, while `Classify.classify` returns a `Fail`. `ResultExt.classify` returns a `Result`. The verb 'classify' is used for operations that produce different result types (`Fault` vs `Fail`), creating confusion about which error carrier is being produced. · ×1

Inconsistent naming and return types for classification logic. `Fault.classify` returns a `Fault`, while `Classify.classify` returns a `Fail`. `ResultExt.classify` returns a `Result`. The verb 'classify' is used for operations that produce different result types (`Fault` vs `Fail`), creating confusion about which error carrier is being produced. — Unify the naming convention. If `classify` implies converting an error into a specific carrier, ensure the return type is consistent or use distinct verbs (e.g., `classify_to_fault` vs `classify_to_fail`). Alternatively, ensure `Classify` and `Fault.classify` share a common interface or naming pattern that clearly indicates the output type. (signatures: errlanes.carrier.kind.Fault.classify(e: &(dyn Error)): Fault | errlanes.classify.Classify.classify(): Fail | errlanes.result_ext.ResultExt.classify(): Result)

D22 · Internal API Consistency · Confusing duplication of 'narrow' operations. `ResultExt` has `narrow_rejected` and `narrow_rejected_with`. Additionally, there are separate types `NarrowRejectedLane` and `NarrowRejectedBy` with their own `narrow` methods. This suggests that `ResultExt` methods might be wrappers or aliases for these types, or that the API exposes both builder-pattern types and extension methods redundantly. · ×1

Confusing duplication of 'narrow' operations. `ResultExt` has `narrow_rejected` and `narrow_rejected_with`. Additionally, there are separate types `NarrowRejectedLane` and `NarrowRejectedBy` with their own `narrow` methods. This suggests that `ResultExt` methods might be wrappers or aliases for these types, or that the API exposes both builder-pattern types and extension methods redundantly. — Remove the redundant types (`NarrowRejectedLane`, `NarrowRejectedBy`) if they are merely implementation details of `ResultExt`. Alternatively, remove the `narrow_rejected` methods from `ResultExt` if the intended usage is through the specific types. Standardize on one pattern (either extension methods or builder types). (signatures: errlanes.result_ext.ResultExt.narrow_rejected(): Result | errlanes.result_ext.ResultExt.narrow_rejected_with(on_rejected: impl FnOnce(Rejected) -> Result<T, Rejected>): Result | errlanes.result_ext.NarrowRejectedLane.narrow_rejected(): Narrowed | errlanes.result_ext.NarrowRejectedBy.narrow(s: S): Narrowed)

D22 · Internal API Consistency · Inconsistent conversion methods. `Fail` has `into_fault()` directly. `ResultExt` has both `into_fault()` and `into_fail()`. This creates ambiguity · ×1

Inconsistent conversion methods. `Fail` has `into_fault()` directly. `ResultExt` has both `into_fault()` and `into_fail()`. This creates ambiguity: should a user call `result.into_fault()` or `result.into_fail().into_fault()`? The existence of `into_fail` on `ResultExt` suggests a two-step process that isn't mirrored in the `Fail` type itself (which doesn't have an `into_result` or similar obvious reverse, but the asymmetry is notable). — Ensure that conversion methods are symmetric or clearly distinct. If `ResultExt.into_fail()` is the primary way to get a `Fail` from a `Result`, then `Fail.into_fault()` is fine. However, `ResultExt.into_fault()` bypasses `Fail`, which might be intentional but should be documented as the 'fast path'. Consider removing `ResultExt.into_fail()` if `Fail` is an intermediate state that shouldn't be directly exposed via extension methods, or vice versa. (signatures: errlanes.fail.Fail.into_fault(): Fault | errlanes.result_ext.ResultExt.into_fault(): Result | errlanes.result_ext.ResultExt.into_fail(): Result)

D22 · Internal API Consistency · Inconsistent API for installing manual clocks. `Clock` uses `install_manual` and returns a `ClockController`. `ClockHandle` uses `manual` and returns a tuple `(Self, ClockController)`. The naming (`install_manual` vs `manual`) and return types differ for functionally similar operations (switching to manual mode). · ×1

Inconsistent API for installing manual clocks. `Clock` uses `install_manual` and returns a `ClockController`. `ClockHandle` uses `manual` and returns a tuple `(Self, ClockController)`. The naming (`install_manual` vs `manual`) and return types differ for functionally similar operations (switching to manual mode). — Unify the naming and return types. Either both should use `install_manual` or both should use `manual`. If `ClockHandle` returns the handle itself, it might be a builder pattern, but `Clock` returning just the controller is inconsistent. Align on a single pattern. (signatures: es_entity.clock.global.Clock.install_manual(): ClockController | es_entity.clock.global.Clock.install_manual_at(start_at: DateTime): ClockController | es_entity.clock.handle.ClockHandle.manual(): (Self, ClockController) | es_entity.clock.handle.ClockHandle.manual_at(start_at: DateTime): (Self, ClockController))

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED · ×1

REDACTED

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED · ×1

REDACTED

D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities · Medium CVE · ×1

REDACTED

D35 · Change Coupling · Change coupling · ×1

Change coupling: find_by_fn.rs ↔ list_for_fn.rs es-entity-macros/src/repo/find_by_fn.rs:1 — `es-entity-macros/src/repo/find_by_fn.rs` and `es-entity-macros/src/repo/list_for_fn.rs` change together 55% of the time (6 of the 11 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well — a repo-wide or module-wide sweep is evidence about the sweep rather than about any pair inside it and is left out of BOTH sides of this ratio, while a dependency bump, a formatter/rename sweep, or a commit whose edit to one of the two files was a tool directive such as //go:generate or whitespace only is left out of the shared count ONLY, so the two sides are not taken over identical commit sets) with no explicit dependency between them. They sit in the same directory, but in this ecosystem each file is its own module — a sibling reference still needs an import — so the missing import edge is real: the coupling runs through shared behaviour, not a declared dependency. If they duplicate structure, extract the common part into one unit; otherwise the coupling is hidden and worth breaking. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 6 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are `a0179b41` feat(macros): repo.scoped(scope) bound view for scoped repositories (…; `82246072` fix(macros): use IS NOT DISTINCT FROM for Option column filters (#127); `b4cbf176` feat: Soft without queries (#92) — run `git show` on any of them.

D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED · ×1

REDACTED

D4 · Code Duplication · Members sharing a duplicated core (10 members, 50+ identical tokens) · ×1

Members sharing a duplicated core (10 members, 50+ identical tokens) es-entity-macros/src/repo/create_all_fn.rs:65 — es-entity-macros/src/repo/create_all_fn.rs:65-408 | es-entity-macros/src/repo/create_fn.rs:81-719 | es-entity-macros/src/repo/delete_fn.rs:60-257 | es-entity-macros/src/repo/find_by_fn.rs:119-349 | es-entity-macros/src/repo/list_by_fn.rs:466-716 | es-entity-macros/src/repo/list_for_filters_fn.rs:725-1263 | es-entity-macros/src/repo/list_for_filters_fn.rs:1267-1445 | es-entity-macros/src/repo/list_for_fn.rs:141-419 | es-entity-macros/src/repo/update_all_fn.rs:101-506 | es-entity-macros/src/repo/update_fn.rs:64-367 — These 10 members share a duplicated core: a run of at least 50 identical tokens appears in every one of them. That run is NOT broken out as duplicated-block rows below — it is what admitted this row, and the blocks below cover only the part of it that clears the block floor, so they understate the correspondence. Read the members as one construct written 10 times. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 10 times.

D4 · Code Duplication · Members sharing a duplicated core (5 members, 50+ identical tokens) · ×1

Members sharing a duplicated core (5 members, 50+ identical tokens) es-entity-macros/src/repo/find_all_fn.rs:79 — es-entity-macros/src/repo/find_all_fn.rs:79-200 | es-entity-macros/src/repo/find_by_fn.rs:119-349 | es-entity-macros/src/repo/list_by_fn.rs:466-716 | es-entity-macros/src/repo/list_for_filters_fn.rs:725-1263 | es-entity-macros/src/repo/list_for_fn.rs:141-419 — These 5 members share a duplicated core: a run of at least 50 identical tokens appears in every one of them. That run is NOT broken out as duplicated-block rows below — it is what admitted this row, and the blocks below cover only the part of it that clears the block floor, so they understate the correspondence. Read the members as one construct written 5 times. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 5 times.

D4 · Code Duplication · Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) · ×1

Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) es-entity-macros/src/repo/list_by_fn.rs:397 — es-entity-macros/src/repo/list_by_fn.rs:397-462 | es-entity-macros/src/repo/list_by_fn.rs:466-716 | es-entity-macros/src/repo/list_for_fn.rs:61-137 | es-entity-macros/src/repo/list_for_fn.rs:141-419 — These 4 members share a duplicated core: a run of at least 50 identical tokens appears in every one of them. That run is NOT broken out as duplicated-block rows below — it is what admitted this row, and the blocks below cover only the part of it that clears the block floor, so they understate the correspondence. Read the members as one construct written 4 times. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 4 times.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (4–37 lines × 4) · ×1

Duplicated block (4–37 lines × 4) es-entity-macros/src/repo/find_all_fn.rs:129 — es-entity-macros/src/repo/find_all_fn.rs:129-132 | es-entity-macros/src/repo/list_by_fn.rs:582-617 | es-entity-macros/src/repo/list_for_filters_fn.rs:1146-1149 | es-entity-macros/src/repo/list_for_fn.rs:275-311 — before extracting anything, compare `es-entity-macros/src/repo/find_all_fn.rs` and `es-entity-macros/src/repo/list_by_fn.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 71 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (29 lines × 3) · ×1

Duplicated block (29 lines × 3) es-entity-macros/src/repo/list_by_fn.rs:503 — es-entity-macros/src/repo/list_by_fn.rs:503-531 | es-entity-macros/src/repo/list_for_filters_fn.rs:891-919 | es-entity-macros/src/repo/list_for_fn.rs:194-222 — before extracting anything, compare `es-entity-macros/src/repo/list_by_fn.rs` and `es-entity-macros/src/repo/list_for_filters_fn.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 9 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 132 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (25–26 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (25–26 lines × 2) es-entity-macros/src/repo/find_by_fn.rs:57 — es-entity-macros/src/repo/find_by_fn.rs:57-81 | es-entity-macros/src/repo/find_by_fn.rs:133-158 — 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.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (19–23 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (19–23 lines × 2) errlanes-derive/src/classify.rs:525 — errlanes-derive/src/classify.rs:525-547 | errlanes-derive/src/classify.rs:692-710 — 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.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (22–23 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (22–23 lines × 2) es-entity-macros/src/repo/list_by_fn.rs:538 — es-entity-macros/src/repo/list_by_fn.rs:538-560 | es-entity-macros/src/repo/list_for_fn.rs:230-251 — before extracting anything, compare `es-entity-macros/src/repo/list_by_fn.rs` and `es-entity-macros/src/repo/list_for_fn.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 15 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 234 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (23 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (23 lines × 2) es-entity-macros/src/repo/update_all_fn.rs:38 — es-entity-macros/src/repo/update_all_fn.rs:38-60 | es-entity-macros/src/repo/update_fn.rs:38-60 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (2–22 lines × 4) · ×1

Duplicated block (2–22 lines × 4) es-entity-macros/src/repo/find_all_fn.rs:127 — es-entity-macros/src/repo/find_all_fn.rs:127-128 | es-entity-macros/src/repo/find_by_fn.rs:128-129 | es-entity-macros/src/repo/list_by_fn.rs:560-581 | es-entity-macros/src/repo/list_for_fn.rs:253-274 — before extracting anything, compare `es-entity-macros/src/repo/find_all_fn.rs` and `es-entity-macros/src/repo/find_by_fn.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 48 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.

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

Duplicated block (20 lines × 2) es-entity-macros/src/repo/create_all_fn.rs:42 — es-entity-macros/src/repo/create_all_fn.rs:42-61 | es-entity-macros/src/repo/create_fn.rs:58-77 — before extracting anything, compare `es-entity-macros/src/repo/create_all_fn.rs` and `es-entity-macros/src/repo/create_fn.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 47 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (19 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (19 lines × 2) es-entity-macros/src/repo/list_for_fn.rs:82 — es-entity-macros/src/repo/list_for_fn.rs:82-100 | es-entity-macros/src/repo/list_for_fn.rs:163-181 — 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.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (17 lines × 3) · ×1

Duplicated block (17 lines × 3) es-entity-macros/src/repo/list_by_fn.rs:652 — es-entity-macros/src/repo/list_by_fn.rs:652-668 | es-entity-macros/src/repo/list_for_filters_fn.rs:1201-1217 | es-entity-macros/src/repo/list_for_fn.rs:352-368 — before extracting anything, compare `es-entity-macros/src/repo/list_by_fn.rs` and `es-entity-macros/src/repo/list_for_filters_fn.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 9 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 132 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (17 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (17 lines × 2) es-entity-macros/src/repo/list_by_fn.rs:411 — es-entity-macros/src/repo/list_by_fn.rs:411-427 | es-entity-macros/src/repo/list_by_fn.rs:480-496 — 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.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (15–17 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (15–17 lines × 2) es-entity-macros/src/repo/list_for_fn.rs:66 — es-entity-macros/src/repo/list_for_fn.rs:66-80 | es-entity-macros/src/repo/list_for_fn.rs:142-158 — 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.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (15–16 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (15–16 lines × 2) es-entity-macros/src/index_catalog.rs:670 — es-entity-macros/src/index_catalog.rs:670-684 | es-entity-macros/src/index_catalog.rs:702-717 — 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.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) es-entity-macros/src/repo/create_all_fn.rs:256 — es-entity-macros/src/repo/create_all_fn.rs:256-270 | es-entity-macros/src/repo/create_fn.rs:245-259 — before extracting anything, compare `es-entity-macros/src/repo/create_all_fn.rs` and `es-entity-macros/src/repo/create_fn.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 47 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.

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

Duplicated block (13 lines × 3) es-entity-macros/src/repo/list_by_fn.rs:640 — es-entity-macros/src/repo/list_by_fn.rs:640-652 | es-entity-macros/src/repo/list_for_filters_fn.rs:1366-1378 | es-entity-macros/src/repo/list_for_fn.rs:340-352 — before extracting anything, compare `es-entity-macros/src/repo/list_by_fn.rs` and `es-entity-macros/src/repo/list_for_filters_fn.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 9 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 132 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (12 lines × 5) · ×1

Duplicated block (12 lines × 5) es-entity-macros/src/repo/find_all_fn.rs:89 — es-entity-macros/src/repo/find_all_fn.rs:89-100 | es-entity-macros/src/repo/find_by_fn.rs:177-188 | es-entity-macros/src/repo/list_by_fn.rs:498-509 | es-entity-macros/src/repo/list_for_filters_fn.rs:886-897 | es-entity-macros/src/repo/list_for_fn.rs:189-200 — before extracting anything, compare `es-entity-macros/src/repo/find_all_fn.rs` and `es-entity-macros/src/repo/find_by_fn.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 48 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (7–8 lines × 4) · ×1

Duplicated block (7–8 lines × 4) es-entity-macros/src/repo/create_fn.rs:237 — es-entity-macros/src/repo/create_fn.rs:237-243 | es-entity-macros/src/repo/delete_fn.rs:120-126 | es-entity-macros/src/repo/find_by_fn.rs:298-305 | es-entity-macros/src/repo/update_fn.rs:293-299 — before extracting anything, compare `es-entity-macros/src/repo/create_fn.rs` and `es-entity-macros/src/repo/update_fn.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 30 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (7 lines × 9) · ×1

Duplicated block (7 lines × 9) es-entity-macros/src/repo/create_all_fn.rs:247 — es-entity-macros/src/repo/create_all_fn.rs:247-253 | es-entity-macros/src/repo/create_fn.rs:236-242 | es-entity-macros/src/repo/delete_fn.rs:119-125 | es-entity-macros/src/repo/find_by_fn.rs:297-303 | es-entity-macros/src/repo/list_by_fn.rs:639-645 | es-entity-macros/src/repo/list_for_filters_fn.rs:1193-1199 | es-entity-macros/src/repo/list_for_filters_fn.rs:1365-1371 | es-entity-macros/src/repo/list_for_fn.rs:339-345 | es-entity-macros/src/repo/update_fn.rs:292-298 — before extracting anything, compare `es-entity-macros/src/repo/create_all_fn.rs` and `es-entity-macros/src/repo/create_fn.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 47 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (6 lines × 3) · ×1

Duplicated block (6 lines × 3) es-entity-macros/src/repo/list_by_fn.rs:633 — es-entity-macros/src/repo/list_by_fn.rs:633-638 | es-entity-macros/src/repo/list_for_filters_fn.rs:1187-1192 | es-entity-macros/src/repo/list_for_fn.rs:333-338 — before extracting anything, compare `es-entity-macros/src/repo/list_by_fn.rs` and `es-entity-macros/src/repo/list_for_filters_fn.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 9 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 132 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (4–6 lines × 3) · ×1

Duplicated block (4–6 lines × 3) es-entity-macros/src/repo/list_by_fn.rs:625 — es-entity-macros/src/repo/list_by_fn.rs:625-630 | es-entity-macros/src/repo/list_for_filters_fn.rs:1179-1184 | es-entity-macros/src/repo/list_for_fn.rs:327-330 — before extracting anything, compare `es-entity-macros/src/repo/list_by_fn.rs` and `es-entity-macros/src/repo/list_for_filters_fn.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 9 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 132 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (5 lines × 10) · ×1

Duplicated block (5 lines × 10) es-entity-macros/src/repo/create_all_fn.rs:243 — es-entity-macros/src/repo/create_all_fn.rs:243-247 | es-entity-macros/src/repo/create_fn.rs:232-236 | es-entity-macros/src/repo/delete_fn.rs:115-119 | es-entity-macros/src/repo/find_by_fn.rs:293-297 | es-entity-macros/src/repo/list_by_fn.rs:635-639 | es-entity-macros/src/repo/list_for_filters_fn.rs:1189-1193 | es-entity-macros/src/repo/list_for_filters_fn.rs:1361-1365 | es-entity-macros/src/repo/list_for_fn.rs:335-339 | es-entity-macros/src/repo/update_all_fn.rs:387-391 | es-entity-macros/src/repo/update_fn.rs:288-292 — before extracting anything, compare `es-entity-macros/src/repo/create_all_fn.rs` and `es-entity-macros/src/repo/create_fn.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 47 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) errlanes-derive/src/lift.rs:1051 — errlanes-derive/src/lift.rs:1051-1061 | errlanes-derive/src/lift.rs:1207-1217 — 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.

Minor — 11 finding(s)

D16 · Bus Factor · Off-boarding risk · ×1

Off-boarding risk: anonymized user #1 — If anonymized user #1 becomes unavailable, 27 significant file(s) lose their only recent owner: es-entity-macros/src/repo/mod.rs, es-entity-macros/src/index_catalog.rs, es-entity-macros/src/repo/update_all_fn.rs, src/operation/hooks.rs, es-entity-macros/src/repo/error_types.rs, es-entity-macros/src/repo/events_write.rs, es-entity-macros/src/repo/forget_fn.rs, src/context/mod.rs (+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) — 1 other contributor(s) are each the sole owner of a small amount of code below the off-boarding threshold — folded into the bus-factor score and metrics (28 single-owned of 87 analysed files in total, counted over production source files of roughly 2,400 bytes or more, excluding vendored, generated and example/demo trees and test files identified by path convention, largest first; 87 of the 99 production source files in this repository met that bar). They are anonymized user #2 (1 file(s)) — spread or document their files in the same way, at lower priority than the named off-boarding risks above. The files folded here: fuzz/fuzz_targets/fuzz_event_hydration.rs.

D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED · ×1

REDACTED

D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED · ×1

REDACTED

D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED · ×1

REDACTED

D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED · ×1

REDACTED

M2 · Architecture documentation · No ADRs · ×1

No ADRs — No Architecture Decision Records found — no conventional ADR directory, no numbered `NNNN-title` documents in any markup this check reads, and nothing ADR-shaped by content. Design rationale recorded elsewhere (a design-notes tree, a mailing list, pull-request discussion) is not visible to this check and is not re-findable per decision, so a future maintainer cannot ask why one choice was made and get an answer.

P10 · Library API & versioning · Large public API surface · ×1

Large public API surface — 185/251 types (74%) declared in the published library are public. For a library, every public type is a stability contract — keep implementation types off the surface and expose only the intended API.

P4 · Deployment & Rollback · No rollback/health safety · ×1

No rollback/health safety — Deployment automation exists but no readiness/liveness probes, rolling-update strategy, lifecycle hooks or migration job were evidenced — a bad release is harder to detect and reverse.

X7 · Silent fallback defaults · Silent fallback default on Err · ×1

Silent fallback default on Err es-entity-macros/src/repo/options/mod.rs:320 — `migration_files` turns every `Err` into `Vec::new()` — a failure becomes a plausible value and a silent behavior change with no trail. Log the error or propagate it with `?`. If that constant is the correct answer rather than a stand-in for a value that could not be read, say so in a comment on the arm or in the doc comment, and the row stops firing.

X9 · Subsumed condition operand · Subsumed condition operand · ×1

Subsumed condition operand es-entity-macros/src/repo/options/mod.rs:1037 — `generated.contains("FkWidgetNameKey")` can never decide this `||` — every value satisfying `generated.contains("FkWidgetNameKey")` also satisfies `generated.contains("NameKey")`, so the `||` chain is already decided by the latter. The expression is equivalent to the chain without it, which means it is wider than it reads. Delete the dead operand, or narrow the surviving one if IT is the accident.

Minor — 6 finding(s)

D12 · Dependency Hygiene · Outdated · ×6

Outdated: opentelemetry — `opentelemetry` is locked at 0.33.0 but 0.33.1 is the current stable release on crates.io, and it already satisfies the `"0.33.0"` requirement declared in REDACTED — so the lockfile is behind this repository's own declared range. Run `cargo update -p opentelemetry` and commit the updated REDACTED.
Outdated: opentelemetry_sdk — `opentelemetry_sdk` is locked at 0.33.0 but 0.33.1 is the current stable release on crates.io, and it already satisfies the `"0.33.0"` requirement declared in REDACTED — so the lockfile is behind this repository's own declared range. Run `cargo update -p opentelemetry_sdk` and commit the updated REDACTED.
Outdated: schemars — `schemars` is locked at 1.2.2 but 1.2.3 is the current stable release on crates.io, and it already satisfies the `"1.0"` requirement declared in REDACTED — so the lockfile is behind this repository's own declared range. Run `cargo update -p schemars` and commit the updated REDACTED.
Outdated: serde_json — `serde_json` is locked at 1.0.151 but 1.0.154 is the current stable release on crates.io, and it already satisfies the `"1.0"` requirement declared in REDACTED — so the lockfile is behind this repository's own declared range. Run `cargo update -p serde_json` and commit the updated REDACTED.
Outdated: syn — `syn` is locked at 3.0.6 but 3.0.9 is the current stable release on crates.io, and it already satisfies the `"3.0"` requirement declared in errlanes-derive/REDACTED — so the lockfile is behind this repository's own declared range. Run `cargo update -p syn` and commit the updated REDACTED.
Outdated: tokio — `tokio` is locked at 1.53.3 but 1.54.1 is the current stable release on crates.io, and it already satisfies the `"1.52"` requirement declared in REDACTED — so the lockfile is behind this repository's own declared range. Run `cargo update -p tokio` and commit the updated REDACTED.

Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail

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

Dimension	Tool	Version	Command	Findings	Raw output
D28 · Secrets (history)	gitleaks	—	gitleaks detect --no-banner --config /opt/gitleaks-rules/watchdog-gitleaks.toml --report-format json --report-path /tmp/watchdog-gitleaks-ea25a2a0cbde4ccd9029b46b69757ac7/history.json --exit-code 0 --source .	0	artifacts/raw/gitleaks-history.json
D28 · Secrets (history)	gitleaks	—	gitleaks detect --no-git --no-banner --config /opt/gitleaks-rules/watchdog-gitleaks.toml --report-format json --report-path /tmp/watchdog-gitleaks-ea25a2a0cbde4ccd9029b46b69757ac7/tree.json --exit-code 0 --source .	0	artifacts/raw/gitleaks-tree.json
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)	semgrep	—	semgrep --config /opt/semgrep-rules/security-audit.yml --config /opt/semgrep-rules/owasp-top-ten.yml --config /opt/semgrep-rules/watchdog-sast.yml --json --quiet --timeout 10 --timeout-threshold 3 --metrics off .	22	artifacts/raw/semgrep.json
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities	osv-scanner	—	osv-scanner --format json --recursive --experimental-disable-plugins transitivedependency/requirements --experimental-disable-plugins dotnet/csproj --experimental-disable-plugins dotnet/nugetcpm .	8	artifacts/raw/osv-scanner.json
D31 · IaC & Container Security	trivy	—	trivy config --format json --quiet .	0	artifacts/raw/trivy-config.json
D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR)	semgrep	—	semgrep: not applicable — No personal data was found crossing a boundary the PII/GDPR ruleset checks — nothing written to a log or console sink, placed in a URL or query string, or persisted to browser storage. That is a clean result for the LEAK surface only: this ruleset detects personal data escaping, it does not inventory the personal data a repository holds, so it is not evidence that this repository has no personal-data surface. The personal-data map (Appendix C) and the C1-C5 compliance cards are what speak to that.	0	—
D40 · Network Egress Confinement	runtime-hardening	—	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.	0	—
D41 · Kernel & Syscall Confinement	runtime-hardening	—	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.	0	—
D42 · Runtime Threat Enforcement	runtime-hardening	—	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	—
D43 · Malicious Dependencies	osv-scanner	—	osv-scanner --format json --recursive --experimental-disable-plugins transitivedependency/requirements --experimental-disable-plugins dotnet/csproj --experimental-disable-plugins dotnet/nugetcpm .	0	artifacts/raw/osv-scanner.json

Run 01a160aa-8a4e-7861-8746-0a108653d605 · every finding is also locatable in findings.md, and the complete scoring record (with exit codes + durations) in sidecar.json.

Findings by how serious they are

This survey was produced by

Executive summary

Top priorities

Diagnosis: what the measurements show together

Architecture — module dependency graph

Architecture: which parts of the code depend on which

At a glance — Code Health · 90% · Exemplary ·

At a glance — Architecture · 100% · Exemplary ·

At a glance — Maturity · 62% · Adequate · gated by M2 ·

At a glance — Readiness · 67% · Adequate · gated by D13 ·

At a glance — Security · 35% · Weak · gated by D36, C1 ·

At a glance — Domain Modelling · 100% · Exemplary ·

At a glance — Event Sourcing · 100% · Exemplary ·

At a glance — Performance · 91% · Exemplary ·

Security & Compliance — OWASP Top-10 mapping

Roadmap

File quality

How the grades work

Methodology & how to trust this report

Tools & methods

Run transparency — what happened this run

Limitations & what we did not check

Per-dimension blind spots

The LLM boundary

Dimensions

Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions

Reference — by lens

Appendix A — Findings (grouped)

Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail

Downloadable artifacts