Public report of Homebrew/homebrew-core, published 25 October 2026. It has the same score, grades and number of
findings as the full report. The details of security findings (where they are in the code, which known
vulnerabilities and which passwords or keys were found) are left out, so nobody can use them against the project.
Public
Executive reportMeasured under the Code Assurance Index, an open standard for code quality, using its published scoring rules (rubric version 2026.10.5). Watchdog signed this survey and filed it in the standard's public register, where anyone can look it up by its survey ID. Check this survey →
Signed and filed in the standard's public register, 25 October 2026, 10:50 UTC · Survey ID cd_28a8912bcdd44269bcc0095d75bbeec2
Homebrew/homebrew-core
Measured 25 October 2026, 10:34 UTC, at code version 7eb1af4
Regression: 1 dimension fell since the last survey
A regression is a drop of 0.5 points or more in the score, or of 2.5 or more out of 10 in a dimension, since the last survey.
CAI scoreAdequate
CriticalWeakAdequateStrongExemplary
Down 2 since the last survey
The score is built from these lenses. Each lens grades one area of the code, such as how easy it is to change or how well it is protected. The weakest lens counts most, so one weak area pulls the score down instead of being averaged away.
A large codebase: 487,526 lines of product code in 4 projects, tests not counted · Estimated rebuild effort: about 3.5 person-years · Weakest lens: Maturity, 45
Findings by how serious they are
41 critical694 serious80 minor
9 dimensions are left out of the score. For each one, Watchdog either couldn't measure it in this code, or found no evidence of the safeguard it looks for, such as a tested backup restore. They count neither for nor against the score, and Limitations lists each one with its reason.
This survey was produced by
Watchdog
Producer
Canine Development
Analyzer
Watchdog engine 1.0.0
Measured
25 October 2026, 10:34 UTC
A measurement, not a certificate. The Code Assurance Index records a number
together with the evidence it was worked out from, so anyone can recalculate it, but it doesn't certify or guarantee
the code. The standard was written by Canine Development, which also builds Watchdog. It is open to any tool that
implements it, and today Watchdog is the only one that does.
The score is deterministic, which means the same code always gets the same score. Watchdog works it out with tools that follow published rules, and an AI model never decides it, so anyone who applies the same rules to the same code gets the same number. How it is done is explained under Methodology ▸
50of 50 dimensions measured by tools.
806of 815 findings point to an exact file and line, so you can open each one in the code. The other 9 concern the repository as a whole, such as missing documentation.
50dimensions across 5 lenses, read from 487,526 lines of product code in 4 projects.
Homebrew/homebrew-core falls short of our standard for production, in part because we found no recorded design decisions and no architecture document or diagram. It scores 57 out of 100 and is rated Adequate, and all 41 of its critical findings are security problems.
Maturity, at 45, is the weakest lens and counts most in the score. The best first step is recording design decisions, worth about 11 points. Completing the README comes next, worth about 9 points. Raising Maturity to 70 would lift the score to about 68.
Twenty-two pipeline tools are referenced by a changeable name, so the build pipeline can be tampered with. Thirteen passwords or keys are open to anyone who can read the repository, and five places in the code run text as code, which an attacker could use. Pinning each tool to an exact version, replacing each exposed password or key and replacing text run as code with direct calls would close these risks. Limiting each secret to its own step would fix the secret exposed to more of the pipeline than needed.
The product code is 487,526 lines, about €500,000 to rebuild.
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 forThe 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.
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: 44 findings
These 44 critical or serious findings were in the previous survey, on 11 October 2026, and are gone from this one.
Code Duplication · Members sharing a duplicated core (30 members, 50+ identical tokens) Formula/q/qt3d.rb
Code Duplication · Members sharing a duplicated core (8 members, 50+ identical tokens) Formula/b/braid.rb
Code Duplication · Members sharing a duplicated core (7 members, 50+ identical tokens) Formula/m/mariadb.rb
Code Duplication · Members sharing a duplicated core (7 members, 50+ identical tokens) Formula/m/mysql.rb
Code Duplication · Members sharing a duplicated core (5 members, 50+ identical tokens) Formula/o/openjdk.rb
Code Duplication · Members sharing a duplicated core (5 members, 50+ identical tokens) Formula/p/php.rb
Code Duplication · Members sharing a duplicated core (5 members, 50+ identical tokens) Formula/r/ruby.rb
Code Duplication · Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) Formula/e/erlang.rb
Code Duplication · Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) Formula/l/llvm@19.rb
Code Duplication · Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) Formula/z/zig.rb
Explicit Debt · FixmeComment repeated across 10 files Formula/l/llvm@22.rb
Explicit Debt · TodoComment Formula/m/mlx.rb
Explicit Debt · FixmeComment Formula/m/metview.rb
Explicit Debt · TodoComment Formula/n/node@22.rb
Explicit Debt · TodoComment Formula/p/proxygen.rb
Explicit Debt · TodoComment Formula/r/rabbitmq.rb
Explicit Debt · FixmeComment Formula/s/systemd.rb
Rebuild cost: about €500,000 · Estimate
Cost to rebuild
€170,000 to €840,000, for 2,786 to 8,839 hours of work, about 3.5 person-years for 2 to 7 engineers
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 57. 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
Large: 487,526 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.
1
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.
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 €500,000 to build again, about 3.5 person-years of work. Its weakest lens is Maturity, at 45 (Weak). Maturity is about how well the project explains and looks after itself, which decides whether a new developer, or a new supplier, can take over. Because the weakest lens counts most in the score, work on Maturity also moves the score most.
Based on: the rebuild estimate · the Maturity grade · how much each lens counts
What to do: Start with the Maturity actions in Top priorities.
If you do one thing first · First action
Record your significant design decisions. Of all the actions in this report, it raises the score most for the work it takes: about 11 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.
At a glance — Code Health · 73% · Adequate · gated by X5 ·
Findings mapped to OWASP categories; the specific CVEs/secrets are in the Security dimension cards below and findings.md (redacted only on the public version of this report).
OWASP category
Findings
Severity
A05:2025 — Injection
55
High / Critical
A07:2025 — Authentication Failures
14
High / Critical
A03:2025 — Software Supply Chain Failures
1
Medium
Roadmap
Begin by establishing architectural clarity through concise design decision records and a comprehensive README that guides new contributors. Simultaneously, secure the codebase by removing exposed secrets from history and resolving static analysis warnings in CI workflows. Finally, strengthen the security posture by replacing weak cryptographic hashes with modern standards and verifying their appropriate usage across all relevant files.
Ranked by impact ÷ effort. "Helps" is the estimated gain on the 0–100 health score.
Do this
Helps
Effort
Dimension
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.
Review each MD5/SHA1 use by what it protects: replace it with SHA-256+ (or a KDF for passwords) where the digest is security-relevant, and switch it to a non-cryptographic hash (xxhash, murmurhash) where it only derives an identifier such as a cache key. This repository constructs a collision-broken hash (MD5/SHA1) at 2 sites, not one: `REDACTED:25` (Digest::SHA1.hexdigest), `REDACTED:63` (Digest::SHA1.hexdigest). Each is a separate decision — fixing only the line this row cites leaves the others in place.
Per-file score 0–10 — a quality signature. Of 553 files carrying findings, judged against the Production bar: 0% slop · 23% mixed · 77% near-clean.
File
Score
Band
Worst signal
REDACTED
0.2
Slop
Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED
4.8
Mixed
Secrets (history): REDACTED: REDACTED
REDACTED
4.8
Mixed
Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED
5.0
Mixed
Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED
5.1
Mixed
Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED
5.8
Mixed
Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED
5.8
Mixed
Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED
5.8
Mixed
Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
Formula/e/emscripten.rb
6.0
Mixed
Explicit Debt: TodoComment
Formula/j/julia.rb
6.0
Mixed
Explicit Debt: TodoComment
Formula/s/swift.rb
6.0
Mixed
Explicit Debt: FixmeComment
Formula/p/prowler.rb
6.0
Mixed
Explicit Debt: TodoComment
Formula/r/ruby.rb
6.0
Mixed
Explicit Debt: TodoComment
Formula/l/llvm@14.rb
6.0
Mixed
Explicit Debt: FixmeComment
Formula/g/ghc@9.10.rb
6.0
Mixed
Explicit Debt: TodoComment
Formula/g/ghc@9.4.rb
6.0
Mixed
Explicit Debt: TodoComment
REDACTED
6.3
Mixed
Static Analysis (SAST): Medium: REDACTED
Formula/q/qt.rb
6.7
Mixed
Explicit Debt: TodoComment
Formula/k/kimi-cli.rb
6.7
Mixed
Explicit Debt: FixmeComment
Formula/m/mysql@8.0.rb
6.7
Mixed
Explicit Debt: FixmeComment
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 — 41
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 — 694
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 — 80
Recorded, with no effect on how the codebase functions.
Present so the survey is complete, not because it needs doing.
Could not be resolved — 9
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. 50 of 50 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); none rely on LLM judgement. Overall confidence is 0.8 — the weighted average across measured dimensions; it falls as more of the score leans on LLM-assisted judgement and rises when it's fully tool-backed.
Every figure here is one of three kinds, and we label which: ✓ Measured — a deterministic fact (LoC, complexity, coverage); ~ Modeled — an estimate from a stated model (cost, effort, value-at-risk), always a range with its assumptions, never a precise fact; ◐ Advisory — an LLM prose judgement. We never present a modelled estimate as if it were measured. Perfect or absent scores carry their provenance too (ADR-0011): ✓ Tool-verified means the property itself was measured across the surface; ○ Nothing flagged means the probes came back clean — a claim bounded by what a repository can show; ⊘ Not evidenced means a working control (a tested restore, an automated rollback) showed no positive evidence — absence of evidence is not evidence of a control, so it's excluded from the score rather than awarded a spurious 10; ◐ Sampled · advisory marks an LLM verdict over a bounded sample — advisory, never a deterministic measurement.
What we checked — 50 dimensions across the health lenses
Each chip is a dimension scored from real signals across architecture, testing, dependencies, security & compliance, documentation, git-history and code quality — in one coherent pass. A surface report typically covers a handful.
How to trust any code-health report — three questions
Can you open the finding? Real findings cite a repo-relative file and line you can open at the cited line — never an absolute scratch path. Here, 806 of 815 do; the remainder are repo-wide signals — a dimension-level measurement, not a single line. (Every path in this report is repo-relative by construction: paths are normalized at the producer and the report is rejected if any rooted path leaks through.)
Is there a tool behind the number? Every score below names the method that produced it — Roslyn, git, a scanner, or (for a handful of documentation/naming dimensions) an LLM labelled sampled · advisory — not a narrative.
Does re-running give the same result? Run it again on the same commit and the score — and this report, byte for byte — is identical. A report whose numbers move between runs is describing the run, not the code.
This report answers yes to all three. That's the bar to hold any assessment to.
Tools & methods
The actual versions used this run (captured at analysis time) — re-run on the same commit for the identical score.
Method
Backs
Version
Evaluator
Roslyn static analysis
Complexity, cohesion, coupling, dead code, API surface, layering
What ran differently this time — a tool absent, degraded, or that fell back to an estimate. Named openly, not folded silently into the scores. A degraded run also records its exact cause in diagnostics.md.
D8 Code Coverage — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Coverage NOT MEASURED: test source is present (.rb) 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 (SimpleCov — `require "simplecov"` in your `spec_helper.rb`/`test_helper.rb`, which writes `coverage/.resultset.json` (or lcov via `simplecov-lcov`)) 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 (SimpleCov — `require "simplecov"` in your `spec_helper.rb`/`test_helper.rb`, which writes `coverage/.resultset.json` (or lcov via `simplecov-lcov`)) 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 (.rb) but the built-in reliability runner does not support this repository's ecosystem, so flakiness couldn't be assessed. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
D12 Dependency Hygiene — 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. No dependency manifest this pass reads for hygiene (a Python pyproject.toml/requirements.txt (pip/uv/Poetry), a Swift Package.swift/Package.resolved, a Cargo manifest, a Go module (go.mod/go.sum), a Gradle version catalogue, a Maven POM, an sbt build (build.sbt), composer.json, package.json, a Dart pubspec.yaml, an Elixir mix.exs/mix.lock (Hex), a rebar.config / erlang.mk DEPS (Hex), a Ruby Gemfile/Gemfile.lock or .gemspec (Bundler/RubyGems)) was found in this repository, so no package was assessed. Zero packages read is NOT a clean dependency tree, so this is NOT SCORED — a gap in the analyzer, not a verdict about this repository. This row is about dependency HYGIENE — outdated, deprecated or unmaintained direct dependencies; known CVEs in the same dependency graph are a separate question, reported under D30 wherever the manifest is OSV-readable.
D14 License Compliance — 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. Not scored — no dependency manifest this pass reads for licence data (a Python pyproject.toml/requirements.txt (pip/uv/Poetry), a Swift Package.swift/Package.resolved, a Cargo manifest, a Go module (go.mod/go.sum), a Gradle version catalogue, a Maven POM, an sbt build (build.sbt), composer.json, package.json, a Dart pubspec.yaml, an Elixir mix.exs/mix.lock (Hex), a rebar.config / erlang.mk DEPS (Hex), a Ruby Gemfile/Gemfile.lock or .gemspec (Bundler/RubyGems)) was found in this repository, so it declares no third-party dependency closure to grade. A gap in the analyzer, NOT a finding that this repository's licences are compliant: a manifest in an ecosystem outside that list, or third-party code copied into the tree, is not read — so this dimension asserts nothing about this repository's licensing in either direction.
D15 Churn × Complexity Hotspots — measured, with a gap in what it reached — Watchdog measured this, but not all of it. What it did not reach is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — so the numbers on that dimension cover less than the repository, and the part left out is not evidence that it would have passed. A hotspot's complexity is meant to be the worst body its churn actually touched. For REDACTED, Formula/e/emscripten.rb, Formula/s/swift.rb that could not be established — the complexity reader for the file reports no body extents, or the history carries no per-line attribution — so the row quotes the file's worst body, which the counted changes may never have touched. The churn count is unaffected.
D16 Bus Factor — not measured this run — This is a true statement about the repository that carries nothing for its owner to act on, so it is reported here rather than as a defect in their code. Single-maintainer repository — bus factor is not applicable (134 contributor(s) across 20000 commit(s) sampled, automation and bot accounts excluded). One of them holds 81% of the history; the other 133 hold 0.1% each on average, below the 5% at which there is somebody to hand the work to. That is a single maintainer with drive-by contributors, not a team whose knowledge has concentrated — so the bus factor is not applicable and there is nothing here for the owner to act on.
D21 Naming Consistency — 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. D21's deterministic naming rules are gated on C# first (docs/plans/deterministic-engine.md, P5): each other language is switched on only after its own concept suite and A/B gate pass. Until then its declarations carry no naming verdict this run — this says nothing about whether its names are consistent.
D22 Internal API Consistency — not measured this run — This is a true statement about the repository that carries nothing for its owner to act on, so it is reported here rather than as a defect in their code. This repository is a Homebrew tap: it publishes formulae (Formula/z/z.lua.rb) — build recipes that `brew install` resolves by name. No consumer links against a formula, so the tap exposes no code API and there is no surface for API consistency to be judged over.
D24 Comment Value — 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's reader does not cover the language this repository's product is written in, so it had nothing of the product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — 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.
P10 Library API & versioning — 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 NuGet packaging and C# public API, and npm, PyPI, crates.io, Maven/Gradle, Go module, RubyGems, Composer, SwiftPM, CocoaPods, pub.dev, Hex, sbt, Mill and scala-cli package manifests only, and no .NET project and no package manifest of those ecosystems 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.
P5 DR & Backup — 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. No backup/snapshot/replication config, RTO/RPO or restore-procedure documentation was found. Whether there is anything here to recover could NOT be determined: persistence is detected from deployment/container manifests and from dependency manifests, and neither was readable by this pass, so a data store this code opens directly — a file, an embedded database — would not be visible to it. The blindness is this analyzer's, not a finding that the repository holds no data. You can widen what we reach: keep the deployment/container manifest or a dependency manifest in this repository — or a link to the ops repo that holds the DR evidence — so the persistence probe has something to read.
X6 Hand-rolled structured-format parsing — 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. 3 further occurrence(s) are not listed individually; the score already reflects all 43.
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.
D13 REDACTED Scanning: REDACTED 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").
D15 Churn × Complexity Hotspots: Churn hotspots come from git history — a freshly imported or squashed repository has no churn signal, and recent rewrites can mask a historically risky file.
D17 Explicit Debt: Acknowledged-debt signals (TODO/FIXME, suppressions, dead code) are textual — undocumented debt that nobody marked, and debt that lives in design rather than annotations, is invisible. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, generated stubs) is excluded — it is never the team's dead code to delete.
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").
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.
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.
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.
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.
+ 2 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.
What to do
Bring the 7 bodies over 15 down to 15 or less in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with Llvm.install (cyclomatic 34), PythonAT312.install (cyclomatic 20), Emscripten.install (cyclomatic 19). — 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 7 together lifts Cyclomatic Complexity from 8.6 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.
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.
+ 11 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.
What to do
Bring the 1 body over 30 down to 30 or less in Cognitive Complexity — start with Llvm.install (cognitive 46). — Refactoring it lifts Cognitive Complexity from 7.5 to about 8.0/10.
Enforce Cognitive Complexity in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Detailed fixes: d2_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D3 · God Classes9.8 / 10Stronggated by 15 serious findings✓ Tool-verified
What it measures: Over-large classes that try to do too much ("god classes").
Method: God-class detection by line and method-count thresholds per logical type (partial classes unified), filtered for generated code and registration/contract false positives. Deterministic.
Resolve the 15 FileTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with prowler.rb, bartib.rb, dvc.rb. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (15 warning-level).
Enforce God Classes in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Detailed fixes: d3_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: Copy-pasted code that should be shared instead.
Method: Code duplication via token-stream sliding windows with type-aware normalization (locals masked, type names preserved), density-scored per KLoC of production code. Deterministic.
247 duplicated block group(s) detected. A further 21 rows report members as variants of one another; they aggregate block groups already counted above and are not themselves counted.
+ 153 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.
What to do
Resolve the 14 Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with netcdf-cxx.rb, apache-brooklyn-cli.rb, chisel-ubuntu.rb. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (14 warning-level).
Resolve the 10 Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with cctz.rb, ffmpeg@5.rb, cryptography.rb. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (10 warning-level).
Resolve the 9 Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with forcecli.rb, ibazel.rb, dhcping.rb. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (9 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.
4 production modules (source-import), 0 dependency cycle(s), 0 unstable depended-on module(s). No manifest declares this repository's modules, so the modules are its top-level source directories and the edges the imports between them, and main-sequence distance (abstractness) is not computed for these modules yet.
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.
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.
REDACTED scan ran and found no leaked secrets. 28 detection(s) inside a Homebrew formula's `test do` block were excluded — a value written there is the formula's own smoke-test fixture, valid nowhere, and there is no issuer at which it could be revoked.
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.
Top hotspots: REDACTED (31×34=1054); Formula/e/emscripten.rb (29×19=551); Formula/p/python@3.14.rb (23×19=437)
Hotspot: REDACTED · ×5REDACTED:60
What to do
Resolve the 5 Hotspot finding(s) in Churn × Complexity Hotspots — start with REDACTED, emscripten.rb, python@3.14.rb. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (5 warning-level).
Detailed fixes: d15_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: Acknowledged debt left in the code — TODOs, dead code, suppressed warnings.
Method: Roslyn syntactic debt markers (suppressions/TODO/FIXME/HACK/empty-catch/commented-code/Obsolete) plus SymbolFinder dead-code analysis; weighted-debt-per-KLoC density deducted 2.0x per unit. Deterministic, exhaustive.
369 deducted task-comment markers across 487526 LoC (0.1/KLoC) → score 9.8. 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.
TodoComment · ×285Formula/z/zigup.rb:35
FixmeComment · ×70Formula/z/zlib-rs.rb:30
HackComment · ×4Formula/u/unisonlang.rb:79
FixmeComment repeated across 10 filesREDACTED:667
What to do
Resolve the 285 TodoComment finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with ruby.rb (5), redwax-tool.rb (3), ola.rb (3). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (285 warning-level).
Resolve the 70 FixmeComment finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with txr.rb (2), sysdig.rb (2), pyoxidizer.rb (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (70 warning-level).
Resolve the 4 HackComment finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with unisonlang.rb, p11-kit.rb, pyqt.rb. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 warning-level).
Enforce Explicit Debt in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Detailed fixes: d17_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
1 of 1 build units (checkout) flagged as possibly oversized/incoherent.
Projects may be oversized for their cohesion
What to do
Resolve the 1 Projects may be oversized for their cohesion finding(s) in Project Cohesion. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Detailed fixes: d26_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: Whether any secrets were ever committed — scanned across the full git history, not just now.
Method: REDACTED 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.
13 finding(s): 0 critical, 13 high, 0 medium, 0 low. Remediation for historically-committed secrets is credential rotation — they remain in history regardless of later deletion.
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
What to do
Resolve the 10 REDACTED finding(s) in Secrets (history) — start with REDACTED (4), REDACTED, REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (10 issue-level).
Resolve the 3 High secret finding(s) in Secrets (history) — start with REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 issue-level).
Resolve the 1 Rotate the exposed credentials finding(s) in Secrets (history). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Detailed fixes: d28_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
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).
55 finding(s): 0 critical, 28 high, 16 medium, 11 low. semgrep hit a parse error in 1 file(s) — `Formula/s/subnetcalc.rb` — so no absence of findings in them is evidence of anything, and nothing in them was analysed. Fix the syntax error (or exclude the file deliberately) and re-scan to cover them. Separately, one or more rules could not re-parse an embedded snippet in 1 file(s) (e.g. a workflow `run:` block read as shell). Those files WERE scanned and their other rows are unaffected; only those rules' view of those snippets is missing.
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
+ 3 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.
What to do
Resolve the 22 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED (4), REDACTED (2), REDACTED (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (22 issue-level).
Resolve the 5 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED (2), REDACTED, REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (5 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).
Detailed fixes: d29_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: Whether anyone still has living knowledge of each file, or it has been orphaned — last understood long ago by someone now gone quiet. The sibling of the bus factor: D16 asks who owns it, D34 asks whether anyone still knows it.
Method: File orphaning as total living-knowledge decay below one focused-commit's worth within a year, computed per-file from the D16 decay model. Exhaustive, deterministic over fixed history.
Every significant source file has living knowledge — recently and meaningfully worked. Counted over 1485 of the 8682 production source files in this repository: the rest are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over.
What it measures: Whether files that change together actually belong together — pairs that repeatedly co-change in git history despite having no explicit code dependency, surfacing the hidden/logical coupling (and boundaries in the wrong place) a static scan can't see.
Method: Pairwise co-occurrence over the per-commit file sets in git history (production source only — tests and generated dropped): Degree-of-Coupling = shared ÷ min individual revisions, reported above noise floors (each file ≥10 revisions, ≥5 shared commits, ≥50% strength); sweeping commits excluded. Deterministic over fixed history.
Coverage: Population: PRODUCTION source files only — test and generated files are dropped before pairing, so a class co-changing with its own test (trivially ~100%) can't drown the real production↔production coupling. Pairs ranked by Degree-of-Coupling. A non-source file is never a coupling PARTICIPANT either: documentation, schemas, config and data files are dropped with the rest, so a code↔docs pair — a command and the reference page that restates it — is not reported however strongly the two co-change; nor is coupling that runs THROUGH a build step or config file.
What it measures: Whether the build pipeline provides supply-chain integrity — generated provenance/attestation, signed artifacts (cosign/sigstore), an SBOM, and pinned build actions. Presence of the configuration, not a runtime guarantee.
Method: Supply-chain provenance/signing read deterministically from CI/build config (.github/workflows, .gitlab-ci.yml, azure-pipelines, Jenkinsfile, .circleci) + the release surface: four signals — generated provenance/attestation (SLSA/in-toto/actions-attest), artifact signing (cosign/sigstore/gitsign), an SBOM (syft/sbom-action/*.spdx.json/*.cdx.json), and SHA-pinned build actions — scored 10·present/denom. NotApplicable without a build pipeline. Detects configuration presence, not runtime enforcement.
What it measures: Whether anyone still ships security patches for the platform this repository RUNS ON — the runtime it pins and the framework majors its own constraints hold it to. Separate from D12 because the question differs: a current Django on an end-of-life Python is perfectly up to date and completely unsupported, and the fix is a migration rather than a version bump. What the repository says it merely SUPPORTS is never charged.
Method: End-of-life PLATFORM read from the repository's own declarations and graded against a FROZEN, dated table of vendor support dates — no network, no feed, no API, so this dimension answers identically inside a closed scan fence. Two subjects: a RUNTIME the project pins (a single or all-end-of-life TargetFramework, a .nvmrc or .python-version, a requires-python CAP) and a FRAMEWORK major a dependency constraint cannot move off (a caret, tilde or exact version; `vue@^2.7.16` pins Vue 2). A FLOOR is deliberately never charged — `requires-python = ">=3.8"` states what a package SUPPORTS, not what it runs on — and a multi-target project is charged only when EVERY target is out of support. Runtime 4.0/product capped 8.0, framework 1.5 capped 4.5. The table is safe to freeze because a statement about support that ended in the past cannot become false: it loses recall as it ages, never precision, and a test asserts every entry predates the freeze date. Disjoint from D31 (a container image's OS layer) and D29 (the toolchain a CI workflow installs). Abstains when the repository declares no platform this pass reads — never scores it clean.
0 end-of-life runtime(s) and 0 end-of-life framework(s), read from 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.
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.
Other · Architecture — Whether the project-reference graph is acyclic (cycles block independent build/deploy and signal eroding boundaries).
Method: Project reference cycles via elementary-DFS over real .csproj references, using the engine shared with D5/D7; cyclic versus acyclic. Exhaustive, deterministic.
Other · Architecture — Whether dependencies point inward (Domain ← Application ← Infrastructure/Web) — the clean-architecture dependency rule, checked across the project graph.
Method: Layer violations by name-segment inference (Domain/Core to Application to Infrastructure/Web) over the project-reference graph. Exhaustive over all projects, deterministic.
Other · Code Health — Unreviewed-generation residue in this repository's Ruby: methods whose whole body still raises NotImplementedError where nothing overrides them, or a "not implemented" error, and placeholder text (lorem ipsum, changeme/replace_me…) left in strings of non-test, non-generated code. Scored as a quality signature, never as a claim about authorship.
Method: Roslyn syntax scan: NotImplementedException throws and placeholder string literals in non-test, non-generated shipped code. Deterministic, code-shape signature.
Other · Code Health — Unfinished work detected by code SHAPE, not keywords, in this repository's Ruby: methods that only raise NotImplementedError or a "not implemented" error where nothing overrides them, methods that take inputs and return a constant or do nothing, dead `if false` branches, and skeleton classes most of whose methods are holes.
Method: Roslyn syntax scan: incompleteness by code shape (constant-returning methods, async-never-await, #if false branches, guards that return what the code already falls through to, tests an earlier guard already decided, comparisons against NaN, skeleton types), not keyword-gated. Deterministic, code-shape heuristic.
Maturity · Maturity — Whether the repo and its projects have a README, and whether it's substantive and current.
Method: Filesystem scan: README presence, word count, and headings for depth; git history for staleness. Exhaustive across root and project dirs, deterministic.
The root README is 52 words, against a bar of 120. Of the three newcomer-critical sections this check looks for by heading, it found no a testing section, no an architecture or project-map section. Sections are matched on HEADING text only, so material written under a heading this check does not recognise — or with no heading at all — is not seen and this row may understate what the document covers.
8362 code files changed in the last 6 months but the README was not touched — it may no longer reflect the system.
What to do
Expand the README with getting-started, architecture overview and a project map.
Explain in the README how to run the tests. Add a section called Testing to the README in the repository's top folder, saying how to run the test suite.
Add an 'Architecture' / 'How it works' section to the root README — the high-level shape.
Review the README against recent changes; refresh the parts that drifted.
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.
No C4/Structurizr/PlantUML/Mermaid/Graphviz/D2 diagram, no drawn diagram named for the architecture, no file named `architecture` or `design` in any markup this check reads, and nothing in the README, docs or contributor guides that announces the shape — no `## Architecture` heading, no "architecture overview"/"high-level design" phrasing, no "the architecture is …" introduction, no guided code tour. A shape laid out in prose that never names itself as the architecture is not visible to this check, and neither is one kept outside the repository, so this row reports the absence of a re-findable shape document — not evidence that nobody wrote the shape down.
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.
Add a C4 context/container diagram (Structurizr, PlantUML or Mermaid) or an architecture.md overview.
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
Add gitleaks/trufflehog in CI to block PRs that introduce committed secrets.
Readiness · Readiness — Whether releases are automated and safely reversible (probes, rolling updates, approval gates) — from manifests/pipeline files, not the live environment.
Method: Filesystem scan: deployment manifests/IaC (K8s YAML, Helm, Terraform) for rolling updates, probes, approval gates, migration hooks. Exhaustive, deterministic.
Readiness · Readiness — Whether releases are traceable — a maintained changelog and explicit version stamping.
Method: Filesystem scan: changelog file presence and version tags in csproj or git tags. Exhaustive, deterministic.
No CHANGELOG/HISTORY/RELEASES file — what shipped when isn't easy to reconstruct for support or audit. (Versioning/tagging makes releases traceable, but a changelog records the what.)
What to do
Keep a changelog (e.g. Keep-a-Changelog) recording what shipped in each release.
Other · Security — Read from this repository's Ruby source: cryptographic hygiene (weak hash or cipher, key material fixed in the source) and outbound TLS (certificate validation, protocol version) — facts about code that hold whether or not it serves anything itself. This repository serves no HTTP of its own — no `config.ru`, no web framework, Rack or server gem among its gemspec run-time dependencies or its Gemfile's production gems, and no Rails, Rack, Sinatra, Grape, Hanami, WEBrick, Puma or Falcon server defined or booted 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.
Method: Roslyn plus filesystem scan: HSTS/security headers, secure cookies, input validation, middleware order, weak crypto (MD5/SHA1/DES); HTTPS-metadata context-aware. On a repository with no .NET source it reads JavaScript/TypeScript, Dart, Ruby, Scala, Rust or Elixir source itself (test, vendored, generated and minified paths not) for the arms that hold whether or not the code serves HTTP: a weak hash or cipher, key material fixed in the source, a TLS client that accepts any certificate, and (JavaScript/TypeScript, Ruby, Scala, Rust and Elixir) an obsolete TLS version; the server controls are not assessed there, and a Dart, Ruby, Scala, Rust or Elixir repository that serves no HTTP of its own is N/A on them. Deterministic.
MD5/SHA1 is computed here, and both are collision-broken. If this digest protects anything — a signature, an integrity or tamper check, a credential, or any value an attacker can influence — that is a real weakness: use SHA-256+ (`Digest::SHA256` or `OpenSSL::Digest.new("SHA256")`) for content integrity, or a KDF (bcrypt/Argon2/scrypt) for password storage. If it only derives a non-security identifier (a cache key, an avatar URL, an ETag), collision resistance carries no security consequence here; make that intent explicit instead — a non-cryptographic hash such as xxhash or murmurhash says it in code — since the algorithm alone cannot distinguish the two uses. Where a protocol this code does not own fixes the digest (a k-anonymity range query, a legacy signature format), the protocol decides; say so beside the call. (×2) — REDACTED:25, REDACTED:63
What to do
Review each MD5/SHA1 use by what it protects: replace it with SHA-256+ (or a KDF for passwords) where the digest is security-relevant, and switch it to a non-cryptographic hash (xxhash, murmurhash) where it only derives an identifier such as a cache key. This repository constructs a collision-broken hash (MD5/SHA1) at 2 sites, not one: `REDACTED:25` (Digest::SHA1.hexdigest), `REDACTED:63` (Digest::SHA1.hexdigest). Each is a separate decision — fixing only the line this row cites leaves the others in place.
Other · Code Health — Whether the code avoids sync-over-async (deadlock-prone blocking on tasks) and async void.
Method: Roslyn syntax scan: async methods scanned for .Wait()/.GetAwaiter().GetResult() and async-void outside event handlers. Deterministic, hard fact per invocation.
Other · Code Health — Whether any branch is dead by construction — a switch arm whose label can never equal a case-normalised subject, or an `else if` whose predicate the arm above has already swallowed.
Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: switch labels compared against the subject's own case normaliser, and if/else-if chains checked for a literal an earlier arm's containment test already swallows. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Do you agree with this assessment?
X13 · Undrained process stream6.4 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified
Other · Code Health — Whether a child process that has BOTH standard streams redirected drains both — reading one to the end while the other is never read deadlocks once the child fills the unread pipe.
Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: ProcessStartInfo launches with both streams redirected, checked for a drain of each stream across the enclosing type. 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 `spawn` imported from `child_process` whose stdout and stderr are both pipes (no options, no `stdio`, or `stdio` of `'pipe'`), bound to a local that never leaves its scope, where exactly one of the two streams is read, the other never, and the child’s `close`/`exit` (or the read stream’s end) is awaited; a shell redirect in the call’s arguments or a `kill` of the child suppresses it. The same rule reads Python’s `subprocess.Popen`, Dart’s `Process.start`, Ruby’s `Open3.popen3`, and Scala’s JDK process starts (`new ProcessBuilder(…).start()` with no `redirectErrorStream`/`redirectError`/`redirectOutput`/`inheritIO`, `Runtime.getRuntime.exec`) where one of `getInputStream`/`getErrorStream` is read and the other never while `waitFor()` is called or the read stream is read to its end. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
`Open3.popen3` always pipes both `stdout` and `stderr`, and here `stdout` (its stdout) is read to its end — but nothing in this scope ever reads `_` (its stderr). A read to the end returns only at EOF, which the child cannot reach once it fills the unread stderr pipe and blocks on the write (measured with Ruby 3.4 on Linux: 10 bytes finishes, 60 KB hangs forever). Ruby's own Open3 documentation names this deadlock. Use `Open3.capture3`, which drains both, read the two together (a thread per stream, or `IO.select`), or stop piping the one you do not want — `Open3.popen2` leaves stderr to the parent and `Open3.popen2e` merges it into stdout. (×3) — Formula/s/sfst.rb:50, Formula/d/dungeon.rb:51, Formula/b/bacon-ls.rb:46
What to do
Each finding names the span that makes the branch dead and the span it is dead because of. Confirm from the two, then delete the dead arm or fix the predicate that was meant to be reachable.
Other · Security — Whether a hand-rolled public/private IP check can be walked past — a method that unwraps IPv4-mapped IPv6 but returns the opposite verdict for the same host written as IPv4-compatible, 6to4 or NAT64.
Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: methods that unwrap IPv4-mapped IPv6 and hand-roll IPv4 range carve-outs, checked for whether the IPv6 branch also accounts for the IPv4-compatible, 6to4 and NAT64 embeddings. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Do you agree with this assessment?
X15 · Unvalidated length from an untrusted reader10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged
Other · Security — Whether a length read out of the stream being parsed is bounded before it is allocated or read — an unchecked count taken from the input lets the input choose the allocation.
Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: integer lengths read from a BinaryReader and spent on a bulk read or an array allocation, checked for any comparison or bounding call on the value anywhere in the method. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Other · Code Health — Whether a loop that shortens a string until it fits a length budget has a floor — one with none grinds the value down to the empty string, or past it into a negative-length `Substring`.
Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: while/do loops whose body's only effect on a string is to drop its last character, checked for whether anything — a direct comparison on the length, a body guard, a break — bounds that length below. 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 `while`/`do` loop whose body’s one assignment to a value is `x = x.slice(0, -1)` or `x = x.slice|substring|substr(0, x.length - 1)`, driven by a condition that reads `x.length` only as a term of a larger expression — never compared directly, never tested for truthiness, and with no other read of `x` — and whose body has no `break`, `return`, `throw` or `if` naming `x`. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Do you agree with this assessment?
X17 · Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged
Other · Security — Whether a walk that recurses through a JSON/XML tree handed in by its caller bounds how deep it will go — an uncapped walk lets the document's nesting choose the stack depth, and the resulting StackOverflowException cannot be caught.
Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: methods that take a JSON/XML document node and call themselves with a child of it, reachable from an externally-callable member of the same type that accepts a document, checked for any depth parameter, descent counter or threaded arithmetic anywhere in the walk. On a repository with no .NET source it reads TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (test, vendored, generated and minified paths and `.d.ts` not) with the same rule: a function or method with a parameter typed as a document value — `unknown`, `any`, `object`, `Record<string, unknown|any>`, a JSON alias (`JsonValue`, `JSONObject`, …) or a DOM node global the file does not rebind — that calls itself (bare, or through `this` for a method, or hands itself to a call over the value as in `value.map(walk)`) with something it took out of that value and never through an ancestor accessor such as `closest()` or `parentElement`, that is exported or reached from an exported function (a public method of the same exported class) taking such a value, and that names no depth, level, nesting, recursion, remaining or budget anywhere and threads no `+`/`-` arithmetic through a self-call. Plain JavaScript is not read: with no annotation nothing tells a parsed document from a tree the code built itself. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Other · Code Health — Whether a type's disposal matches what it OWNS — releasing what it created, leaving alone what it was handed, and not declaring a finalizer for state that has nothing unmanaged to finalize.
Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: every assignment to a disposable field is read to decide whether the type CREATED the value or was handed it, and the type's disposal is checked against that answer — an injected interface it disposes, a value it constructed and never releases, a finalizer on a type holding nothing unmanaged, and a disposable local whose every reference is a plain member read. A value handed to a container that disposes its contents (a parent control's `Controls` collection, a component `IContainer`) is released by that container and is not reported; generated code is out of population. On a repository with no .NET source the same ownership questions are read in JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (test, vendored, generated and minified paths not): a class declaring `dispose()`, `[Symbol.dispose]()` or `[Symbol.asyncDispose]()` that disposes a field it was handed through a constructor parameter typed as a repository interface or resolved by a dependency-injection container; that assigns a field only ever from `new X(…)` of a disposable class and neither releases it anywhere in the class nor names it in its disposal member or a method that member calls, nor hands it to anything else; and a `const`/`let` local built from literals only whose every reference opens a statement operating on a non-release member of it. A class is disposable when every repository declaration of its name declares or inherits a disposal member, or when it is a documented library disposable (`vscode` EventEmitter, CancellationTokenSource and Disposable; three.js geometries, materials, textures, render targets, renderers, controls and composers). The finalizer arm has no JavaScript counterpart: a class cannot declare one. Dart is read for the owned-and-never-released arm: a Flutter `State` (or a class declaring `dispose()`/`close()`) whose library-private field is written only with direct creations of a framework controller, `FocusNode`, `StreamController` or periodic `Timer` (or a `.listen(…)` into a field declared `StreamSubscription`), which nothing in the class or its library releases (`dispose`/`close`/`cancel`) and which is never handed on except as a named argument. Ruby is read for the owned-and-never-released arm and the abandoned-local arm: a class declaring an instance `close`, `dispose`, `shutdown`, `stop`, `disconnect` or `terminate` whose instance variable is written only with a blockless core descriptor creation (`File.open`/`new`, `Tempfile`, `Dir.open`, `IO.popen`, the `socket` and `openssl` socket classes) that no method of the class closes and that is never handed on (passed, returned, stored, exposed by `attr_reader`, delegated) — a class whose superclass or mixin lies outside the repository is not judged — and a blockless creation read through and dropped (`File.open(path).read`) or held in a local that is never closed, returned, passed or stored (a `&:read` block-pass, an `autoclose: false` borrow and a `fileno` hand-over are not abandonment). PHP is read for the same two arms: a class (not a trait, and not one using a trait) declaring an instance `close`, `dispose`, `shutdown`, `stop`, `disconnect` or `terminate` whose `private` property (or a `final` class's `protected` one) is written only with a direct core `fopen`, `tmpfile`, `popen`, `proc_open`, `fsockopen`, `stream_socket_client`/`server` or `opendir` that nothing in the class closes (`fclose`, `pclose`, `closedir`, `unset`, a reset to `null`) and that is never handed on, and a handle held in a function's local, or read through as the argument of a reader, that is never closed, returned, passed, captured or stored; a `php://` stream, `curl_init`, `SplFileObject`, `PDO` and a function the repository declares under the core name are not read. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Other · Code Health — Whether a method that temporarily changes state belonging to the whole process — the working directory, an environment variable — puts it back on EVERY path: a restore reached only when nothing throws leaks the change to the rest of the process.
Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: method bodies that write the process working directory or an environment variable and write it back in the same body, checked for whether that restore sits in a `finally`/`catch` or only on the straight-line path. On a repository with no .NET source the same rule reads production JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (test, vendored and minified paths not): `process.chdir`, `process.env.NAME =`/`["NAME"] =` and `delete process.env.NAME`, and Deno’s `Deno.chdir`/`Deno.env.set`/`Deno.env.delete`, paired per function body (a nested function or arrow is its own body, and module top-level code is none), where the last write puts back a local the body captured from the same global or deletes a variable the first write set, with at least one statement between them; a write in a `catch`/`finally` of that body silences it. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
this block changes state that belongs to the whole process and changes it back at the end of the same body — the environment variable `PKG_CONFIG_LIBDIR` (changed at line 116, put back at line 137) — which says the change was meant to last no longer than this call. But the restore is an ordinary statement on the straight-line path, not an `ensure`, so it is skipped by any exception raised in between: the process then keeps the overwritten value for the rest of its life, and every later relative path, subprocess, write to the standard streams or warning in ANY thread or fiber resolves against it. That failure is silent and remote from its cause — the method that breaks is not the method that moved the value. The durable fix is not to widen the restore but to stop mutating the global: pass the value to the operation that needs it — `chdir:` and an environment hash to `system`/`spawn`/`Open3` (`system({'K' => v}, cmd, chdir: dir)`), an absolute path built with `File.join`/`File.expand_path`, an explicit IO to the code that writes. Where the global genuinely must move, use the block form `Dir.chdir(dir) { … }` or wrap it `begin`/`ensure` so the restore runs on every path. — Formula/p/pkgconf.rb:102
What to do
Each finding names the statement that changes the process-global value and the statement that puts it back. Confirm from the two that nothing between them is protected — then prefer removing the mutation over widening the restore: a working directory or an environment variable passed to the operation that needs it (the `cwd` and `env` options of `child_process`, or of `Deno.Command`) is scoped to that operation, which is what the save-and-restore was trying to approximate. Where the global genuinely must move, a `try`/`finally` is the least that makes the restore unconditional. In Ruby the same holds for `Dir.chdir`, `ENV` and `$stdout`: pass `chdir:` and an environment hash to `system`/`spawn`, or use the block form of `Dir.chdir`, rather than moving the global by hand.
Other · Code Health — Whether a `when` guard is free of side effects — a guard that increments a counter or assigns while deciding whether its arm matches applies that change during PATTERN MATCHING, on an arm that may not be selected, and skips it entirely when a short-circuit to its left answers first.
Method: Roslyn syntax: `when` guards on case labels and switch-expression arms, read for a mutation (`++`/`--`/assignment) sitting in a position the guard's own `&&`/`||`/`??`/`?:`/`?.` can skip. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Other · Code Health — Whether a method that TAKES a lock or semaphore and gives it back from a flag-guarded `finally` returns the value that flag implies — reporting success while the guard hands the primitive back admits a second caller the exclusion was there to keep out, and reporting failure while the guard keeps it leaves nothing to ever give it back.
Method: Roslyn syntax: `try` statements whose `finally` releases a synchronisation primitive under a bare local-bool guard, where the method also TOOK that same primitive before the `try`, checked for a `return` of a bool literal whose value disagrees with the flag state the method's own straight-line assignments put it in. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Other · Code Health — Whether the work a diagnostic log line costs is paid only when that line is wanted — C# evaluates a call's arguments BEFORE the call, so a trace/debug message joined or projected out of a collection is built in full on every pass, and then discarded by a sink the shipped configuration leaves switched off.
Method: Roslyn syntax: log calls at a diagnostic level (a `Log`-prefixed method naming Trace/Debug/Verbose, or a bare `Debug`/`Trace`/`Verbose` on a receiver named for a logger), whose argument list is read for a call whose cost scales with a sequence — a LINQ operator, a materialisation, `string.Join`, a serializer — with no enclosing level check or conditional-compilation region. 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 `debug`/`trace`/`verbose` call on a receiver named for a logger, or a `log`-prefixed method naming the level, whose argument calls an array operator (`map`/`filter`/`reduce`/`sort`/…), `Array.from`, `Object.keys/values/entries`, `JSON.stringify`/`util.inspect` over anything but a literal, or an array `join` — outside any arrow or function passed as an argument, which the logger calls only when the level is on — with no enclosing `if`, `&&` or `?:` whose condition names a level, a level string, or the `NODE_ENV`/`__DEV__`/`DEV` build switch. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Do you agree with this assessment?
X24 · Document value interpolated into markup unescaped10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged
Other · Security — Whether text read out of the document being converted is escaped before it is written into generated markup — a value the document's author chose, interpolated into an attribute the surrounding literal delimits, can close that attribute and open another.
Method: Roslyn semantic model over the whole compilation: a string-typed `Value`/`InnerText`/`InnerXml`/`Text` member declared inside `DocumentFormat.OpenXml` or `System.Xml` is a taint SOURCE, propagated through assignments, returns, arguments, tuple elements and string composition to its transitive closure, then read at interpolated-string holes that sit in a markup position the surrounding literal itself delimits. Escaper/encoder calls and enclosing validator conditions cut the flow. Flow- and container-insensitive by construction. A second arm needs no provenance at all and reports a type that CONTRADICTS ITSELF — the same expression escaped at one delimited markup hole and interpolated raw at another hole in the same markup position of the same type, which the type's own escaping proves is a defect without knowing where the value came from. On a repository with no .NET source it reads JavaScript/TypeScript off the token stream with the same rule: a DOM read of raw document text (`getAttribute`, `textContent`, `innerText`, `nodeValue`) is the source, propagated through local bindings and string composition, and judged at template-literal and concatenation holes in the same two delimited markup positions; escapers and validating conditions cut it, and documentation-site, test, vendored and minified scripts are not read. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Other · Code Health — Whether a value the caller is invited to supply is the value the type actually uses — a constructor parameter stored in a private field that nothing ever reads while the default it was given is spelled out a second time at the site that should have read it, a keyed lookup that falls back to a different setting than the one its key names while the same type falls back to the matching one for that same key, or a culture-sensitive parse given no format provider by a type that feeds its own settable culture to the same kind of parse elsewhere, or a number an entry point writes to standard output under the host's culture while the same entry point formats with the invariant culture elsewhere. Either way, every caller who supplies a value silently gets something else.
Method: Roslyn syntax: private instance fields of a non-partial type assigned in a constructor from one of its own parameters with a `??` fallback, checked for whether anything in the type body reads the field and whether that same fallback expression is spelled out again outside the constructor; and `??` fallbacks onto a member access from a lookup call carrying exactly one string literal, grouped by that key across the type and checked for a fallback member whose folded name disagrees with the key while a sibling site for the same key agrees with it. On a repository with no .NET source the first two arms read JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (tests included, bundles and vendored paths not): a `#x`, `private` or `private` parameter-property instance field filled in the constructor from a parameter (or one member of one) through `??`/`||` or a parameter default, never read anywhere in the file by name, whose constructed default is spelled again in the class body; and `lookup("key") ?? s.member` grouped by key per class, or per module outside every class. The culture arm has no JavaScript counterpart: its parses take no locale. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Other · Code Health — Whether a value handed from a callback to the body that waits on it crosses on something built to be crossed — a `Queue<T>`/`List<T>`/`Dictionary<K,V>` written inside an event handler and read back outside it is mutated by two flows at once, and the semaphore or completion source beside it orders how MANY items exist while leaving the collection's own head, tail and backing array unprotected.
Method: Roslyn syntax: method, accessor, local-function and lambda bodies that declare BOTH a non-thread-safe generic collection (`Queue`/`Stack`/`List`/`Dictionary`/`HashSet`/`Sorted*`/`LinkedList`) and a synchronisation primitive (`SemaphoreSlim`/`TaskCompletionSource`/`ManualResetEvent(Slim)`/`AutoResetEvent`/`CountdownEvent`) as locals, then read for a `+=`-registered lambda that raises that primitive while the body outside every lambda waits on it — and, in that scope, a mutating call on the collection inside the lambda paired with a mention of it outside. Any `lock` in the scope abstains it. On a repository with no .NET source the same handoff is read in Java off the engine’s own token stream (test source sets, vendored and demonstration paths not): an `ArrayList`/`LinkedList`/`ArrayDeque`/`PriorityQueue`/`Hash*`/`LinkedHash*`/`Tree*` local and a `CountDownLatch`/`Semaphore`/`CompletableFuture` local, a lambda or anonymous class that raises the primitive and mutates the collection, and a wait outside it; any `synchronized` or `lock()` abstains the body. Because each of those primitives orders what the callback wrote before raising it, only a touch that provably overlaps the callback is convicted: one after the registration and before the next wait, or one in a loop registered-before, waiting on every pass and not declaring the collection. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Do you agree with this assessment?
X27 · Collection changed while being enumerated10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged
Other · Code Health — Whether a walk over a `Hash` or `Set` (`each`, `each_pair`, `map`, `for … in` and the other block walks) leaves it alone — Ruby refuses `rehash`, `replace`, `compare_by_identity` and `transform_keys!` on a Hash, and `reset`, `replace`, `compare_by_identity` and `map!` on a Set, while it is being iterated: the call raises `RuntimeError` at once and the remaining entries are never seen.
Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: `foreach` statements whose body calls a structural mutator (`Add`/`Remove`/`Clear`/`Insert`/…) on the very expression the loop is enumerating. Two arms. ARM A — the source is a concrete fragile BCL collection, or a live `Keys`/`Values` view over one, and the mutator resolves to that same collection's own member; concurrent and immutable collections and arrays are outside the population by construction, since their enumerators survive a structural change. ARM B — the source is an argument-less accessor CALL on a receiver whose body is in source: the accessor must return a stored field VERBATIM and a sibling member must structurally change that same field, both read off the implementations rather than from the members' names. A mutation the loop provably exits immediately after (`break`/`return`/`throw`/`goto`), or one written inside a nested loop or a lambda, is counted and never reported. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Do you agree with this assessment?
X28 · Index access outside its own emptiness guard10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged
Other · Code Health — Whether a condition that tests a value for emptiness indexes that same value only where the test holds — an `||` written one parenthesis too far to the left leaves an index access outside the guard beside it, so the empty case the guard exists to anticipate reaches the index and throws.
Method: Roslyn syntax only, no semantic model: the OUTERMOST `&&`/`||` of every boolean condition, read for a symbol the condition tests for emptiness (`string.IsNullOrEmpty`/`IsNullOrWhiteSpace`, a `Length`/`Count` comparison against a literal, `Any()`, a `Length`/`Count` pattern, or a comparison against `""`) and ALSO indexes. Each `symbol[...]` access is placed by a boolean-reachability walk from the access up to the outermost connective: an access is COVERED when some enclosing step has it in the right operand and the left operand, under the truth value that step forces, proves the symbol non-empty — a recursion over `&&`/`||` whose true- and false-directions are asymmetric. A finding needs BOTH an uncovered access and a covered one on the same symbol in the same condition, which is the agreeing twin that separates a misplaced parenthesis from an unrelated length test. Bare index accesses with no emptiness test in the condition are neither counted nor reported; a non-identifier receiver and a lambda nested inside the condition are outside the population. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Do you agree with this assessment?
X29 · Per-element action decided by a fixed element10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged
Other · Code Health — Whether a decision taken once per element is taken ABOUT that element — a test inside a counted loop that reads a fixed subscript of the very collection its guarded statement indexes by the loop variable applies element zero's answer to all of them, so the elements that differ from it are all handled wrongly, and in the same direction.
Method: Roslyn syntax only, no semantic model: every `for` statement declaring exactly ONE loop variable, and every `if` inside its body that is not under a nested loop or a lambda. A site enters the population when the `if`’s condition never mentions the loop variable while the statement it guards indexes some collection by that variable ALONE (`c[i]`; `c[i + 1]` and `c[i, j]` are outside it). A finding additionally needs the AGREEING TWIN at the same-collection grain: the condition must read THAT SAME collection at a subscript that does not move — written into the condition, or reached through a local declared BEFORE the loop, so an alias bound inside the body is not followed. Both collection expressions must be simple identifiers. On a repository with no .NET source the same rule reads JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (tests included, bundles and vendored paths not): a `for (let|var|const x = …; …; …)` with one declarator and a braced body, an alias followed only when it is declared before the loop in a block that encloses it and never assigned inside the loop. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Other · Code Health — Whether exceptions are handled rather than silently swallowed or rethrown with lost stack traces.
Method: Roslyn syntax scan: every catch clause counted; empty catches and bare rethrows flagged. Population is all catch clauses, not estimated. Deterministic, hard fact.
Do you agree with this assessment?
X30 · Support guard that admits what it rejects10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged
Other · Code Health — Whether a guard written as a NEGATED `||` says what its author meant — `!(a || b || x != k)` is `!a && !b && x == k` by De Morgan, so a bail-out that mixes capabilities the code needs with a fault it refuses turns inside out: it fires only where the capabilities are ABSENT, and lets every value the fault term names walk straight into the body that cannot handle it.
Method: Roslyn syntax only, no semantic model: every logical-not whose operand is a parenthesised `||` chain of two or more disjuncts, flattened (a left-nested `a || b || c` read once would see `(a || b)` as one disjunct). A site enters the population on that shape alone. A finding additionally needs the disjuncts to DISAGREE in polarity: at least one bare boolean read — an identifier or member access, never an invocation, which is a predicate rather than a capability flag — and at least one `x != <constant>`, the only form that negates into an exact-value pin (`== null` negates into a looser requirement and is outside the fault set). Consistently-polarised disjunctions, all-fault or all-capability, are counted and never reported; a negated `&&` is outside the population entirely. No same-receiver gate: it was measured to cost a real defect and remove no false positive. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Other · Code Health — Whether Ruby's type checker checks nil and is not undermined by assertions — a file Sorbet reads at `# typed: true` or above, or a Steep target `check`s under its default or strict diagnostics, is one where a method call on a `T.nilable(String)` / `String?` is an error, and each `T.must`, `#: as !nil` or `# steep:ignore NoMethod` is the author telling the checker a value cannot be nil.
Method: Roslyn compiler-options scan: NullableContextOptions per project; null-forgiving (!) suppression density per 1k syntax nodes. Deterministic, adoption plus suppression penalty.
This repository commits no Sorbet configuration (`sorbet/config`) and no `Steepfile`, so nothing type-checks its 8678 Ruby product file(s): a nilable value reaches a method call silently and raises `NoMethodError: undefined method … for nil` the first time it is nil. A `# typed:` sigil does nothing without a `sorbet/config` beside the code; a Steep run configured only on a command line is not something this check can read.
What to do
Adopt a checker and raise it file by file: with Sorbet, `srb init` (or `bundle exec tapioca init`) commits `sorbet/config`, then move each file's sigil from `# typed: false` to `# typed: true` and on to `strict` as its methods get `sig`s — `spoom bump` does the moving; with Steep, write RBS signatures and `check` the product directories in the `Steepfile` under `D::Ruby.default` or `strict`, not `lenient`. Then pay down the assertions rather than adding to them: each `T.must` is a nil the checker could not rule out — narrow it (`return unless x`, `x&.`, `if (y = x)`), make the attribute non-nilable and set it in `initialize`, or change the method so the nil cannot arrive.
Do you agree with this assessment?
Reference — by lens
The score is the rank-weighted fold of these lenses (worst-heaviest), each including its meta-dimensions; a lens with a Critical contributor is capped at Fair (its band reads "gated by …") and is never the strongest area however high its average.
Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Unscored — 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.
X10 Duplicated predicate — 21 observation(s) recorded · Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score.
X6 Hand-rolled structured-format parsing — 40 observation(s) recorded · Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score.
Not evidenced — 1 control(s) we could not find positive evidence for
These checks grade a working control, and the repository shows no evidence of one. That is deliberately not scored as a zero: a repository cannot show an ops runbook, a database TTL or an infrastructure-side audit log, so absence of evidence here is not evidence the control is missing. It is also not a statement that the check is irrelevant to this codebase — the thing it grades applies; we just could not see it. Excluded from the score either way.
P5 DR & Backup — not evidenced — repo shows no backup/RTO/RPO controls; absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control
Not included — 66 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: this repository's JavaScript imports no dependency-injection container and defines no container of its own — nothing that both registers and resolves bindings, and nothing that names two lifetimes — so nothing holds one lifetime's instance while handing out another's; this repository's Ruby imports no dependency-injection container and defines no container of its own — nothing that both registers and resolves bindings, and nothing that names two lifetimes — so nothing holds one lifetime's instance while handing out another's.
AX2 Stateful singletons — No container singleton was found, so there is no shared instance for concurrent requests to race on. No class in this Ruby code is a Rails controller, a Sinatra, Grape or Roda app, a Hanami action or a Rack app (an instance `call(env)`), so no request handler shares state between request threads. TypeScript/JavaScript runs each process's requests on one event loop, so no two requests write a shared object at the same instant (interleaving across an await is a different defect).
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 — no class or module declares an abstract method
AX7 Slice cohesion — not applicable — not a vertical-slice architecture
AX8 Test isolation — no test/production split to check
AX9 CQS / query purity — no CQRS query handlers detected — query purity is not applicable to this codebase
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.
C1 Data Protection — No personal data detected in a persisted data model — no PII-named field (email, first_name, date_of_birth, phone, …) or stored credential in an ActiveRecord or Sequel migration, a db/schema.rb table or a Mongoid document — and no database or data-store client (an ActiveRecord model, Sequel, pg, mysql2, sqlite3, Mongo, …) in the source either, so this repository keeps no data at rest for these controls to protect.
C2 Access Controls — No access-control surface detected in the analyzed source — this repository draws no route and defines no request handler (no Rails routes.draw or controller, no Sinatra, Roda or Grape application, no Hanami action). Access control is therefore N/A here — a gem is authorized by the application that mounts it, not by itself. If this codebase grows request handlers, the dimension reactivates and a default-deny posture is expected then.
C3 Audit Trail — No personal data detected in a persisted data model — no PII-named column (email, first_name, date_of_birth, phone_number, …) or stored credential in an ActiveRecord or Sequel migration, db/schema.rb or a Mongoid document — and no database client (an ActiveRecord model, Sequel, pg, mysql2, Mongo) in the source either, so this repository keeps no sensitive data whose changes an audit trail would record. If it does (through a hosted backend configured outside this repository, for instance), the trail belongs to wherever that data is stored.
C4 Data Retention — No personal data detected in a persisted data model — no PII-named field (email, first_name, date_of_birth, phone, …) or stored credential in an ActiveRecord or Sequel migration, db/schema.rb or a Mongoid document — and no database client (ActiveRecord, Sequel, pg, mysql2, mongo, …) in the source either, so this repository keeps no personal data whose lifetime a retention limit would bound.
C5 Data-Subject Rights — No personal data detected in a persisted data model — no PII-named field (email, first_name, date_of_birth, phone, …) or stored credential in an ActiveRecord or Sequel migration, a db/schema.rb table or a Mongoid document — and no database or data-store client (an ActiveRecord model, Sequel, pg, mysql2, sqlite3, Mongo, …) in the source either, so this repository keeps no personal data for a data subject to erase, export or consent over.
D10 Test Quality — ~0 lines of test source are present (.rb) 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 — no .rb test runner
D12 Dependency Hygiene — Dependency hygiene not measured — no supported dependency manifest was read
D14 License Compliance — No dependency manifest found — no declared dependency closure to grade for licences
D16 Bus Factor — single-maintainer repository — bus factor is not applicable
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.
D19 Documentation Quality — No runnable or published unit to look for an example in, and no multi-project root README to look for a map in; the other documentation kinds are withheld (see the gaps), so documentation quality is not applicable here.
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.
D21 Naming Consistency — Naming consistency is measured on C# only; JavaScript, Ruby not measured.
D22 Internal API Consistency — No intentionally-exposed public API to evaluate for consistency.
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 — D24 reads C# and Visual Basic comments only — this repository's production source is .rb, which was left unread. Not scored: this is a gap in the analyzer, not a verdict about this repository.
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 (.rb), 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.
D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities — Not scored — no dependency manifest in a supported ecosystem was read for this repository. A gap in the analyzer's language coverage, NOT a finding that the repository is free of vulnerable dependencies (a Python pyproject.toml/requirements.txt (pip/uv/Poetry), a Swift Package.swift/Package.resolved, a Cargo manifest, a Go module (go.mod/go.sum), a Gradle version catalogue, a Maven POM, an sbt build (build.sbt), composer.json, package.json, a Dart pubspec.yaml, an Elixir mix.exs/mix.lock (Hex), a rebar.config / erlang.mk DEPS (Hex), a Ruby Gemfile/Gemfile.lock or .gemspec (Bundler/RubyGems) — not scanned yet).
D31 IaC & Container Security — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Docker Compose, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation, ARM, Bicep, Ansible); nothing to scan.
D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — No personal data was found crossing a boundary the PII/GDPR ruleset checks — nothing written to a log or console sink, placed in a URL or query string, or persisted to browser storage. That is a clean result for the LEAK surface only: this ruleset detects personal data escaping, it does not inventory the personal data a repository holds, so it is not evidence that this repository has no personal-data surface. The personal-data map (Appendix C) and the C1-C5 compliance cards are what speak to that.
D37 Vulnerability-disclosure Policy — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.
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.
D43 Malicious Dependencies — Not scored — no dependency manifest in a supported ecosystem was read for this repository. A gap in the analyzer's language coverage, NOT a finding that the repository is free of vulnerable dependencies (a Python pyproject.toml/requirements.txt (pip/uv/Poetry), a Swift Package.swift/Package.resolved, a Cargo manifest, a Go module (go.mod/go.sum), a Gradle version catalogue, a Maven POM, an sbt build (build.sbt), composer.json, package.json, a Dart pubspec.yaml, an Elixir mix.exs/mix.lock (Hex), a rebar.config / erlang.mk DEPS (Hex), a Ruby Gemfile/Gemfile.lock or .gemspec (Bundler/RubyGems) — not scanned yet).
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
D9 Test Distribution — Test source is present (.rb) 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 its unit/integration/BDD/E2E split couldn't be counted. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository.
DM1 Domain Modelling — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this lens looks for
ED1 Event-Driven — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this lens looks for
ED5 Idempotency — no mutating command handlers or message consumers detected — idempotency check not applicable
ES1 Event Sourcing — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this lens looks for
M4 Documentation accuracy — Not applicable: the 2 current-state document(s) make no claim of a kind M4 checks. 1 claim(s) of kinds M4 does not check were not checked (environment variable 1); M4 checks only links and versions.
P10 Library API & versioning — 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'.
P2 Observability — This repository's JavaScript/TypeScript, Ruby source (2 module(s), 8683 file(s) read) declares no entry point and bootstraps no server, and nothing here deploys a service — it is a library, run inside whatever hosts it, so production observability (structured logging, tracing/metrics, health checks) is N/A. If it grows a binary or a service, the dimension reactivates.
P7 Outbound HTTP resilience — not applicable — no HTTP server, API framework or worker entry point was found in the JavaScript/TypeScript, Ruby source, so there is no service whose uptime a failing dependency could take down
P8 Schema migrations — no ORM, schema-migration tool or schema auto-create was found in this repository's dependency manifests or source, so there is no database schema for this check to judge
P9 Domain vs controller coverage — no coverage report found on disk — produce a coverage report in a standard format (SimpleCov — `require "simplecov"` in your `spec_helper.rb`/`test_helper.rb`, which writes `coverage/.resultset.json` (or lcov via `simplecov-lcov`)) 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
PF1 Benchmark discipline — Not applicable: no benchmark suite was found. This check searched for `x.report(…)` entries in a `Benchmark.ips`/`bm`/`bmbm`/`benchmark`/`memory` block, `benchmark:` entries in a benchmark-driver YAML under a bench* directory, rspec-benchmark `perform_*` expectations where the gem is installed, or benchmark-ips, benchmark-memory, rspec-benchmark or benchmark-driver in a Gemfile or gemspec, and for a `*benchmark*` script that this repository's CI runs. Benchmarks are credited as a bonus, so their absence is neither scored nor deducted.
PF2 Allocation hygiene — Not applicable: Ruby runs on a garbage-collected runtime that gives a program no allocation-control idiom to choose on a hot path — no pools, stack allocation or value types — so allocation awareness is not something this code can be rated on.
PF3 Async & latency hygiene — Not applicable: Ruby has no async/await function colour, so there is no asynchronous code for a blocking call to stall.
X2 Cancellation propagation — no C# was loaded; this repository's Ruby was read, and no request in it can be cancelled by a caller — a Ruby request takes no token: Net::HTTP, Faraday and async-http are stopped from outside the call (Async::Task#stop, Thread#raise, Timeout), not through a parameter
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.
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.
X4 Structured logging — This check asks whether log calls keep a message's values apart from its text, which needs a logger that can carry them as fields. This repository's Ruby was read, and it logs through none: the standard library's Logger, which Rails.logger is, takes one finished message and no template arguments or fields (as log4net does in C#), so an interpolated message there loses nothing the API could have kept. The console gem (`Console.info`), SemanticLogger, Ougai and dry-logger would be judged.
X7 Silent fallback defaults — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
X9 Subsumed condition operand — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
Appendix A — Findings (grouped)
The findings behind the scores, grouped by severity, then by dimension and kind. The high-severity issues are enumerated in full below; items per group are capped at 25 with any overflow stated explicitly per group, never silently truncated. The complete machine-readable list of every finding (all severities) is the companion findings.md in this report's bundle.
TodoComment Formula/z/zigup.rb:35— # TODO: remove with Zig 0.15+ — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `# REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment Formula/g/glyph.rb:31— # TODO: remove with Zig 0.15+ — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `# REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment Formula/y/yaz.rb:44— # Possible opportunistic linkage. TODO: Check if this can be removed. — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `# REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment Formula/t/tasksh.rb:33— # Possible opportunistic linkage. TODO: Check if this can be removed. — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `# REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment Formula/lib/libvirt.rb:35— # Possible opportunistic linkage. TODO: Check if this can be removed. — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `# REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment Formula/y/yek.rb:42— # TODO: ENV["LIBGIT2_NO_VENDOR"] = "1" — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `# REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment Formula/g/git-trim.rb:37— # TODO: ENV["LIBGIT2_NO_VENDOR"] = "1" — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `# REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment Formula/x/x-cli.rb:16— # TODO: Remove on next release along with OpenSSL dependency due to — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `# REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment Formula/x/xapian.rb:51— # TODO: Remove when the release wrapper is regenerated with SWIG 4.4+ (xapian/xapian@64c7de24cb) — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `# REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment Formula/x/xboard.rb:8— # TODO: Switch to GTK+3 build on next release (see HEAD build) — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `# REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment Formula/x/xcinfo.rb:8— # TODO: Remove maximum_macos on the next release and update license — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `# REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment Formula/x/xsane.rb:8— # TODO: Switch to `gtk+3` on next release — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `# REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment Formula/x/xxh.rb:6— # TODO: check if we can switch back to PyPI in next release — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `# REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment Formula/s/streamrip.rb:6— # TODO: check if we can switch back to PyPI in next release — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `# REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment Formula/w/wget2.rb:54— # TODO: remove along with `autoreconf` and its build dependencies in the next release — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `# REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment Formula/w/woof.rb:6— # TODO: change to codeberg when tag is available — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `# REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment Formula/v/vgmstream.rb:43— # TODO: Try adding `-DBUILD_SHARED_LIBS=ON` in a future release. — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `# REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment Formula/v/vineyard.rb:85— # TODO: Try upstreaming fix along with above — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `# REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment Formula/v/vulkan-profiles.rb:139— # TODO: Remove stamp staging when upstream supports an existing Python environment. — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `# REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment Formula/v/vuls.rb:22— # TODO: unpin go@1.26 when vuls (and trivy) support go 1.27 — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `# REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment Formula/v/vultr-cli.rb:32— # TODO: consider deprecating old name and then remove after a couple releases — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `# REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment Formula/u/ucg.rb:48— # TODO: Make `depends_on :linux` when removing macOS support — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `# REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment Formula/i/intercal.rb:41— # TODO: Make `depends_on :linux` when removing macOS support — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `# REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment Formula/g/geomview.rb:37— # TODO: Make `depends_on :linux` when removing macOS support — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `# REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment Formula/u/urlview.rb:4— # TODO: Consider switching to new Debian maintainer's fork if it is adopted — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `# REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
FixmeComment Formula/z/zlib-rs.rb:30— # FIXME: needs to download a test resource. Brew changes are needed to — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `# REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
FixmeComment Formula/y/yaf.rb:52— # FIXME: yafscii 2.19.1 segfaults when reading stdin or writing stdout — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `# REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
FixmeComment Formula/w/wasi-libc.rb:64— # FIXME: `brew` should know to download test resources before sandboxing. — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `# REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
FixmeComment Formula/v/verilator.rb:31— # FIXME: Homebrew flex's `FlexLexer.h` keeps `int` signatures; skip flexfix's `size_t` rewrite for Apple's header — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `# REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
FixmeComment Formula/v/vulkan-profiles.rb:182— # FIXME: when GitHub Actions Intel Mac runners support the use of Metal, — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `# REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
FixmeComment Formula/t/torrra.rb:11— # FIXME: Fails with "Could not find a version that satisfies the requirement libtorrent". — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `# REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
FixmeComment Formula/t/txr.rb:36— # FIXME: We need to bypass the compiler shim to work around `-mbranch-protection=standard` — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `# REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
FixmeComment Formula/t/txr.rb:44— # FIXME: Workaround to avoid the compiler shim suppressing warnings needed during configure. — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `# REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
FixmeComment Formula/s/sdcc.rb:59— # FIXME: sdbinutils prefixes every tool except the demangler, which clashes with `binutils` — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `# REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
FixmeComment Formula/s/seven-kingdoms.rb:44— # FIXME: `uses_from_macos` is not allowed in `on_intel` block — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `# REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
FixmeComment Formula/s/sheldon.rb:33— # FIXME: We should be able to use macOS curl on Ventura, but `curl-config` is broken. — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `# REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
FixmeComment Formula/s/skip.rb:46— # FIXME: need to update brew as Swift 6.4.0+ doesn't use ld shim anymore — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `# REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
FixmeComment Formula/s/sql-language-server.rb:31— # FIXME: `vscode-languageserver-protocol` 3.18 `exports` block the deep import in `createServer.js` — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `# REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
FixmeComment Formula/s/swift.rb:740— # FIXME: trying to prebuild macOS 27 SDK modules errors on MobileGestaltPrivate and arm64e.x1. — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `# REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
FixmeComment Formula/s/sysdig.rb:29— # FIXME: switch to brewed `falcosecurity-libs` — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `# REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
FixmeComment Formula/s/sysdig.rb:104— # FIXME: remove after switching to brewed `falcosecurity-libs` — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `# REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
FixmeComment Formula/s/syslog-ng.rb:78— # FIXME: we should use resource blocks but there is no upstream pip support besides this requirements.txt — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `# REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
FixmeComment Formula/r/rakudo-star.rb:59— # FIXME: brew `libuv` causes runtime failures on Linux, e.g. — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `# REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
FixmeComment Formula/m/moarvm.rb:58— # FIXME: brew `libuv` causes runtime failures on Linux, e.g. — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `# REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
FixmeComment Formula/r/readline.rb:93— # FIXME: Setting `SHLIB_LIBS` should not be needed, but, on Linux, — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `# REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
FixmeComment Formula/r/redis.rb:55— # FIXME: redisbloom's vendored readies has no `OSX_MIN_SDK_VER` past tahoe, leaving `-mmacosx-version-min=` empty — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `# REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
FixmeComment Formula/q/qca.rb:56— # FIXME: QCA_PLUGINS_INSTALL_DIR should match qt's directory "{share}/qt/plugins"; — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `# REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
FixmeComment Formula/q/qtbase.rb:169— # FIXME: Unable to use workaround for relocatable installs as paths are resolved relative — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `# REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
FixmeComment Formula/q/qtquickeffectmaker.rb:36— # FIXME: app bundle is broken as CFBundleExecutable doesn't match after rename — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `# REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
FixmeComment Formula/p/perbase.rb:48— # FIXME: bindgen 0.69 (via rust-htslib 0.51) generates opaque structs with libclang 22+ — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `# REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
FileTooLong: p/prowler.rb Formula/p/prowler.rb— FileTooLong — 1016 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 516 over it, 2.03× 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: b/bartib.rb Formula/b/bartib.rb— FileTooLong — 822 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). 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: d/dvc.rb Formula/d/dvc.rb— FileTooLong — 686 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 186 over it, 1.37× 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: k/kimi-cli.rb Formula/k/kimi-cli.rb— FileTooLong — 681 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 181 over it, 1.36× 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: s/swift.rb Formula/s/swift.rb— FileTooLong — 633 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 133 over it, 1.27× 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: b/biber.rb Formula/b/biber.rb— FileTooLong — 576 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 76 over it, 1.15× 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: s/scoutsuite.rb Formula/s/scoutsuite.rb— FileTooLong — 564 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 64 over it, 1.13× 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: REDACTED REDACTED— FileTooLong — 559 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 59 over it, 1.12× 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: o/oterm.rb Formula/o/oterm.rb— FileTooLong — 555 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 55 over it, 1.11× 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: a/ansible.rb Formula/a/ansible.rb— FileTooLong — 551 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 51 over it, 1.10× 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: a/ansible@12.rb Formula/a/ansible@12.rb— FileTooLong — 548 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 48 over it, 1.10× 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: a/ansible@13.rb Formula/a/ansible@13.rb— FileTooLong — 532 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 32 over it, 1.06× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
FileTooLong: a/ansible@10.rb Formula/a/ansible@10.rb— FileTooLong — 530 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 30 over it, 1.06× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
FileTooLong: a/ansible@9.rb Formula/a/ansible@9.rb— FileTooLong — 529 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 29 over it, 1.06× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
FileTooLong: d/dstack.rb Formula/d/dstack.rb— FileTooLong — 516 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 16 over it, 1.03× 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.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) Formula/n/netcdf-cxx.rb:45— Formula/n/netcdf-cxx.rb:45-51 | Formula/n/netcdf-fortran.rb:28-34 — 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) Formula/a/apache-brooklyn-cli.rb:33— Formula/a/apache-brooklyn-cli.rb:33-39 | Formula/e/ente-cli.rb:29-35 — the copies sit in different shards of ONE directory: `Formula` is split into subdirectories by a prefix of the file name rather than by module, so `Formula/a` and `Formula/e` are siblings in a single flat namespace and this is not the cross-module problem the paths make it look like. Whether the block can be extracted at all turns on how this tree loads code — an index of definition files that are loaded independently and never load one another has no location to put a shared function, and there the 2 copies are maintained separately by design rather than by neglect. Check that first: if the files here can reach a common one, extract the block into it and call it from each site; if they cannot, this row is telling you the cost of the layout, not a refactor you can perform.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) Formula/c/chisel-ubuntu.rb:25— Formula/c/chisel-ubuntu.rb:25-31 | Formula/t/tanka.rb:28-34 — the copies sit in different shards of ONE directory: `Formula` is split into subdirectories by a prefix of the file name rather than by module, so `Formula/c` and `Formula/t` are siblings in a single flat namespace and this is not the cross-module problem the paths make it look like. Whether the block can be extracted at all turns on how this tree loads code — an index of definition files that are loaded independently and never load one another has no location to put a shared function, and there the 2 copies are maintained separately by design rather than by neglect. Check that first: if the files here can reach a common one, extract the block into it and call it from each site; if they cannot, this row is telling you the cost of the layout, not a refactor you can perform.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) Formula/c/cidr.rb:24— Formula/c/cidr.rb:24-30 | Formula/l/lazyjournal.rb:24-34 — the copies sit in different shards of ONE directory: `Formula` is split into subdirectories by a prefix of the file name rather than by module, so `Formula/c` and `Formula/l` are siblings in a single flat namespace and this is not the cross-module problem the paths make it look like. Whether the block can be extracted at all turns on how this tree loads code — an index of definition files that are loaded independently and never load one another has no location to put a shared function, and there the 2 copies are maintained separately by design rather than by neglect. Check that first: if the files here can reach a common one, extract the block into it and call it from each site; if they cannot, this row is telling you the cost of the layout, not a refactor you can perform.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) Formula/d/delve.rb:23— Formula/d/delve.rb:23-29 | Formula/h/headscale-cli.rb:26-32 — the copies sit in different shards of ONE directory: `Formula` is split into subdirectories by a prefix of the file name rather than by module, so `Formula/d` and `Formula/h` are siblings in a single flat namespace and this is not the cross-module problem the paths make it look like. Whether the block can be extracted at all turns on how this tree loads code — an index of definition files that are loaded independently and never load one another has no location to put a shared function, and there the 2 copies are maintained separately by design rather than by neglect. Check that first: if the files here can reach a common one, extract the block into it and call it from each site; if they cannot, this row is telling you the cost of the layout, not a refactor you can perform.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) Formula/d/distill-cli.rb:31— Formula/d/distill-cli.rb:31-37 | Formula/o/octobuild.rb:28-34 — the copies sit in different shards of ONE directory: `Formula` is split into subdirectories by a prefix of the file name rather than by module, so `Formula/d` and `Formula/o` are siblings in a single flat namespace and this is not the cross-module problem the paths make it look like. Whether the block can be extracted at all turns on how this tree loads code — an index of definition files that are loaded independently and never load one another has no location to put a shared function, and there the 2 copies are maintained separately by design rather than by neglect. Check that first: if the files here can reach a common one, extract the block into it and call it from each site; if they cannot, this row is telling you the cost of the layout, not a refactor you can perform.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) Formula/e/emmylua_ls.rb:26— Formula/e/emmylua_ls.rb:26-32 | Formula/w/weave.rb:31-37 — the copies sit in different shards of ONE directory: `Formula` is split into subdirectories by a prefix of the file name rather than by module, so `Formula/e` and `Formula/w` are siblings in a single flat namespace and this is not the cross-module problem the paths make it look like. Whether the block can be extracted at all turns on how this tree loads code — an index of definition files that are loaded independently and never load one another has no location to put a shared function, and there the 2 copies are maintained separately by design rather than by neglect. Check that first: if the files here can reach a common one, extract the block into it and call it from each site; if they cannot, this row is telling you the cost of the layout, not a refactor you can perform.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) Formula/k/kubetui.rb:29— Formula/k/kubetui.rb:29-35 | Formula/r/rover.rb:31-37 — the copies sit in different shards of ONE directory: `Formula` is split into subdirectories by a prefix of the file name rather than by module, so `Formula/k` and `Formula/r` are siblings in a single flat namespace and this is not the cross-module problem the paths make it look like. Whether the block can be extracted at all turns on how this tree loads code — an index of definition files that are loaded independently and never load one another has no location to put a shared function, and there the 2 copies are maintained separately by design rather than by neglect. Check that first: if the files here can reach a common one, extract the block into it and call it from each site; if they cannot, this row is telling you the cost of the layout, not a refactor you can perform.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) Formula/r/rancher-machine.rb:30— Formula/r/rancher-machine.rb:30-39 | Formula/t/tfplugingen-openapi.rb:24-30 — the copies sit in different shards of ONE directory: `Formula` is split into subdirectories by a prefix of the file name rather than by module, so `Formula/r` and `Formula/t` are siblings in a single flat namespace and this is not the cross-module problem the paths make it look like. Whether the block can be extracted at all turns on how this tree loads code — an index of definition files that are loaded independently and never load one another has no location to put a shared function, and there the 2 copies are maintained separately by design rather than by neglect. Check that first: if the files here can reach a common one, extract the block into it and call it from each site; if they cannot, this row is telling you the cost of the layout, not a refactor you can perform.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) Formula/g/geos.rb:26— Formula/g/geos.rb:26-32 | Formula/p/poselib.rb:26-32 — the copies sit in different shards of ONE directory: `Formula` is split into subdirectories by a prefix of the file name rather than by module, so `Formula/g` and `Formula/p` are siblings in a single flat namespace and this is not the cross-module problem the paths make it look like. Whether the block can be extracted at all turns on how this tree loads code — an index of definition files that are loaded independently and never load one another has no location to put a shared function, and there the 2 copies are maintained separately by design rather than by neglect. Check that first: if the files here can reach a common one, extract the block into it and call it from each site; if they cannot, this row is telling you the cost of the layout, not a refactor you can perform.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) Formula/l/linux-headers@5.15.rb:24— Formula/l/linux-headers@5.15.rb:24-30 | Formula/l/linux-headers@6.8.rb:21-27 — 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) Formula/s/slepc-complex.rb:37— Formula/s/slepc-complex.rb:37-43 | Formula/s/slepc.rb:38-44 — 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) Formula/c/calceph.rb:28— Formula/c/calceph.rb:28-36 | Formula/lib/libbladerf.rb:37-43 — the copies sit in different shards of ONE directory: `Formula` is split into subdirectories by a prefix of the file name rather than by module, so `Formula/c` and `Formula/lib` are siblings in a single flat namespace and this is not the cross-module problem the paths make it look like. Whether the block can be extracted at all turns on how this tree loads code — an index of definition files that are loaded independently and never load one another has no location to put a shared function, and there the 2 copies are maintained separately by design rather than by neglect. Check that first: if the files here can reach a common one, extract the block into it and call it from each site; if they cannot, this row is telling you the cost of the layout, not a refactor you can perform.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) Formula/d/dlib.rb:32— Formula/d/dlib.rb:32-45 | Formula/v/vdt.rb:27-33 — the copies sit in different shards of ONE directory: `Formula` is split into subdirectories by a prefix of the file name rather than by module, so `Formula/d` and `Formula/v` are siblings in a single flat namespace and this is not the cross-module problem the paths make it look like. Whether the block can be extracted at all turns on how this tree loads code — an index of definition files that are loaded independently and never load one another has no location to put a shared function, and there the 2 copies are maintained separately by design rather than by neglect. Check that first: if the files here can reach a common one, extract the block into it and call it from each site; if they cannot, this row is telling you the cost of the layout, not a refactor you can perform.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) Formula/c/cctz.rb:24— Formula/c/cctz.rb:24-32 | Formula/lib/libsamplerate.rb:43-51 — the copies sit in different shards of ONE directory: `Formula` is split into subdirectories by a prefix of the file name rather than by module, so `Formula/c` and `Formula/lib` are siblings in a single flat namespace and this is not the cross-module problem the paths make it look like. Whether the block can be extracted at all turns on how this tree loads code — an index of definition files that are loaded independently and never load one another has no location to put a shared function, and there the 2 copies are maintained separately by design rather than by neglect. Check that first: if the files here can reach a common one, extract the block into it and call it from each site; if they cannot, this row is telling you the cost of the layout, not a refactor you can perform.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) Formula/f/ffmpeg@5.rb:169— Formula/f/ffmpeg@5.rb:169-177 | Formula/f/ffmpeg@6.rb:165-173 — before extracting anything, compare `Formula/f/ffmpeg@5.rb` and `Formula/f/ffmpeg@6.rb` as WHOLE FILES: 82% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 1 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. 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 (9 lines × 2) Formula/c/cryptography.rb:31— Formula/c/cryptography.rb:31-40 | Formula/r/rpds-py.rb:26-34 — the copies sit in different shards of ONE directory: `Formula` is split into subdirectories by a prefix of the file name rather than by module, so `Formula/c` and `Formula/r` are siblings in a single flat namespace and this is not the cross-module problem the paths make it look like. Whether the block can be extracted at all turns on how this tree loads code — an index of definition files that are loaded independently and never load one another has no location to put a shared function, and there the 2 copies are maintained separately by design rather than by neglect. Check that first: if the files here can reach a common one, extract the block into it and call it from each site; if they cannot, this row is telling you the cost of the layout, not a refactor you can perform.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) Formula/c/cyme.rb:32— Formula/c/cyme.rb:32-40 | Formula/t/tlrc.rb:27-37 — the copies sit in different shards of ONE directory: `Formula` is split into subdirectories by a prefix of the file name rather than by module, so `Formula/c` and `Formula/t` are siblings in a single flat namespace and this is not the cross-module problem the paths make it look like. Whether the block can be extracted at all turns on how this tree loads code — an index of definition files that are loaded independently and never load one another has no location to put a shared function, and there the 2 copies are maintained separately by design rather than by neglect. Check that first: if the files here can reach a common one, extract the block into it and call it from each site; if they cannot, this row is telling you the cost of the layout, not a refactor you can perform.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) Formula/p/pygit2.rb:27— Formula/p/pygit2.rb:27-35 | Formula/s/scipy.rb:36-44 — the copies sit in different shards of ONE directory: `Formula` is split into subdirectories by a prefix of the file name rather than by module, so `Formula/p` and `Formula/s` are siblings in a single flat namespace and this is not the cross-module problem the paths make it look like. Whether the block can be extracted at all turns on how this tree loads code — an index of definition files that are loaded independently and never load one another has no location to put a shared function, and there the 2 copies are maintained separately by design rather than by neglect. Check that first: if the files here can reach a common one, extract the block into it and call it from each site; if they cannot, this row is telling you the cost of the layout, not a refactor you can perform.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) Formula/t/talhelper.rb:27— Formula/t/talhelper.rb:27-35 | Formula/t/tygo.rb:25-38 — 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 (9 lines × 2) Formula/d/dep-scan.rb:287— Formula/d/dep-scan.rb:287-297 | Formula/f/fanficfare.rb:135-143 — the copies sit in different shards of ONE directory: `Formula` is split into subdirectories by a prefix of the file name rather than by module, so `Formula/d` and `Formula/f` are siblings in a single flat namespace and this is not the cross-module problem the paths make it look like. Whether the block can be extracted at all turns on how this tree loads code — an index of definition files that are loaded independently and never load one another has no location to put a shared function, and there the 2 copies are maintained separately by design rather than by neglect. Check that first: if the files here can reach a common one, extract the block into it and call it from each site; if they cannot, this row is telling you the cost of the layout, not a refactor you can perform.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) Formula/h/helm.rb:28— Formula/h/helm.rb:28-36 | Formula/h/helm@3.rb:34-42 — 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 (9 lines × 2) Formula/m/mips-linux-gnu-binutils.rb:36— Formula/m/mips-linux-gnu-binutils.rb:36-44 | Formula/m/mipsel-linux-gnu-binutils.rb:36-44 — 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 (9 lines × 2) Formula/h/hf.rb:107— Formula/h/hf.rb:107-118 | Formula/z/zabbix-cli.rb:144-152 — the copies sit in different shards of ONE directory: `Formula` is split into subdirectories by a prefix of the file name rather than by module, so `Formula/h` and `Formula/z` are siblings in a single flat namespace and this is not the cross-module problem the paths make it look like. Whether the block can be extracted at all turns on how this tree loads code — an index of definition files that are loaded independently and never load one another has no location to put a shared function, and there the 2 copies are maintained separately by design rather than by neglect. Check that first: if the files here can reach a common one, extract the block into it and call it from each site; if they cannot, this row is telling you the cost of the layout, not a refactor you can perform.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) Formula/f/forcecli.rb:22— Formula/f/forcecli.rb:22-28 | Formula/m/macpine.rb:39-44 — the copies sit in different shards of ONE directory: `Formula` is split into subdirectories by a prefix of the file name rather than by module, so `Formula/f` and `Formula/m` are siblings in a single flat namespace and this is not the cross-module problem the paths make it look like. Whether the block can be extracted at all turns on how this tree loads code — an index of definition files that are loaded independently and never load one another has no location to put a shared function, and there the 2 copies are maintained separately by design rather than by neglect. Check that first: if the files here can reach a common one, extract the block into it and call it from each site; if they cannot, this row is telling you the cost of the layout, not a refactor you can perform.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) Formula/i/ibazel.rb:26— Formula/i/ibazel.rb:26-31 | Formula/j/jjui.rb:22-27 — the copies sit in different shards of ONE directory: `Formula` is split into subdirectories by a prefix of the file name rather than by module, so `Formula/i` and `Formula/j` are siblings in a single flat namespace and this is not the cross-module problem the paths make it look like. Whether the block can be extracted at all turns on how this tree loads code — an index of definition files that are loaded independently and never load one another has no location to put a shared function, and there the 2 copies are maintained separately by design rather than by neglect. Check that first: if the files here can reach a common one, extract the block into it and call it from each site; if they cannot, this row is telling you the cost of the layout, not a refactor you can perform.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) Formula/d/dhcping.rb:31— Formula/d/dhcping.rb:31-36 | Formula/f/freexl.rb:29-34 — the copies sit in different shards of ONE directory: `Formula` is split into subdirectories by a prefix of the file name rather than by module, so `Formula/d` and `Formula/f` are siblings in a single flat namespace and this is not the cross-module problem the paths make it look like. Whether the block can be extracted at all turns on how this tree loads code — an index of definition files that are loaded independently and never load one another has no location to put a shared function, and there the 2 copies are maintained separately by design rather than by neglect. Check that first: if the files here can reach a common one, extract the block into it and call it from each site; if they cannot, this row is telling you the cost of the layout, not a refactor you can perform.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) Formula/f/fabio.rb:32— Formula/f/fabio.rb:32-37 | Formula/n/nrpe.rb:60-65 — the copies sit in different shards of ONE directory: `Formula` is split into subdirectories by a prefix of the file name rather than by module, so `Formula/f` and `Formula/n` are siblings in a single flat namespace and this is not the cross-module problem the paths make it look like. Whether the block can be extracted at all turns on how this tree loads code — an index of definition files that are loaded independently and never load one another has no location to put a shared function, and there the 2 copies are maintained separately by design rather than by neglect. Check that first: if the files here can reach a common one, extract the block into it and call it from each site; if they cannot, this row is telling you the cost of the layout, not a refactor you can perform.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) Formula/f/fb303.rb:28— Formula/f/fb303.rb:28-33 | Formula/m/mvfst.rb:31-36 — the copies sit in different shards of ONE directory: `Formula` is split into subdirectories by a prefix of the file name rather than by module, so `Formula/f` and `Formula/m` are siblings in a single flat namespace and this is not the cross-module problem the paths make it look like. Whether the block can be extracted at all turns on how this tree loads code — an index of definition files that are loaded independently and never load one another has no location to put a shared function, and there the 2 copies are maintained separately by design rather than by neglect. Check that first: if the files here can reach a common one, extract the block into it and call it from each site; if they cannot, this row is telling you the cost of the layout, not a refactor you can perform.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) Formula/f/fprobe.rb:27— Formula/f/fprobe.rb:27-32 | Formula/n/nylon.rb:32-37 — the copies sit in different shards of ONE directory: `Formula` is split into subdirectories by a prefix of the file name rather than by module, so `Formula/f` and `Formula/n` are siblings in a single flat namespace and this is not the cross-module problem the paths make it look like. Whether the block can be extracted at all turns on how this tree loads code — an index of definition files that are loaded independently and never load one another has no location to put a shared function, and there the 2 copies are maintained separately by design rather than by neglect. Check that first: if the files here can reach a common one, extract the block into it and call it from each site; if they cannot, this row is telling you the cost of the layout, not a refactor you can perform.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) Formula/n/nuraft.rb:30— Formula/n/nuraft.rb:30-35 | Formula/p/packcc.rb:29-35 — the copies sit in different shards of ONE directory: `Formula` is split into subdirectories by a prefix of the file name rather than by module, so `Formula/n` and `Formula/p` are siblings in a single flat namespace and this is not the cross-module problem the paths make it look like. Whether the block can be extracted at all turns on how this tree loads code — an index of definition files that are loaded independently and never load one another has no location to put a shared function, and there the 2 copies are maintained separately by design rather than by neglect. Check that first: if the files here can reach a common one, extract the block into it and call it from each site; if they cannot, this row is telling you the cost of the layout, not a refactor you can perform.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) Formula/p/pari-galpol.rb:30— Formula/p/pari-galpol.rb:30-35 | Formula/p/pari-nflistdata.rb:24-29 — 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) Formula/b/backlog-md.rb:31— Formula/b/backlog-md.rb:31-36 | Formula/c/crowdin.rb:32-37 — the copies sit in different shards of ONE directory: `Formula` is split into subdirectories by a prefix of the file name rather than by module, so `Formula/b` and `Formula/c` are siblings in a single flat namespace and this is not the cross-module problem the paths make it look like. Whether the block can be extracted at all turns on how this tree loads code — an index of definition files that are loaded independently and never load one another has no location to put a shared function, and there the 2 copies are maintained separately by design rather than by neglect. Check that first: if the files here can reach a common one, extract the block into it and call it from each site; if they cannot, this row is telling you the cost of the layout, not a refactor you can perform.
D4 · Code Duplication· Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) · ×7
Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) Formula/e/erlang.rb:65— Formula/e/erlang.rb:65-107 | Formula/e/erlang@26.rb:54-96 | Formula/e/erlang@27.rb:61-103 | Formula/e/erlang@28.rb:61-102 — 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.
Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) Formula/l/llvm@19.rb:304— Formula/l/llvm@19.rb:304-329 | Formula/l/llvm@20.rb:288-313 | Formula/l/llvm@21.rb:288-315 | Formula/l/llvm@22.rb:285-312 — 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.
Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) Formula/lib/libgit2@1.7.rb:33— Formula/lib/libgit2@1.7.rb:33-41 | Formula/lib/libgit2@1.8.rb:35-43 | Formula/lib/libsndfile.rb:39-54 | Formula/r/raylib.rb:33-44 — 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.
Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) Formula/m/marp-cli.rb:20— Formula/m/marp-cli.rb:20-28 | Formula/m/mcp-server-kubernetes.rb:19-27 | Formula/r/reveal-md.rb:20-30 | Formula/w/worm-scraper.rb:22-30 — 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.
Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) Formula/p/python-gdbm@3.12.rb:28— Formula/p/python-gdbm@3.12.rb:28-64 | Formula/p/python-gdbm@3.13.rb:28-64 | Formula/p/python-gdbm@3.14.rb:28-64 | Formula/p/python-gdbm@3.15.rb:28-64 — 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.
Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) Formula/r/redict.rb:23— Formula/r/redict.rb:23-35 | Formula/r/redis@6.2.rb:34-46 | Formula/r/redis@8.2.rb:32-44 | Formula/v/valkey.rb:31-43 — 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.
Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) Formula/z/zig.rb:48— Formula/z/zig.rb:48-71 | Formula/z/zig@0.14.rb:55-66 | Formula/z/zig@0.15.rb:61-72 | Formula/z/zig@0.16.rb:60-75 — These 4 members share a duplicated core: a run of at least 50 identical tokens appears in every one of them. That run is NOT broken out as duplicated-block rows below — it is what admitted this row, and the blocks below cover only the part of it that clears the block floor, so they understate the correspondence. Read the members as one construct written 4 times. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 4 times.
Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) Formula/c/camlpdf.rb:24— Formula/c/camlpdf.rb:24-36 | Formula/o/ocaml-zarith.rb:23-35 — the copies sit in different shards of ONE directory: `Formula` is split into subdirectories by a prefix of the file name rather than by module, so `Formula/c` and `Formula/o` are siblings in a single flat namespace and this is not the cross-module problem the paths make it look like. Whether the block can be extracted at all turns on how this tree loads code — an index of definition files that are loaded independently and never load one another has no location to put a shared function, and there the 2 copies are maintained separately by design rather than by neglect. Check that first: if the files here can reach a common one, extract the block into it and call it from each site; if they cannot, this row is telling you the cost of the layout, not a refactor you can perform.
Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) Formula/d/dotnet@8.rb:74— Formula/d/dotnet@8.rb:74-86 | Formula/d/dotnet@9.rb:75-87 — before extracting anything, compare `Formula/d/dotnet@8.rb` and `Formula/d/dotnet@9.rb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 45 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 (13 lines × 2) Formula/m/mbedtls.rb:47— Formula/m/mbedtls.rb:47-59 | Formula/m/mbedtls@3.rb:46-58 — 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) Formula/n/node@22.rb:106— Formula/n/node@22.rb:106-118 | Formula/n/node@24.rb:155-167 — 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. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Formula/n/node@22.rb:106` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) Formula/t/tomee-plus.rb:17— Formula/t/tomee-plus.rb:17-29 | Formula/t/tomee-webprofile.rb:17-29 — 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) Formula/lib/libint.rb:31— Formula/lib/libint.rb:31-44 | Formula/s/superlu.rb:25-37 — the copies sit in different shards of ONE directory: `Formula` is split into subdirectories by a prefix of the file name rather than by module, so `Formula/lib` and `Formula/s` are siblings in a single flat namespace and this is not the cross-module problem the paths make it look like. Whether the block can be extracted at all turns on how this tree loads code — an index of definition files that are loaded independently and never load one another has no location to put a shared function, and there the 2 copies are maintained separately by design rather than by neglect. Check that first: if the files here can reach a common one, extract the block into it and call it from each site; if they cannot, this row is telling you the cost of the layout, not a refactor you can perform.
Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) Formula/m/micromamba.rb:68— Formula/m/micromamba.rb:68-82 | Formula/s/simdutf.rb:34-46 — the copies sit in different shards of ONE directory: `Formula` is split into subdirectories by a prefix of the file name rather than by module, so `Formula/m` and `Formula/s` are siblings in a single flat namespace and this is not the cross-module problem the paths make it look like. Whether the block can be extracted at all turns on how this tree loads code — an index of definition files that are loaded independently and never load one another has no location to put a shared function, and there the 2 copies are maintained separately by design rather than by neglect. Check that first: if the files here can reach a common one, extract the block into it and call it from each site; if they cannot, this row is telling you the cost of the layout, not a refactor you can perform.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) Formula/g/ghostunnel.rb:22— Formula/g/ghostunnel.rb:22-29 | Formula/p/plow.rb:23-30 — the copies sit in different shards of ONE directory: `Formula` is split into subdirectories by a prefix of the file name rather than by module, so `Formula/g` and `Formula/p` are siblings in a single flat namespace and this is not the cross-module problem the paths make it look like. Whether the block can be extracted at all turns on how this tree loads code — an index of definition files that are loaded independently and never load one another has no location to put a shared function, and there the 2 copies are maintained separately by design rather than by neglect. Check that first: if the files here can reach a common one, extract the block into it and call it from each site; if they cannot, this row is telling you the cost of the layout, not a refactor you can perform.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) Formula/i/ipatool.rb:22— Formula/i/ipatool.rb:22-29 | Formula/l/ldcli.rb:22-30 — the copies sit in different shards of ONE directory: `Formula` is split into subdirectories by a prefix of the file name rather than by module, so `Formula/i` and `Formula/l` are siblings in a single flat namespace and this is not the cross-module problem the paths make it look like. Whether the block can be extracted at all turns on how this tree loads code — an index of definition files that are loaded independently and never load one another has no location to put a shared function, and there the 2 copies are maintained separately by design rather than by neglect. Check that first: if the files here can reach a common one, extract the block into it and call it from each site; if they cannot, this row is telling you the cost of the layout, not a refactor you can perform.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) Formula/k/kyma-cli.rb:32— Formula/k/kyma-cli.rb:32-40 | Formula/n/nova-fairwinds.rb:24-31 — the copies sit in different shards of ONE directory: `Formula` is split into subdirectories by a prefix of the file name rather than by module, so `Formula/k` and `Formula/n` are siblings in a single flat namespace and this is not the cross-module problem the paths make it look like. Whether the block can be extracted at all turns on how this tree loads code — an index of definition files that are loaded independently and never load one another has no location to put a shared function, and there the 2 copies are maintained separately by design rather than by neglect. Check that first: if the files here can reach a common one, extract the block into it and call it from each site; if they cannot, this row is telling you the cost of the layout, not a refactor you can perform.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) Formula/o/octl.rb:22— Formula/o/octl.rb:22-29 | Formula/s/steampipe.rb:27-34 — the copies sit in different shards of ONE directory: `Formula` is split into subdirectories by a prefix of the file name rather than by module, so `Formula/o` and `Formula/s` are siblings in a single flat namespace and this is not the cross-module problem the paths make it look like. Whether the block can be extracted at all turns on how this tree loads code — an index of definition files that are loaded independently and never load one another has no location to put a shared function, and there the 2 copies are maintained separately by design rather than by neglect. Check that first: if the files here can reach a common one, extract the block into it and call it from each site; if they cannot, this row is telling you the cost of the layout, not a refactor you can perform.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) Formula/d/dromeaudio.rb:32— Formula/d/dromeaudio.rb:32-39 | Formula/f/fluent-bit.rb:40-50 — the copies sit in different shards of ONE directory: `Formula` is split into subdirectories by a prefix of the file name rather than by module, so `Formula/d` and `Formula/f` are siblings in a single flat namespace and this is not the cross-module problem the paths make it look like. Whether the block can be extracted at all turns on how this tree loads code — an index of definition files that are loaded independently and never load one another has no location to put a shared function, and there the 2 copies are maintained separately by design rather than by neglect. Check that first: if the files here can reach a common one, extract the block into it and call it from each site; if they cannot, this row is telling you the cost of the layout, not a refactor you can perform.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) Formula/g/globjects.rb:44— Formula/g/globjects.rb:44-51 | Formula/lib/libgr.rb:41-48 — the copies sit in different shards of ONE directory: `Formula` is split into subdirectories by a prefix of the file name rather than by module, so `Formula/g` and `Formula/lib` are siblings in a single flat namespace and this is not the cross-module problem the paths make it look like. Whether the block can be extracted at all turns on how this tree loads code — an index of definition files that are loaded independently and never load one another has no location to put a shared function, and there the 2 copies are maintained separately by design rather than by neglect. Check that first: if the files here can reach a common one, extract the block into it and call it from each site; if they cannot, this row is telling you the cost of the layout, not a refactor you can perform.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) Formula/c/crfsuite.rb:48— Formula/c/crfsuite.rb:48-55 | Formula/lib/libdvbcsa.rb:36-43 — the copies sit in different shards of ONE directory: `Formula` is split into subdirectories by a prefix of the file name rather than by module, so `Formula/c` and `Formula/lib` are siblings in a single flat namespace and this is not the cross-module problem the paths make it look like. Whether the block can be extracted at all turns on how this tree loads code — an index of definition files that are loaded independently and never load one another has no location to put a shared function, and there the 2 copies are maintained separately by design rather than by neglect. Check that first: if the files here can reach a common one, extract the block into it and call it from each site; if they cannot, this row is telling you the cost of the layout, not a refactor you can perform.
Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) Formula/a/apache-flink.rb:25— Formula/a/apache-flink.rb:25-29 | Formula/a/apache-flink@1.rb:27-31 — 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 (5 lines × 2) Formula/a/atari800.rb:41— Formula/a/atari800.rb:41-45 | Formula/s/strace.rb:22-26 — the copies sit in different shards of ONE directory: `Formula` is split into subdirectories by a prefix of the file name rather than by module, so `Formula/a` and `Formula/s` are siblings in a single flat namespace and this is not the cross-module problem the paths make it look like. Whether the block can be extracted at all turns on how this tree loads code — an index of definition files that are loaded independently and never load one another has no location to put a shared function, and there the 2 copies are maintained separately by design rather than by neglect. Check that first: if the files here can reach a common one, extract the block into it and call it from each site; if they cannot, this row is telling you the cost of the layout, not a refactor you can perform.
Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) Formula/a/avro-cpp.rb:44— Formula/a/avro-cpp.rb:44-48 | Formula/p/prjtrellis.rb:47-52 — the copies sit in different shards of ONE directory: `Formula` is split into subdirectories by a prefix of the file name rather than by module, so `Formula/a` and `Formula/p` are siblings in a single flat namespace and this is not the cross-module problem the paths make it look like. Whether the block can be extracted at all turns on how this tree loads code — an index of definition files that are loaded independently and never load one another has no location to put a shared function, and there the 2 copies are maintained separately by design rather than by neglect. Check that first: if the files here can reach a common one, extract the block into it and call it from each site; if they cannot, this row is telling you the cost of the layout, not a refactor you can perform.
Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) Formula/f/file-roller.rb:43— Formula/f/file-roller.rb:43-47 | Formula/lib/libsecret.rb:43-49 — the copies sit in different shards of ONE directory: `Formula` is split into subdirectories by a prefix of the file name rather than by module, so `Formula/f` and `Formula/lib` are siblings in a single flat namespace and this is not the cross-module problem the paths make it look like. Whether the block can be extracted at all turns on how this tree loads code — an index of definition files that are loaded independently and never load one another has no location to put a shared function, and there the 2 copies are maintained separately by design rather than by neglect. Check that first: if the files here can reach a common one, extract the block into it and call it from each site; if they cannot, this row is telling you the cost of the layout, not a refactor you can perform.
Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) Formula/l/licensefinder.rb:39— Formula/l/licensefinder.rb:39-43 | Formula/s/solargraph.rb:26-30 — the copies sit in different shards of ONE directory: `Formula` is split into subdirectories by a prefix of the file name rather than by module, so `Formula/l` and `Formula/s` are siblings in a single flat namespace and this is not the cross-module problem the paths make it look like. Whether the block can be extracted at all turns on how this tree loads code — an index of definition files that are loaded independently and never load one another has no location to put a shared function, and there the 2 copies are maintained separately by design rather than by neglect. Check that first: if the files here can reach a common one, extract the block into it and call it from each site; if they cannot, this row is telling you the cost of the layout, not a refactor you can perform.
Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) Formula/lib/libkml.rb:38— Formula/lib/libkml.rb:38-45 | Formula/lib/libnfs.rb:24-28 — 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 (5 lines × 2) Formula/w/wasmedge.rb:29— Formula/w/wasmedge.rb:29-33 | Formula/y/yder.rb:35-39 — the copies sit in different shards of ONE directory: `Formula` is split into subdirectories by a prefix of the file name rather than by module, so `Formula/w` and `Formula/y` are siblings in a single flat namespace and this is not the cross-module problem the paths make it look like. Whether the block can be extracted at all turns on how this tree loads code — an index of definition files that are loaded independently and never load one another has no location to put a shared function, and there the 2 copies are maintained separately by design rather than by neglect. Check that first: if the files here can reach a common one, extract the block into it and call it from each site; if they cannot, this row is telling you the cost of the layout, not a refactor you can perform.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) Formula/o/ocl-icd.rb:45— Formula/o/ocl-icd.rb:45-55 | Formula/o/opencl-icd-loader.rb:38-48 — 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 (11 lines × 2) Formula/b/berglas.rb:22— Formula/b/berglas.rb:22-32 | Formula/d/dnscontrol.rb:31-42 — the copies sit in different shards of ONE directory: `Formula` is split into subdirectories by a prefix of the file name rather than by module, so `Formula/b` and `Formula/d` are siblings in a single flat namespace and this is not the cross-module problem the paths make it look like. Whether the block can be extracted at all turns on how this tree loads code — an index of definition files that are loaded independently and never load one another has no location to put a shared function, and there the 2 copies are maintained separately by design rather than by neglect. Check that first: if the files here can reach a common one, extract the block into it and call it from each site; if they cannot, this row is telling you the cost of the layout, not a refactor you can perform. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `Formula/b/berglas.rb:32` calls `generate_completions_from_executable` and `Formula/d/dnscontrol.rb:43` does not — after which the two agree again for 2 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) Formula/b/bomctl.rb:29— Formula/b/bomctl.rb:29-42 | Formula/s/sbom-utility.rb:29-39 — the copies sit in different shards of ONE directory: `Formula` is split into subdirectories by a prefix of the file name rather than by module, so `Formula/b` and `Formula/s` are siblings in a single flat namespace and this is not the cross-module problem the paths make it look like. Whether the block can be extracted at all turns on how this tree loads code — an index of definition files that are loaded independently and never load one another has no location to put a shared function, and there the 2 copies are maintained separately by design rather than by neglect. Check that first: if the files here can reach a common one, extract the block into it and call it from each site; if they cannot, this row is telling you the cost of the layout, not a refactor you can perform.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) Formula/d/dockly.rb:27— Formula/d/dockly.rb:27-37 | Formula/i/insect.rb:34-44 — the copies sit in different shards of ONE directory: `Formula` is split into subdirectories by a prefix of the file name rather than by module, so `Formula/d` and `Formula/i` are siblings in a single flat namespace and this is not the cross-module problem the paths make it look like. Whether the block can be extracted at all turns on how this tree loads code — an index of definition files that are loaded independently and never load one another has no location to put a shared function, and there the 2 copies are maintained separately by design rather than by neglect. Check that first: if the files here can reach a common one, extract the block into it and call it from each site; if they cannot, this row is telling you the cost of the layout, not a refactor you can perform.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) Formula/g/ghex.rb:35— Formula/g/ghex.rb:35-45 | Formula/t/tinysparql.rb:47-58 — the copies sit in different shards of ONE directory: `Formula` is split into subdirectories by a prefix of the file name rather than by module, so `Formula/g` and `Formula/t` are siblings in a single flat namespace and this is not the cross-module problem the paths make it look like. Whether the block can be extracted at all turns on how this tree loads code — an index of definition files that are loaded independently and never load one another has no location to put a shared function, and there the 2 copies are maintained separately by design rather than by neglect. Check that first: if the files here can reach a common one, extract the block into it and call it from each site; if they cannot, this row is telling you the cost of the layout, not a refactor you can perform.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) Formula/lib/libnsbmp.rb:30— Formula/lib/libnsbmp.rb:30-40 | Formula/lib/libnsgif.rb:31-41 — 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.
Hotspot: REDACTED REDACTED:60— REDACTED changed 31 times in last 90 days, max cyclomatic complexity 34 in Llvm.install at line 60. 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 2026-07-27..2026-10-25, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-07-27 10:22:17 +00:00' --until='2026-10-25 10:22:17 +00:00' --full-history --no-merges -- REDACTED`: 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: Formula/e/emscripten.rb Formula/e/emscripten.rb:99— Formula/e/emscripten.rb changed 29 times in last 90 days, max cyclomatic complexity 19 in Emscripten.install at line 99. 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 2026-07-27..2026-10-25, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-07-27 10:22:17 +00:00' --until='2026-10-25 10:22:17 +00:00' --full-history --no-merges -- Formula/e/emscripten.rb`: 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: Formula/p/python@3.14.rb Formula/p/python@3.14.rb:133— Formula/p/python@3.14.rb changed 23 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 19 in PythonAT314.install at line 133. 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 2026-07-27..2026-10-25, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-07-27 10:22:17 +00:00' --until='2026-10-25 10:22:17 +00:00' --full-history --no-merges -- Formula/p/python@3.14.rb`: 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: Formula/j/julia.rb Formula/j/julia.rb:76— Formula/j/julia.rb changed 11 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 18 in Julia.install at line 76. 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 2026-07-27..2026-10-25, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-07-27 10:22:17 +00:00' --until='2026-10-25 10:22:17 +00:00' --full-history --no-merges -- Formula/j/julia.rb`: 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: Formula/s/swift.rb Formula/s/swift.rb:537— Formula/s/swift.rb changed 8 times in last 90 days, max cyclomatic complexity 15 in Swift.install at line 537. 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 2026-07-27..2026-10-25, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-07-27 10:22:17 +00:00' --until='2026-10-25 10:22:17 +00:00' --full-history --no-merges -- Formula/s/swift.rb`: 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.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 3) Formula/p/pycparser.rb:25— Formula/p/pycparser.rb:25-32 | Formula/p/python-packaging.rb:25-32 | Formula/p/python-setuptools.rb:22-29 — 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 all 3 call sites, so a change lands once.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 3) Formula/c/clog.rb:34— Formula/c/clog.rb:34-41 | Formula/m/mosquitto.rb:40-53 | Formula/o/opencolorio.rb:37-52 — the copies sit in different shards of ONE directory: `Formula` is split into subdirectories by a prefix of the file name rather than by module, so `Formula/c` and `Formula/m` are siblings in a single flat namespace and this is not the cross-module problem the paths make it look like. Whether the block can be extracted at all turns on how this tree loads code — an index of definition files that are loaded independently and never load one another has no location to put a shared function, and there the 3 copies are maintained separately by design rather than by neglect. Check that first: if the files here can reach a common one, extract the block into it and call it from each site; if they cannot, this row is telling you the cost of the layout, not a refactor you can perform.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 3) Formula/h/hl.rb:27— Formula/h/hl.rb:27-34 | Formula/m/miniserve.rb:24-31 | Formula/t/topgrade.rb:29-36 — the copies sit in different shards of ONE directory: `Formula` is split into subdirectories by a prefix of the file name rather than by module, so `Formula/h` and `Formula/m` are siblings in a single flat namespace and this is not the cross-module problem the paths make it look like. Whether the block can be extracted at all turns on how this tree loads code — an index of definition files that are loaded independently and never load one another has no location to put a shared function, and there the 3 copies are maintained separately by design rather than by neglect. Check that first: if the files here can reach a common one, extract the block into it and call it from each site; if they cannot, this row is telling you the cost of the layout, not a refactor you can perform.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 3) Formula/c/crates-tui.rb:30— Formula/c/crates-tui.rb:30-37 | Formula/d/duckscript.rb:33-40 | Formula/t/teller.rb:31-38 — the copies sit in different shards of ONE directory: `Formula` is split into subdirectories by a prefix of the file name rather than by module, so `Formula/c` and `Formula/d` are siblings in a single flat namespace and this is not the cross-module problem the paths make it look like. Whether the block can be extracted at all turns on how this tree loads code — an index of definition files that are loaded independently and never load one another has no location to put a shared function, and there the 3 copies are maintained separately by design rather than by neglect. Check that first: if the files here can reach a common one, extract the block into it and call it from each site; if they cannot, this row is telling you the cost of the layout, not a refactor you can perform. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Formula/c/crates-tui.rb:30` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 3) Formula/g/garmintools.rb:28— Formula/g/garmintools.rb:28-35 | Formula/p/pakchois.rb:32-39 | Formula/r/rlog.rb:28-35 — the copies sit in different shards of ONE directory: `Formula` is split into subdirectories by a prefix of the file name rather than by module, so `Formula/g` and `Formula/p` are siblings in a single flat namespace and this is not the cross-module problem the paths make it look like. Whether the block can be extracted at all turns on how this tree loads code — an index of definition files that are loaded independently and never load one another has no location to put a shared function, and there the 3 copies are maintained separately by design rather than by neglect. Check that first: if the files here can reach a common one, extract the block into it and call it from each site; if they cannot, this row is telling you the cost of the layout, not a refactor you can perform.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 3) REDACTED:255— REDACTED:255-261 | Formula/d/dotnet@8.rb:153-159 | Formula/d/dotnet@9.rb:163-169 — before extracting anything, compare `Formula/d/dotnet@8.rb` and `Formula/d/dotnet@9.rb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 45 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 × 3) Formula/g/ghz-web.rb:28— Formula/g/ghz-web.rb:28-34 | Formula/s/sql-migrate.rb:24-30 | Formula/v/vale.rb:21-27 — the copies sit in different shards of ONE directory: `Formula` is split into subdirectories by a prefix of the file name rather than by module, so `Formula/g` and `Formula/s` are siblings in a single flat namespace and this is not the cross-module problem the paths make it look like. Whether the block can be extracted at all turns on how this tree loads code — an index of definition files that are loaded independently and never load one another has no location to put a shared function, and there the 3 copies are maintained separately by design rather than by neglect. Check that first: if the files here can reach a common one, extract the block into it and call it from each site; if they cannot, this row is telling you the cost of the layout, not a refactor you can perform.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 3) Formula/a/ampl-asl.rb:25— Formula/a/ampl-asl.rb:25-31 | Formula/g/google-benchmark.rb:22-28 | Formula/w/wabt.rb:30-38 — the copies sit in different shards of ONE directory: `Formula` is split into subdirectories by a prefix of the file name rather than by module, so `Formula/a` and `Formula/g` are siblings in a single flat namespace and this is not the cross-module problem the paths make it look like. Whether the block can be extracted at all turns on how this tree loads code — an index of definition files that are loaded independently and never load one another has no location to put a shared function, and there the 3 copies are maintained separately by design rather than by neglect. Check that first: if the files here can reach a common one, extract the block into it and call it from each site; if they cannot, this row is telling you the cost of the layout, not a refactor you can perform.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 3) Formula/d/double-conversion.rb:25— Formula/d/double-conversion.rb:25-31 | Formula/f/fmt.rb:25-31 | Formula/lib/libogg.rb:38-44 — the copies sit in different shards of ONE directory: `Formula` is split into subdirectories by a prefix of the file name rather than by module, so `Formula/d` and `Formula/f` are siblings in a single flat namespace and this is not the cross-module problem the paths make it look like. Whether the block can be extracted at all turns on how this tree loads code — an index of definition files that are loaded independently and never load one another has no location to put a shared function, and there the 3 copies are maintained separately by design rather than by neglect. Check that first: if the files here can reach a common one, extract the block into it and call it from each site; if they cannot, this row is telling you the cost of the layout, not a refactor you can perform.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 3) Formula/i/immer.rb:23— Formula/i/immer.rb:23-30 | Formula/l/lager.rb:20-27 | Formula/z/zug.rb:18-24 — the copies sit in different shards of ONE directory: `Formula` is split into subdirectories by a prefix of the file name rather than by module, so `Formula/i` and `Formula/l` are siblings in a single flat namespace and this is not the cross-module problem the paths make it look like. Whether the block can be extracted at all turns on how this tree loads code — an index of definition files that are loaded independently and never load one another has no location to put a shared function, and there the 3 copies are maintained separately by design rather than by neglect. Check that first: if the files here can reach a common one, extract the block into it and call it from each site; if they cannot, this row is telling you the cost of the layout, not a refactor you can perform.
HackComment Formula/u/unisonlang.rb:79— # HACK: Flaky command occasionally stalls build indefinitely so we force fail — a workaround marked in source: record what it is compensating for and what would allow its removal (the upstream fix, the API it is waiting on, the invariant it restores), so the next reader can judge whether it is still needed rather than rediscovering why it is there.
HackComment Formula/p/p11-kit.rb:47— # HACK: Work around p11-kit: couldn't load module: .../lib/pkcs11/p11-kit-trust.so — a workaround marked in source: record what it is compensating for and what would allow its removal (the upstream fix, the API it is waiting on, the invariant it restores), so the next reader can judge whether it is still needed rather than rediscovering why it is there.
HackComment Formula/p/pyqt.rb:96— # HACK: there is no option to set the plugindir — a workaround marked in source: record what it is compensating for and what would allow its removal (the upstream fix, the API it is waiting on, the invariant it restores), so the next reader can judge whether it is still needed rather than rediscovering why it is there.
HackComment Formula/d/dirac.rb:41— # HACK: the configure script, which assumes any compiler that — a workaround marked in source: record what it is compensating for and what would allow its removal (the upstream fix, the API it is waiting on, the invariant it restores), so the next reader can judge whether it is still needed rather than rediscovering why it is there.
D4 · Code Duplication· Members sharing a duplicated core (5 members, 50+ identical tokens) · ×4
Members sharing a duplicated core (5 members, 50+ identical tokens) Formula/a/apify-cli.rb:22— Formula/a/apify-cli.rb:22-31 | Formula/c/chrome-devtools-mcp.rb:15-24 | Formula/h/heroku.rb:23-34 | Formula/m/mermaid-cli.rb:19-28 | Formula/s/sanity.rb:19-29 — 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.
Members sharing a duplicated core (5 members, 50+ identical tokens) Formula/o/openjdk.rb:76— Formula/o/openjdk.rb:76-147 | Formula/o/openjdk@11.rb:81-156 | Formula/o/openjdk@17.rb:83-151 | Formula/o/openjdk@21.rb:82-150 | Formula/o/openjdk@25.rb:82-153 — 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.
Members sharing a duplicated core (5 members, 50+ identical tokens) Formula/p/php.rb:96— Formula/p/php.rb:96-257 | Formula/p/php@8.1.rb:80-262 | Formula/p/php@8.2.rb:99-269 | Formula/p/php@8.3.rb:99-269 | Formula/p/php@8.4.rb:96-264 — 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.
Members sharing a duplicated core (5 members, 50+ identical tokens) Formula/r/ruby.rb:89— Formula/r/ruby.rb:89-162 | Formula/r/ruby@3.1.rb:62-156 | Formula/r/ruby@3.2.rb:76-159 | Formula/r/ruby@3.3.rb:64-137 | Formula/r/ruby@3.4.rb:68-143 — These 5 members share a duplicated core: a run of at least 50 identical tokens appears in every one of them. That run is NOT broken out as duplicated-block rows below — it is what admitted this row, and the blocks below cover only the part of it that clears the block floor, so they understate the correspondence. Read the members as one construct written 5 times. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 5 times.
Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) Formula/q/qtquickeffectmaker.rb:42— Formula/q/qtquickeffectmaker.rb:42-53 | Formula/q/qttools.rb:61-72 — 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 (12 lines × 2) Formula/s/sourcedocs.rb:41— Formula/s/sourcedocs.rb:41-52 | Formula/s/swiftplantuml.rb:37-48 — 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 (12 lines × 2) Formula/c/cog.rb:29— Formula/c/cog.rb:29-42 | Formula/i/ipsw.rb:27-38 — the copies sit in different shards of ONE directory: `Formula` is split into subdirectories by a prefix of the file name rather than by module, so `Formula/c` and `Formula/i` are siblings in a single flat namespace and this is not the cross-module problem the paths make it look like. Whether the block can be extracted at all turns on how this tree loads code — an index of definition files that are loaded independently and never load one another has no location to put a shared function, and there the 2 copies are maintained separately by design rather than by neglect. Check that first: if the files here can reach a common one, extract the block into it and call it from each site; if they cannot, this row is telling you the cost of the layout, not a refactor you can perform.
Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) Formula/s/srt.rb:31— Formula/s/srt.rb:31-43 | Formula/s/surelog.rb:39-50 — 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 × 3) Formula/c/cmctl.rb:22— Formula/c/cmctl.rb:22-36 | Formula/f/falcoctl.rb:22-35 | Formula/y/yutu.rb:27-41 — the copies sit in different shards of ONE directory: `Formula` is split into subdirectories by a prefix of the file name rather than by module, so `Formula/c` and `Formula/f` are siblings in a single flat namespace and this is not the cross-module problem the paths make it look like. Whether the block can be extracted at all turns on how this tree loads code — an index of definition files that are loaded independently and never load one another has no location to put a shared function, and there the 3 copies are maintained separately by design rather than by neglect. Check that first: if the files here can reach a common one, extract the block into it and call it from each site; if they cannot, this row is telling you the cost of the layout, not a refactor you can perform.
Duplicated block (14 lines × 3) Formula/d/dory.rb:30— Formula/d/dory.rb:30-43 | Formula/p/pedump.rb:24-37 | Formula/r/rails-mcp-server.rb:23-36 — the copies sit in different shards of ONE directory: `Formula` is split into subdirectories by a prefix of the file name rather than by module, so `Formula/d` and `Formula/p` are siblings in a single flat namespace and this is not the cross-module problem the paths make it look like. Whether the block can be extracted at all turns on how this tree loads code — an index of definition files that are loaded independently and never load one another has no location to put a shared function, and there the 3 copies are maintained separately by design rather than by neglect. Check that first: if the files here can reach a common one, extract the block into it and call it from each site; if they cannot, this row is telling you the cost of the layout, not a refactor you can perform.
Duplicated block (14 lines × 3) Formula/h/hypopg.rb:27— Formula/h/hypopg.rb:27-40 | Formula/p/pgvector.rb:20-33 | Formula/p/postgresql-hll.rb:22-35 — the copies sit in different shards of ONE directory: `Formula` is split into subdirectories by a prefix of the file name rather than by module, so `Formula/h` and `Formula/p` are siblings in a single flat namespace and this is not the cross-module problem the paths make it look like. Whether the block can be extracted at all turns on how this tree loads code — an index of definition files that are loaded independently and never load one another has no location to put a shared function, and there the 3 copies are maintained separately by design rather than by neglect. Check that first: if the files here can reach a common one, extract the block into it and call it from each site; if they cannot, this row is telling you the cost of the layout, not a refactor you can perform.
Duplicated block (14 lines × 3) Formula/o/openssl@3.0.rb:53— Formula/o/openssl@3.0.rb:53-66 | Formula/o/openssl@3.6.rb:51-64 | Formula/o/openssl@3.rb:54-67 — before extracting anything, compare `Formula/o/openssl@3.6.rb` and `Formula/o/openssl@3.rb` as WHOLE FILES: 85% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 2 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. 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 (9 lines × 3) Formula/h/helm-ls.rb:25— Formula/h/helm-ls.rb:25-39 | Formula/m/mcp-toolbox.rb:24-32 | Formula/r/rolesanywhere-credential-helper.rb:24-33 — the copies sit in different shards of ONE directory: `Formula` is split into subdirectories by a prefix of the file name rather than by module, so `Formula/h` and `Formula/m` are siblings in a single flat namespace and this is not the cross-module problem the paths make it look like. Whether the block can be extracted at all turns on how this tree loads code — an index of definition files that are loaded independently and never load one another has no location to put a shared function, and there the 3 copies are maintained separately by design rather than by neglect. Check that first: if the files here can reach a common one, extract the block into it and call it from each site; if they cannot, this row is telling you the cost of the layout, not a refactor you can perform.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 3) Formula/k/ketch.rb:22— Formula/k/ketch.rb:22-30 | Formula/l/lfk.rb:22-32 | Formula/v/vet.rb:21-29 — the copies sit in different shards of ONE directory: `Formula` is split into subdirectories by a prefix of the file name rather than by module, so `Formula/k` and `Formula/l` are siblings in a single flat namespace and this is not the cross-module problem the paths make it look like. Whether the block can be extracted at all turns on how this tree loads code — an index of definition files that are loaded independently and never load one another has no location to put a shared function, and there the 3 copies are maintained separately by design rather than by neglect. Check that first: if the files here can reach a common one, extract the block into it and call it from each site; if they cannot, this row is telling you the cost of the layout, not a refactor you can perform.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 3) Formula/a/assimp@5.rb:43— Formula/a/assimp@5.rb:43-51 | Formula/l/lldb.rb:49-66 | Formula/w/webkitgtk.rb:73-90 — the copies sit in different shards of ONE directory: `Formula` is split into subdirectories by a prefix of the file name rather than by module, so `Formula/a` and `Formula/l` are siblings in a single flat namespace and this is not the cross-module problem the paths make it look like. Whether the block can be extracted at all turns on how this tree loads code — an index of definition files that are loaded independently and never load one another has no location to put a shared function, and there the 3 copies are maintained separately by design rather than by neglect. Check that first: if the files here can reach a common one, extract the block into it and call it from each site; if they cannot, this row is telling you the cost of the layout, not a refactor you can perform.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 3) Formula/l/lunasvg.rb:24— Formula/l/lunasvg.rb:24-33 | Formula/p/plutovg.rb:23-31 | Formula/z/zydis.rb:27-37 — the copies sit in different shards of ONE directory: `Formula` is split into subdirectories by a prefix of the file name rather than by module, so `Formula/l` and `Formula/p` are siblings in a single flat namespace and this is not the cross-module problem the paths make it look like. Whether the block can be extracted at all turns on how this tree loads code — an index of definition files that are loaded independently and never load one another has no location to put a shared function, and there the 3 copies are maintained separately by design rather than by neglect. Check that first: if the files here can reach a common one, extract the block into it and call it from each site; if they cannot, this row is telling you the cost of the layout, not a refactor you can perform.
Duplicated block (27 lines × 2) Formula/g/gcc@10.rb:109— Formula/g/gcc@10.rb:109-135 | Formula/g/gcc@9.rb:109-135 — before extracting anything, compare `Formula/g/gcc@10.rb` and `Formula/g/gcc@9.rb` as WHOLE FILES: 85% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 1 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. 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 (27 lines × 2) Formula/g/gcc@11.rb:108— Formula/g/gcc@11.rb:108-134 | Formula/g/gcc@12.rb:136-162 — 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. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just before the matched lines, `Formula/g/gcc@12.rb:134` calls `formula_opt_include`, `formula_opt_lib` and `Formula/g/gcc@11.rb:107` does not — after which the two agree again for 3 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (27 lines × 2) Formula/p/poppler-qt5.rb:71— Formula/p/poppler-qt5.rb:71-97 | Formula/p/poppler.rb:71-97 — 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 (26 lines × 2) Formula/o/openblas.rb:58— Formula/o/openblas.rb:58-83 | Formula/o/openblas64.rb:45-70 — 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 (26 lines × 2) Formula/p/python-freethreading.rb:256— Formula/p/python-freethreading.rb:256-281 | Formula/p/python@3.15.rb:293-318 — before extracting anything, compare `Formula/p/python-freethreading.rb` and `Formula/p/python@3.15.rb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 5 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 209 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 (26 lines × 2) Formula/p/python@3.10.rb:303— Formula/p/python@3.10.rb:303-328 | Formula/p/python@3.9.rb:288-313 — before extracting anything, compare `Formula/p/python@3.10.rb` and `Formula/p/python@3.9.rb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 9 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 286 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 (15 lines × 2) Formula/f/folly.rb:41— Formula/f/folly.rb:41-55 | Formula/t/tbb.rb:30-46 — the copies sit in different shards of ONE directory: `Formula` is split into subdirectories by a prefix of the file name rather than by module, so `Formula/f` and `Formula/t` are siblings in a single flat namespace and this is not the cross-module problem the paths make it look like. Whether the block can be extracted at all turns on how this tree loads code — an index of definition files that are loaded independently and never load one another has no location to put a shared function, and there the 2 copies are maintained separately by design rather than by neglect. Check that first: if the files here can reach a common one, extract the block into it and call it from each site; if they cannot, this row is telling you the cost of the layout, not a refactor you can perform. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just before the matched lines, `Formula/t/tbb.rb:26` calls `site_packages` and `Formula/f/folly.rb:40` does not — after which the two agree again for 2 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) Formula/t/tomcat.rb:17— Formula/t/tomcat.rb:17-31 | Formula/t/tomcat@10.rb:23-37 — 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 (15 lines × 2) Formula/f/far2l-tty.rb:37— Formula/f/far2l-tty.rb:37-51 | Formula/g/grpc.rb:54-68 — the copies sit in different shards of ONE directory: `Formula` is split into subdirectories by a prefix of the file name rather than by module, so `Formula/f` and `Formula/g` are siblings in a single flat namespace and this is not the cross-module problem the paths make it look like. Whether the block can be extracted at all turns on how this tree loads code — an index of definition files that are loaded independently and never load one another has no location to put a shared function, and there the 2 copies are maintained separately by design rather than by neglect. Check that first: if the files here can reach a common one, extract the block into it and call it from each site; if they cannot, this row is telling you the cost of the layout, not a refactor you can perform.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 3) Formula/e/erlang.rb:65— Formula/e/erlang.rb:65-74 | Formula/e/erlang@27.rb:61-70 | Formula/e/erlang@28.rb:61-70 — before extracting anything, compare `Formula/e/erlang.rb` and `Formula/e/erlang@27.rb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 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.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 3) Formula/a/asak.rb:30— Formula/a/asak.rb:30-39 | Formula/d/dust.rb:27-37 | Formula/m/mqttui.rb:24-34 — the copies sit in different shards of ONE directory: `Formula` is split into subdirectories by a prefix of the file name rather than by module, so `Formula/a` and `Formula/d` are siblings in a single flat namespace and this is not the cross-module problem the paths make it look like. Whether the block can be extracted at all turns on how this tree loads code — an index of definition files that are loaded independently and never load one another has no location to put a shared function, and there the 3 copies are maintained separately by design rather than by neglect. Check that first: if the files here can reach a common one, extract the block into it and call it from each site; if they cannot, this row is telling you the cost of the layout, not a refactor you can perform.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 3) Formula/l/leetcode-cli.rb:30— Formula/l/leetcode-cli.rb:30-39 | Formula/l/legba.rb:32-41 | Formula/s/sh4d0wup.rb:32-41 — the copies sit in different shards of ONE directory: `Formula` is split into subdirectories by a prefix of the file name rather than by module, so `Formula/l` and `Formula/s` are siblings in a single flat namespace and this is not the cross-module problem the paths make it look like. Whether the block can be extracted at all turns on how this tree loads code — an index of definition files that are loaded independently and never load one another has no location to put a shared function, and there the 3 copies are maintained separately by design rather than by neglect. Check that first: if the files here can reach a common one, extract the block into it and call it from each site; if they cannot, this row is telling you the cost of the layout, not a refactor you can perform.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 5) Formula/b/buffa.rb:24— Formula/b/buffa.rb:24-29 | Formula/f/fuc.rb:22-27 | Formula/h/harper.rb:27-32 | Formula/m/mq.rb:22-27 | Formula/n/nfd2nfc.rb:23-28 — the copies sit in different shards of ONE directory: `Formula` is split into subdirectories by a prefix of the file name rather than by module, so `Formula/b` and `Formula/f` are siblings in a single flat namespace and this is not the cross-module problem the paths make it look like. Whether the block can be extracted at all turns on how this tree loads code — an index of definition files that are loaded independently and never load one another has no location to put a shared function, and there the 5 copies are maintained separately by design rather than by neglect. Check that first: if the files here can reach a common one, extract the block into it and call it from each site; if they cannot, this row is telling you the cost of the layout, not a refactor you can perform.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 5) Formula/b/bbe.rb:25— Formula/b/bbe.rb:25-30 | Formula/b/bookloupe.rb:37-42 | REDACTED:25-30 | Formula/n/normalize.rb:35-40 | Formula/p/puf.rb:25-30 — the copies sit in different shards of ONE directory: `Formula` is split into subdirectories by a prefix of the file name rather than by module, so `Formula/b` and `Formula/c` are siblings in a single flat namespace and this is not the cross-module problem the paths make it look like. Whether the block can be extracted at all turns on how this tree loads code — an index of definition files that are loaded independently and never load one another has no location to put a shared function, and there the 5 copies are maintained separately by design rather than by neglect. Check that first: if the files here can reach a common one, extract the block into it and call it from each site; if they cannot, this row is telling you the cost of the layout, not a refactor you can perform. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `Formula/n/normalize.rb:44` calls `test_fixtures` and `Formula/b/bbe.rb:34` does not — after which the two agree again for 2 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 5) Formula/b/btllib.rb:39— Formula/b/btllib.rb:39-44 | Formula/e/evince.rb:56-73 | Formula/g/glib-networking.rb:40-49 | Formula/g/gnome-builder.rb:63-77 | Formula/lib/libnotify.rb:33-43 — the copies sit in different shards of ONE directory: `Formula` is split into subdirectories by a prefix of the file name rather than by module, so `Formula/b` and `Formula/e` are siblings in a single flat namespace and this is not the cross-module problem the paths make it look like. Whether the block can be extracted at all turns on how this tree loads code — an index of definition files that are loaded independently and never load one another has no location to put a shared function, and there the 5 copies are maintained separately by design rather than by neglect. Check that first: if the files here can reach a common one, extract the block into it and call it from each site; if they cannot, this row is telling you the cost of the layout, not a refactor you can perform.
X13 · Undrained process stream· Redirected process stream is never drained (deadlock) · ×3
Redirected process stream is never drained (deadlock) Formula/s/sfst.rb:50— `Open3.popen3` always pipes both `stdout` and `stderr`, and here `stdout` (its stdout) is read to its end — but nothing in this scope ever reads `_` (its stderr). A read to the end returns only at EOF, which the child cannot reach once it fills the unread stderr pipe and blocks on the write (measured with Ruby 3.4 on Linux: 10 bytes finishes, 60 KB hangs forever). Ruby's own Open3 documentation names this deadlock. Use `Open3.capture3`, which drains both, read the two together (a thread per stream, or `IO.select`), or stop piping the one you do not want — `Open3.popen2` leaves stderr to the parent and `Open3.popen2e` merges it into stdout.
Redirected process stream is never drained (deadlock) Formula/d/dungeon.rb:51— `Open3.popen3` always pipes both `stdout` and `stderr`, and here `stdout` (its stdout) is read to its end — but nothing in this scope ever reads `_` (its stderr). A read to the end returns only at EOF, which the child cannot reach once it fills the unread stderr pipe and blocks on the write (measured with Ruby 3.4 on Linux: 10 bytes finishes, 60 KB hangs forever). Ruby's own Open3 documentation names this deadlock. Use `Open3.capture3`, which drains both, read the two together (a thread per stream, or `IO.select`), or stop piping the one you do not want — `Open3.popen2` leaves stderr to the parent and `Open3.popen2e` merges it into stdout.
Redirected process stream is never drained (deadlock) Formula/b/bacon-ls.rb:46— `Open3.popen3` always pipes both `stdout` and `stderr`, and here `stdout` (its stdout) is read to its end — but nothing in this scope ever reads `_` (its stderr). A read to the end returns only at EOF, which the child cannot reach once it fills the unread stderr pipe and blocks on the write (measured with Ruby 3.4 on Linux: 10 bytes finishes, 60 KB hangs forever). Ruby's own Open3 documentation names this deadlock. Use `Open3.capture3`, which drains both, read the two together (a thread per stream, or `IO.select`), or stop piping the one you do not want — `Open3.popen2` leaves stderr to the parent and `Open3.popen2e` merges it into stdout.
D4 · Code Duplication· Members sharing a duplicated core (7 members, 50+ identical tokens) · ×2
Members sharing a duplicated core (7 members, 50+ identical tokens) Formula/m/mariadb.rb:71— Formula/m/mariadb.rb:71-158 | Formula/m/mariadb@10.11.rb:74-164 | Formula/m/mariadb@10.5.rb:52-146 | Formula/m/mariadb@10.6.rb:73-159 | Formula/m/mariadb@11.4.rb:76-160 | Formula/m/mariadb@11.8.rb:75-162 | Formula/m/mariadb@12.3.rb:75-162 — These 7 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 7 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 7 times.
Members sharing a duplicated core (7 members, 50+ identical tokens) Formula/m/mysql.rb:87— Formula/m/mysql.rb:87-166 | Formula/m/mysql@8.0.rb:66-133 | Formula/m/mysql@8.4.rb:87-149 | Formula/m/mysql@9.7.rb:92-170 | Formula/p/percona-server.rb:90-173 | Formula/p/percona-server@8.0.rb:95-180 | Formula/p/percona-server@8.4.rb:86-163 — These 7 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 7 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 7 times.
Duplicated block (37 lines × 4) Formula/o/openjdk.rb:109— Formula/o/openjdk.rb:109-145 | Formula/o/openjdk@17.rb:113-149 | Formula/o/openjdk@21.rb:112-148 | Formula/o/openjdk@25.rb:115-151 — before extracting anything, compare `Formula/o/openjdk.rb` and `Formula/o/openjdk@25.rb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 112 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 (37 lines × 4) Formula/p/python-gdbm@3.12.rb:28— Formula/p/python-gdbm@3.12.rb:28-64 | Formula/p/python-gdbm@3.13.rb:28-64 | Formula/p/python-gdbm@3.14.rb:28-64 | Formula/p/python-gdbm@3.15.rb:28-64 — 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 all 4 call sites, so a change lands once.
Duplicated block (32 lines × 2) Formula/m/mariadb@10.5.rb:106— Formula/m/mariadb@10.5.rb:106-137 | Formula/m/mariadb@10.6.rb:119-150 — before extracting anything, compare `Formula/m/mariadb@10.5.rb` and `Formula/m/mariadb@10.6.rb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 60 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 (32 lines × 2) Formula/t/tcl-tk.rb:112— Formula/t/tcl-tk.rb:112-143 | Formula/t/tcl-tk@8.rb:93-124 — 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 (28 lines × 3) Formula/p/percona-server.rb:141— Formula/p/percona-server.rb:141-168 | Formula/p/percona-server@8.0.rb:148-175 | Formula/p/percona-server@8.4.rb:131-158 — before extracting anything, compare `Formula/p/percona-server.rb` and `Formula/p/percona-server@8.4.rb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 104 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 (28 lines × 3) Formula/p/python-tk@3.13.rb:34— Formula/p/python-tk@3.13.rb:34-61 | Formula/p/python-tk@3.14.rb:28-55 | Formula/p/python-tk@3.15.rb:28-55 — 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 all 3 call sites, so a change lands once.
Duplicated block (28 lines × 2) Formula/l/llvm@14.rb:59— Formula/l/llvm@14.rb:59-86 | Formula/l/llvm@16.rb:77-104 — 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 (28 lines × 2) Formula/p/petsc-complex.rb:35— Formula/p/petsc-complex.rb:35-62 | Formula/p/petsc.rb:37-64 — 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 (23 lines × 2) Formula/d/dotnet@8.rb:122— Formula/d/dotnet@8.rb:122-146 | Formula/d/dotnet@9.rb:121-143 — before extracting anything, compare `Formula/d/dotnet@8.rb` and `Formula/d/dotnet@9.rb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 45 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 (23 lines × 2) Formula/g/ghc@9.10.rb:179— Formula/g/ghc@9.10.rb:179-201 | Formula/g/ghc@9.12.rb:123-145 — 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 (16 lines × 5) REDACTED:387— REDACTED:387-402 | Formula/l/llvm@19.rb:250-265 | Formula/l/llvm@20.rb:234-249 | Formula/l/llvm@21.rb:234-249 | Formula/l/llvm@22.rb:231-246 — before extracting anything, compare `REDACTED` and `Formula/l/llvm@22.rb` as WHOLE FILES: 83% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 2 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. 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 (16 lines × 5) Formula/p/python@3.10.rb:197— Formula/p/python@3.10.rb:197-212 | Formula/p/python@3.11.rb:199-214 | Formula/p/python@3.12.rb:168-183 | Formula/p/python@3.13.rb:152-167 | Formula/p/python@3.9.rb:182-197 — before extracting anything, compare `Formula/p/python@3.10.rb` and `Formula/p/python@3.11.rb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 6 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 169 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 (16 lines × 2) Formula/m/mbedtls@2.rb:45— Formula/m/mbedtls@2.rb:45-60 | Formula/m/mbedtls@3.rb:51-66 — 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 (16 lines × 2) Formula/d/doxygen.rb:37— Formula/d/doxygen.rb:37-52 | Formula/s/shamrock.rb:36-56 — the copies sit in different shards of ONE directory: `Formula` is split into subdirectories by a prefix of the file name rather than by module, so `Formula/d` and `Formula/s` are siblings in a single flat namespace and this is not the cross-module problem the paths make it look like. Whether the block can be extracted at all turns on how this tree loads code — an index of definition files that are loaded independently and never load one another has no location to put a shared function, and there the 2 copies are maintained separately by design rather than by neglect. Check that first: if the files here can reach a common one, extract the block into it and call it from each site; if they cannot, this row is telling you the cost of the layout, not a refactor you can perform.
Duplicated block (15 lines × 3) Formula/m/mariadb@10.11.rb:118— Formula/m/mariadb@10.11.rb:118-132 | Formula/m/mariadb@10.5.rb:103-117 | Formula/m/mariadb@10.6.rb:116-130 — before extracting anything, compare `Formula/m/mariadb@10.11.rb` and `Formula/m/mariadb@10.5.rb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 52 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 (15 lines × 3) Formula/p/python@3.10.rb:316— Formula/p/python@3.10.rb:316-330 | Formula/p/python@3.11.rb:326-340 | Formula/p/python@3.9.rb:301-315 — before extracting anything, compare `Formula/p/python@3.10.rb` and `Formula/p/python@3.11.rb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 6 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 169 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just before the matched lines, `Formula/p/python@3.11.rb:323` calls `glob` and `Formula/p/python@3.10.rb:313` does not — after which the two agree again for 4 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (13 lines × 3) Formula/d/dexter.rb:46— Formula/d/dexter.rb:46-58 | Formula/p/pgslice.rb:41-53 | Formula/p/pgsync.rb:48-60 — the copies sit in different shards of ONE directory: `Formula` is split into subdirectories by a prefix of the file name rather than by module, so `Formula/d` and `Formula/p` are siblings in a single flat namespace and this is not the cross-module problem the paths make it look like. Whether the block can be extracted at all turns on how this tree loads code — an index of definition files that are loaded independently and never load one another has no location to put a shared function, and there the 3 copies are maintained separately by design rather than by neglect. Check that first: if the files here can reach a common one, extract the block into it and call it from each site; if they cannot, this row is telling you the cost of the layout, not a refactor you can perform.
Duplicated block (13 lines × 3) Formula/p/pnpm@10.rb:28— Formula/p/pnpm@10.rb:28-40 | Formula/p/pnpm@11.rb:32-44 | Formula/p/pnpm@9.rb:29-41 — 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 all 3 call sites, so a change lands once.
Duplicated block (12–13 lines × 2) Formula/b/bbot.rb:349— Formula/b/bbot.rb:349-360 | Formula/s/skillspector.rb:324-336 — the copies sit in different shards of ONE directory: `Formula` is split into subdirectories by a prefix of the file name rather than by module, so `Formula/b` and `Formula/s` are siblings in a single flat namespace and this is not the cross-module problem the paths make it look like. Whether the block can be extracted at all turns on how this tree loads code — an index of definition files that are loaded independently and never load one another has no location to put a shared function, and there the 2 copies are maintained separately by design rather than by neglect. Check that first: if the files here can reach a common one, extract the block into it and call it from each site; if they cannot, this row is telling you the cost of the layout, not a refactor you can perform.
Duplicated block (12–13 lines × 2) Formula/c/crc32c.rb:34— Formula/c/crc32c.rb:34-46 | Formula/s/snappy.rb:28-39 — the copies sit in different shards of ONE directory: `Formula` is split into subdirectories by a prefix of the file name rather than by module, so `Formula/c` and `Formula/s` are siblings in a single flat namespace and this is not the cross-module problem the paths make it look like. Whether the block can be extracted at all turns on how this tree loads code — an index of definition files that are loaded independently and never load one another has no location to put a shared function, and there the 2 copies are maintained separately by design rather than by neglect. Check that first: if the files here can reach a common one, extract the block into it and call it from each site; if they cannot, this row is telling you the cost of the layout, not a refactor you can perform.
Duplicated block (12 lines × 3) Formula/q/qt3d.rb:51— Formula/q/qt3d.rb:51-63 | Formula/q/qtquick3d.rb:50-61 | Formula/q/qtvirtualkeyboard.rb:40-51 — 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 all 3 call sites, so a change lands once.
Duplicated block (12 lines × 3) Formula/d/dagger.rb:29— Formula/d/dagger.rb:29-40 | Formula/d/docker-debug.rb:25-38 | Formula/k/kn.rb:25-39 — the copies sit in different shards of ONE directory: `Formula` is split into subdirectories by a prefix of the file name rather than by module, so `Formula/d` and `Formula/k` are siblings in a single flat namespace and this is not the cross-module problem the paths make it look like. Whether the block can be extracted at all turns on how this tree loads code — an index of definition files that are loaded independently and never load one another has no location to put a shared function, and there the 3 copies are maintained separately by design rather than by neglect. Check that first: if the files here can reach a common one, extract the block into it and call it from each site; if they cannot, this row is telling you the cost of the layout, not a refactor you can perform.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 3) Formula/n/node.rb:161— Formula/n/node.rb:161-173 | Formula/n/node@22.rb:98-108 | Formula/n/node@24.rb:145-157 — 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 all 3 call sites, so a change lands once. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Formula/n/node.rb:161` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 3) Formula/q/qtdeclarative.rb:45— Formula/q/qtdeclarative.rb:45-55 | Formula/q/qtquickeffectmaker.rb:40-50 | Formula/q/qttools.rb:59-69 — 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 all 3 call sites, so a change lands once. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 4) Formula/m/marp-cli.rb:20— Formula/m/marp-cli.rb:20-28 | Formula/m/mcp-server-kubernetes.rb:19-27 | Formula/r/reveal-md.rb:20-28 | Formula/w/worm-scraper.rb:22-30 — the copies sit in different shards of ONE directory: `Formula` is split into subdirectories by a prefix of the file name rather than by module, so `Formula/m` and `Formula/r` are siblings in a single flat namespace and this is not the cross-module problem the paths make it look like. Whether the block can be extracted at all turns on how this tree loads code — an index of definition files that are loaded independently and never load one another has no location to put a shared function, and there the 4 copies are maintained separately by design rather than by neglect. Check that first: if the files here can reach a common one, extract the block into it and call it from each site; if they cannot, this row is telling you the cost of the layout, not a refactor you can perform.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 4) Formula/a/auth0.rb:22— Formula/a/auth0.rb:22-35 | Formula/k/kube-linter.rb:24-32 | Formula/l/liqoctl.rb:24-34 | Formula/p/pyscn.rb:22-35 — the copies sit in different shards of ONE directory: `Formula` is split into subdirectories by a prefix of the file name rather than by module, so `Formula/a` and `Formula/k` are siblings in a single flat namespace and this is not the cross-module problem the paths make it look like. Whether the block can be extracted at all turns on how this tree loads code — an index of definition files that are loaded independently and never load one another has no location to put a shared function, and there the 4 copies are maintained separately by design rather than by neglect. Check that first: if the files here can reach a common one, extract the block into it and call it from each site; if they cannot, this row is telling you the cost of the layout, not a refactor you can perform.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 4) Formula/e/erlang.rb:67— Formula/e/erlang.rb:67-74 | Formula/e/erlang@26.rb:54-61 | Formula/e/erlang@27.rb:63-70 | Formula/e/erlang@28.rb:63-70 — before extracting anything, compare `Formula/e/erlang.rb` and `Formula/e/erlang@27.rb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 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. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just before the matched lines, `Formula/e/erlang@27.rb:62` calls `resource` and `Formula/e/erlang@26.rb:53` does not — after which the two agree again for 3 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 4) Formula/c/cpptoml.rb:26— Formula/c/cpptoml.rb:26-33 | Formula/m/merve.rb:23-31 | Formula/n/nbytes.rb:23-30 | Formula/s/securefs.rb:39-46 — the copies sit in different shards of ONE directory: `Formula` is split into subdirectories by a prefix of the file name rather than by module, so `Formula/c` and `Formula/m` are siblings in a single flat namespace and this is not the cross-module problem the paths make it look like. Whether the block can be extracted at all turns on how this tree loads code — an index of definition files that are loaded independently and never load one another has no location to put a shared function, and there the 4 copies are maintained separately by design rather than by neglect. Check that first: if the files here can reach a common one, extract the block into it and call it from each site; if they cannot, this row is telling you the cost of the layout, not a refactor you can perform.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 15) Formula/a/alp.rb:22— Formula/a/alp.rb:22-28 | Formula/a/aws-spiffe-workload-helper.rb:22-28 | Formula/c/container-use.rb:24-30 | Formula/c/ctlptl.rb:23-29 | Formula/c/cxgo.rb:25-30 | Formula/g/gcx.rb:22-28 | Formula/g/github-mcp-server.rb:27-33 | Formula/g/grafanactl.rb:27-33 | Formula/k/kaf.rb:24-30 | Formula/k/kubectl-ai.rb:29-35 | Formula/o/openapi.rb:22-28 | Formula/p/pluto.rb:22-28 | Formula/p/pscale.rb:22-28 | Formula/p/pv-migrate.rb:27-33 | Formula/t/tuios.rb:22-28 — the copies sit in different shards of ONE directory: `Formula` is split into subdirectories by a prefix of the file name rather than by module, so `Formula/a` and `Formula/c` are siblings in a single flat namespace and this is not the cross-module problem the paths make it look like. Whether the block can be extracted at all turns on how this tree loads code — an index of definition files that are loaded independently and never load one another has no location to put a shared function, and there the 15 copies are maintained separately by design rather than by neglect. Check that first: if the files here can reach a common one, extract the block into it and call it from each site; if they cannot, this row is telling you the cost of the layout, not a refactor you can perform.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 15) Formula/c/cmark-gfm.rb:33— Formula/c/cmark-gfm.rb:33-40 | Formula/e/entityx.rb:29-37 | Formula/f/flann.rb:33-42 | Formula/f/flatcc.rb:22-32 | Formula/g/glyr.rb:42-47 | Formula/g/grt.rb:27-35 | Formula/l/lzfse.rb:29-36 | Formula/lib/libccd.rb:31-38 | Formula/lib/libpano.rb:40-45 | Formula/lib/libsoundio.rb:27-34 | Formula/lib/libtins.rb:27-36 | Formula/lib/libxc.rb:23-34 | Formula/o/openkim-models.rb:38-47 | Formula/r/rttr.rb:25-36 | Formula/s/snappystream.rb:30-38 — the copies sit in different shards of ONE directory: `Formula` is split into subdirectories by a prefix of the file name rather than by module, so `Formula/c` and `Formula/e` are siblings in a single flat namespace and this is not the cross-module problem the paths make it look like. Whether the block can be extracted at all turns on how this tree loads code — an index of definition files that are loaded independently and never load one another has no location to put a shared function, and there the 15 copies are maintained separately by design rather than by neglect. Check that first: if the files here can reach a common one, extract the block into it and call it from each site; if they cannot, this row is telling you the cost of the layout, not a refactor you can perform.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) Formula/c/cargo-c.rb:40— Formula/c/cargo-c.rb:40-49 | Formula/g/gitui.rb:41-50 — the copies sit in different shards of ONE directory: `Formula` is split into subdirectories by a prefix of the file name rather than by module, so `Formula/c` and `Formula/g` are siblings in a single flat namespace and this is not the cross-module problem the paths make it look like. Whether the block can be extracted at all turns on how this tree loads code — an index of definition files that are loaded independently and never load one another has no location to put a shared function, and there the 2 copies are maintained separately by design rather than by neglect. Check that first: if the files here can reach a common one, extract the block into it and call it from each site; if they cannot, this row is telling you the cost of the layout, not a refactor you can perform.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) Formula/n/ncspot.rb:30— Formula/n/ncspot.rb:30-39 | Formula/s/spotifyd.rb:48-58 — the copies sit in different shards of ONE directory: `Formula` is split into subdirectories by a prefix of the file name rather than by module, so `Formula/n` and `Formula/s` are siblings in a single flat namespace and this is not the cross-module problem the paths make it look like. Whether the block can be extracted at all turns on how this tree loads code — an index of definition files that are loaded independently and never load one another has no location to put a shared function, and there the 2 copies are maintained separately by design rather than by neglect. Check that first: if the files here can reach a common one, extract the block into it and call it from each site; if they cannot, this row is telling you the cost of the layout, not a refactor you can perform.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 6) Formula/c/cf-terraforming.rb:22— Formula/c/cf-terraforming.rb:22-30 | Formula/c/colima.rb:31-42 | Formula/c/cosign.rb:23-37 | Formula/h/hysteria.rb:22-37 | Formula/k/kyverno.rb:29-41 | Formula/n/notation.rb:25-37 — the copies sit in different shards of ONE directory: `Formula` is split into subdirectories by a prefix of the file name rather than by module, so `Formula/c` and `Formula/h` are siblings in a single flat namespace and this is not the cross-module problem the paths make it look like. Whether the block can be extracted at all turns on how this tree loads code — an index of definition files that are loaded independently and never load one another has no location to put a shared function, and there the 6 copies are maintained separately by design rather than by neglect. Check that first: if the files here can reach a common one, extract the block into it and call it from each site; if they cannot, this row is telling you the cost of the layout, not a refactor you can perform.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 6) Formula/c/croaring.rb:23— Formula/c/croaring.rb:23-31 | Formula/f/fastnetmon.rb:37-45 | Formula/h/httping.rb:51-59 | Formula/h/hypre.rb:30-38 | Formula/lib/libdpp.rb:29-37 | Formula/q/qcoro6.rb:24-32 — the copies sit in different shards of ONE directory: `Formula` is split into subdirectories by a prefix of the file name rather than by module, so `Formula/c` and `Formula/f` are siblings in a single flat namespace and this is not the cross-module problem the paths make it look like. Whether the block can be extracted at all turns on how this tree loads code — an index of definition files that are loaded independently and never load one another has no location to put a shared function, and there the 6 copies are maintained separately by design rather than by neglect. Check that first: if the files here can reach a common one, extract the block into it and call it from each site; if they cannot, this row is telling you the cost of the layout, not a refactor you can perform.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 5) Formula/c/container-canary.rb:31— Formula/c/container-canary.rb:31-42 | Formula/j/jenkins-cli.rb:25-36 | Formula/m/massdriver.rb:30-40 | Formula/t/telegram-downloader.rb:26-37 | Formula/v/vulsio-gost.rb:25-35 — the copies sit in different shards of ONE directory: `Formula` is split into subdirectories by a prefix of the file name rather than by module, so `Formula/c` and `Formula/j` are siblings in a single flat namespace and this is not the cross-module problem the paths make it look like. Whether the block can be extracted at all turns on how this tree loads code — an index of definition files that are loaded independently and never load one another has no location to put a shared function, and there the 5 copies are maintained separately by design rather than by neglect. Check that first: if the files here can reach a common one, extract the block into it and call it from each site; if they cannot, this row is telling you the cost of the layout, not a refactor you can perform.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 5) Formula/k/kubernetes-cli.rb:38— Formula/k/kubernetes-cli.rb:38-48 | Formula/k/kubernetes-cli@1.32.rb:33-43 | Formula/k/kubernetes-cli@1.33.rb:33-43 | Formula/k/kubernetes-cli@1.34.rb:37-47 | Formula/k/kubernetes-cli@1.35.rb:35-45 — 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 all 5 call sites, so a change lands once.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 4) Formula/f/fleet-cli.rb:27— Formula/f/fleet-cli.rb:27-37 | Formula/k/kosli-cli.rb:27-38 | Formula/l/lacework-cli.rb:31-43 | Formula/r/rosa-cli.rb:29-39 — the copies sit in different shards of ONE directory: `Formula` is split into subdirectories by a prefix of the file name rather than by module, so `Formula/f` and `Formula/k` are siblings in a single flat namespace and this is not the cross-module problem the paths make it look like. Whether the block can be extracted at all turns on how this tree loads code — an index of definition files that are loaded independently and never load one another has no location to put a shared function, and there the 4 copies are maintained separately by design rather than by neglect. Check that first: if the files here can reach a common one, extract the block into it and call it from each site; if they cannot, this row is telling you the cost of the layout, not a refactor you can perform. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `Formula/l/lacework-cli.rb:47` calls `shell_output` and `Formula/r/rosa-cli.rb:43` does not — after which the two agree again for 2 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 4) Formula/f/frei0r.rb:23— Formula/f/frei0r.rb:23-33 | Formula/lib/libjson-rpc-cpp.rb:30-40 | Formula/o/onnx.rb:38-50 | Formula/x/xdelta.rb:24-37 — the copies sit in different shards of ONE directory: `Formula` is split into subdirectories by a prefix of the file name rather than by module, so `Formula/f` and `Formula/lib` are siblings in a single flat namespace and this is not the cross-module problem the paths make it look like. Whether the block can be extracted at all turns on how this tree loads code — an index of definition files that are loaded independently and never load one another has no location to put a shared function, and there the 4 copies are maintained separately by design rather than by neglect. Check that first: if the files here can reach a common one, extract the block into it and call it from each site; if they cannot, this row is telling you the cost of the layout, not a refactor you can perform.
Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) Formula/f/forgejo-runner.rb:28— Formula/f/forgejo-runner.rb:28-41 | Formula/g/gitea-runner.rb:21-35 — the copies sit in different shards of ONE directory: `Formula` is split into subdirectories by a prefix of the file name rather than by module, so `Formula/f` and `Formula/g` are siblings in a single flat namespace and this is not the cross-module problem the paths make it look like. Whether the block can be extracted at all turns on how this tree loads code — an index of definition files that are loaded independently and never load one another has no location to put a shared function, and there the 2 copies are maintained separately by design rather than by neglect. Check that first: if the files here can reach a common one, extract the block into it and call it from each site; if they cannot, this row is telling you the cost of the layout, not a refactor you can perform.
Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) Formula/l/lld@19.rb:35— Formula/l/lld@19.rb:35-48 | Formula/l/lld@20.rb:36-49 — 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.
Weak hash algorithm REDACTED:25— MD5/SHA1 is computed here, and both are collision-broken. If this digest protects anything — a signature, an integrity or tamper check, a credential, or any value an attacker can influence — that is a real weakness: use SHA-256+ (`Digest::SHA256` or `OpenSSL::Digest.new("SHA256")`) for content integrity, or a KDF (bcrypt/Argon2/scrypt) for password storage. If it only derives a non-security identifier (a cache key, an avatar URL, an ETag), collision resistance carries no security consequence here; make that intent explicit instead — a non-cryptographic hash such as xxhash or murmurhash says it in code — since the algorithm alone cannot distinguish the two uses. Where a protocol this code does not own fixes the digest (a k-anonymity range query, a legacy signature format), the protocol decides; say so beside the call.
Weak hash algorithm REDACTED:63— MD5/SHA1 is computed here, and both are collision-broken. If this digest protects anything — a signature, an integrity or tamper check, a credential, or any value an attacker can influence — that is a real weakness: use SHA-256+ (`Digest::SHA256` or `OpenSSL::Digest.new("SHA256")`) for content integrity, or a KDF (bcrypt/Argon2/scrypt) for password storage. If it only derives a non-security identifier (a cache key, an avatar URL, an ETag), collision resistance carries no security consequence here; make that intent explicit instead — a non-cryptographic hash such as xxhash or murmurhash says it in code — since the algorithm alone cannot distinguish the two uses. Where a protocol this code does not own fixes the digest (a k-anonymity range query, a legacy signature format), the protocol decides; say so beside the call.
Llvm.install (cyclomatic 34) REDACTED:60— Llvm.install 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.
PythonAT312.install (cyclomatic 20) Formula/p/python@3.12.rb:101— PythonAT312.install has cyclomatic complexity 20 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
Emscripten.install (cyclomatic 19) Formula/e/emscripten.rb:99— Emscripten.install has cyclomatic complexity 19 (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.
PythonAT313.install (cyclomatic 19) Formula/p/python@3.13.rb:95— PythonAT313.install has cyclomatic complexity 19 (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.
PythonAT314.install (cyclomatic 19) Formula/p/python@3.14.rb:133— PythonAT314.install has cyclomatic complexity 19 (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.
Julia.install (cyclomatic 18) Formula/j/julia.rb:76— Julia.install has cyclomatic complexity 18 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
PythonAT315.install (cyclomatic 18) Formula/p/python@3.15.rb:100— PythonAT315.install has cyclomatic complexity 18 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
FixmeComment repeated across 10 files REDACTED:667— The identical FixmeComment appears in 10 files (10 occurrences) — almost certainly one boilerplate line from a single migration or decision, not 10 independent debts. Fix the systemic cause once rather than file-by-file. Text: "# FIXME: It'd be nice to be able to use flags like `-static-libstdc++`". Source code is not a task system: track the cleanup where tasks live. (Every occurrence still counts toward the score and metrics.)
Llvm.install (cognitive 46) REDACTED:60— Llvm.install has cognitive complexity 46 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 23 (34 pts), boolean chains 7, error handling 2 (4 pts), ternaries 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.
PythonAT312.install (cognitive 24) Formula/p/python@3.12.rb:101— PythonAT312.install has cognitive complexity 24 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 18 (20 pts), ternaries 3 (4 pts) (nesting depth added 3). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — so group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function. Some of it IS depth: where a check sits inside another whose only job is to reach it, merge the two into one condition, and where an else follows a branch that already returns, drop the trailing else and let the rest of the body continue at one level.
PythonAT313.install (cognitive 23) Formula/p/python@3.13.rb:95— PythonAT313.install has cognitive complexity 23 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 17 (19 pts), ternaries 3 (4 pts) (nesting depth added 3). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — so group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function. Some of it IS depth: where a check sits inside another whose only job is to reach it, merge the two into one condition, and where an else follows a branch that already returns, drop the trailing else and let the rest of the body continue at one level.
PythonAT314.install (cognitive 23) Formula/p/python@3.14.rb:133— PythonAT314.install has cognitive complexity 23 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 17 (19 pts), ternaries 3 (4 pts) (nesting depth added 3). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — so group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function. Some of it IS depth: where a check sits inside another whose only job is to reach it, merge the two into one condition, and where an else follows a branch that already returns, drop the trailing else and let the rest of the body continue at one level.
PythonAT315.install (cognitive 22) Formula/p/python@3.15.rb:100— PythonAT315.install has cognitive complexity 22 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 16 (18 pts), ternaries 3 (4 pts) (nesting depth added 3). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — so group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function. Some of it IS depth: where a check sits inside another whose only job is to reach it, merge the two into one condition, and where an else follows a branch that already returns, drop the trailing else and let the rest of the body continue at one level.
Julia.install (cognitive 21) Formula/j/julia.rb:76— Julia.install has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 15 (18 pts), boolean chains 3 (nesting depth added 3). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — so group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function. Some of it IS depth: where a check sits inside another whose only job is to reach it, merge the two into one condition, and where an else follows a branch that already returns, drop the trailing else and let the rest of the body continue at one level.
Swift.install (cognitive 21) Formula/s/swift.rb:537— Swift.install has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 14 (17 pts), boolean chains 2, ternaries 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, and where an else follows a branch that already returns, drop the trailing else and let the rest of the body continue at one level.
Emscripten.install (cognitive 18) Formula/e/emscripten.rb:99— Emscripten.install has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9, boolean chains 7, ternaries 2. 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.
DetermineRebottleRunnersCmd.run (cognitive 18) cmd/determine-rebottle-runners.rb:50— DetermineRebottleRunnersCmd.run has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (13 pts), boolean chains 3, error handling 1 (2 pts) (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.
LlvmAT16.install (cognitive 17) Formula/l/llvm@16.rb:75— LlvmAT16.install has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 13 (17 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, and where an else follows a branch that already returns, drop the trailing else and let the rest of the body continue at one level.
PythonAT311.install (cognitive 17) Formula/p/python@3.11.rb:118— PythonAT311.install has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 14 (15 pts), ternaries 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 2). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — so group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function. Some of it IS depth: where a check sits inside another whose only job is to reach it, merge the two into one condition, and where an else follows a branch that already returns, drop the trailing else and let the rest of the body continue at one level.
PythonAT39.install (cognitive 17) Formula/p/python@3.9.rb:101— PythonAT39.install has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 14 (15 pts), ternaries 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 2). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — so group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function. Some of it IS depth: where a check sits inside another whose only job is to reach it, merge the two into one condition, and where an else follows a branch that already returns, drop the trailing else and let the rest of the body continue at one level.
Glibc.install (cognitive 16) Formula/g/glibc.rb:186— Glibc.install has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (13 pts), boolean chains 3 (nesting depth added 3). 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.
OpenjdkAT8.install (cognitive 16) Formula/o/openjdk@8.rb:101— OpenjdkAT8.install has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (14 pts), ternaries 1 (2 pts) (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.
PythonAT310.install (cognitive 16) Formula/p/python@3.10.rb:113— PythonAT310.install has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 13 (14 pts), ternaries 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 2). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — so group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function. Some of it IS depth: where a check sits inside another whose only job is to reach it, merge the two into one condition, and where an else follows a branch that already returns, drop the trailing else and let the rest of the body continue at one level.
Qt.install (cognitive 16) Formula/q/qt.rb:89— Qt.install has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (13 pts), boolean chains 3 (nesting depth added 4). 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.
D4 · Code Duplication· Near-duplicate member family (6 members, 76 shared lines) · ×1
Near-duplicate member family (6 members, 76 shared lines) Formula/l/llvm@17.rb:66— Formula/l/llvm@17.rb:66-225 | Formula/l/llvm@18.rb:71-236 | Formula/l/llvm@19.rb:96-283 | Formula/l/llvm@20.rb:80-267 | Formula/l/llvm@21.rb:80-267 | Formula/l/llvm@22.rb:73-264 — These 6 members are variants of one another: a block of 76 lines reported below appears in every one of them, and the pairwise near-duplicate rows they would otherwise produce are collapsed into this row. Read them as one construct written 6 times. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 6 times.
D4 · Code Duplication· Near-duplicate member family (6 members, 66 shared lines) · ×1
Near-duplicate member family (6 members, 66 shared lines) Formula/p/python-freethreading.rb:82— Formula/p/python-freethreading.rb:82-298 | Formula/p/python@3.11.rb:121-340 | Formula/p/python@3.12.rb:104-359 | Formula/p/python@3.13.rb:98-343 | Formula/p/python@3.14.rb:134-389 | Formula/p/python@3.15.rb:101-344 — These 6 members are variants of one another: a block of 66 lines reported below appears in every one of them, and the pairwise near-duplicate rows they would otherwise produce are collapsed into this row. Read them as one construct written 6 times. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 6 times.
D4 · Code Duplication· Near-duplicate member family (5 members, 92 shared lines) · ×1
Near-duplicate member family (5 members, 92 shared lines) REDACTED:62— REDACTED:62-424 | Formula/l/llvm@19.rb:96-283 | Formula/l/llvm@20.rb:80-267 | Formula/l/llvm@21.rb:80-267 | Formula/l/llvm@22.rb:73-264 — These 5 members are variants of one another: a block of 92 lines reported below appears in every one of them, and the pairwise near-duplicate rows they would otherwise produce are collapsed into this row. Read them 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· Near-duplicate member family (4 members, 58 shared lines) · ×1
Near-duplicate member family (4 members, 58 shared lines) Formula/p/python@3.10.rb:116— Formula/p/python@3.10.rb:116-330 | Formula/p/python@3.11.rb:121-340 | Formula/p/python@3.12.rb:104-359 | Formula/p/python@3.9.rb:104-315 — These 4 members are variants of one another: a block of 58 lines reported below appears in every one of them, and the pairwise near-duplicate rows they would otherwise produce are collapsed into this row. Read them 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.
Near-duplicate member pair (43 shared lines) Formula/d/dotnet@8.rb:74— Formula/d/dotnet@8.rb:74-159 | Formula/d/dotnet@9.rb:75-169 — These two members are variants of one another: 43 of their lines are already reported as duplicated blocks below, spread through both bodies rather than gathered into one. Read them as a single construct written twice. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared pipeline into one implementation the two call with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic (sync against async, one transport against another), generate one from the other. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves the two bodies in place and the next edit still has to be made twice.
D4 · Code Duplication· Members sharing a duplicated core (28 members, 50+ identical tokens) · ×1
Members sharing a duplicated core (28 members, 50+ identical tokens) Formula/q/qt3d.rb:51— Formula/q/qt3d.rb:51-66 | Formula/q/qt5compat.rb:39-48 | Formula/q/qtcanvaspainter.rb:38-47 | Formula/q/qtcharts.rb:38-47 | Formula/q/qtconnectivity.rb:44-53 | Formula/q/qtdatavis3d.rb:38-47 | Formula/q/qtgraphs.rb:41-50 | Formula/q/qtgrpc.rb:46-55 | Formula/q/qthttpserver.rb:36-45 | Formula/q/qtlanguageserver.rb:33-42 | Formula/q/qtlocation.rb:37-46 | Formula/q/qtlottie.rb:44-53 | Formula/q/qtnetworkauth.rb:37-46 | Formula/q/qtpositioning.rb:41-50 | Formula/q/qtquick3d.rb:50-64 | Formula/q/qtquick3dphysics.rb:41-50 | Formula/q/qtquicktimeline.rb:35-44 | Formula/q/qtremoteobjects.rb:39-48 | Formula/q/qtscxml.rb:39-48 | Formula/q/qtsensors.rb:38-47 | Formula/q/qtserialbus.rb:37-46 | Formula/q/qtserialport.rb:42-51 | Formula/q/qtshadertools.rb:38-47 | Formula/q/qtspeech.rb:39-48 | Formula/q/qtsvg.rb:41-50 | Formula/q/qtvirtualkeyboard.rb:40-54 | Formula/q/qtwebchannel.rb:38-47 | Formula/q/qtwebsockets.rb:40-49 — These 28 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 28 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 28 times.
D4 · Code Duplication· Members sharing a duplicated core (8 members, 50+ identical tokens) · ×1
Members sharing a duplicated core (8 members, 50+ identical tokens) Formula/b/braid.rb:68— Formula/b/braid.rb:68-76 | Formula/c/cucumber-ruby.rb:121-129 | Formula/f/foreman.rb:28-37 | Formula/l/lolcat.rb:39-49 | Formula/m/mdless.rb:57-65 | Formula/t/terraform_landscape.rb:46-54 | Formula/t/tmuxinator.rb:32-41 | Formula/u/um.rb:27-41 — These 8 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 8 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 8 times.
D4 · Code Duplication· Members sharing a duplicated core (6 members, 50+ identical tokens) · ×1
Members sharing a duplicated core (6 members, 50+ identical tokens) Formula/f/ffmpeg-full.rb:94— Formula/f/ffmpeg-full.rb:94-162 | Formula/f/ffmpeg.rb:63-97 | Formula/f/ffmpeg@5.rb:114-177 | Formula/f/ffmpeg@6.rb:108-173 | Formula/f/ffmpeg@7.rb:93-158 | Formula/f/ffmpeg@8.rb:63-97 — These 6 members share a duplicated core: a run of at least 50 identical tokens appears in every one of them. That run is NOT broken out as duplicated-block rows below — it is what admitted this row, and the blocks below cover only the part of it that clears the block floor, so they understate the correspondence. Read the members as one construct written 6 times. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 6 times.
Duplicated block (116 lines × 2) Formula/p/php@8.2.rb:120— Formula/p/php@8.2.rb:120-235 | Formula/p/php@8.3.rb:120-235 — before extracting anything, compare `Formula/p/php@8.2.rb` and `Formula/p/php@8.3.rb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 6 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 341 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Formula/p/php@8.2.rb:120` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (91–92 lines × 2) Formula/o/opencv.rb:119— Formula/o/opencv.rb:119-210 | Formula/o/opencv@4.rb:97-187 — before extracting anything, compare `Formula/o/opencv.rb` and `Formula/o/opencv@4.rb` as WHOLE FILES: 86% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 1 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. 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 (87 lines × 3) Formula/p/php@8.1.rb:146— Formula/p/php@8.1.rb:146-232 | Formula/p/php@8.2.rb:153-239 | Formula/p/php@8.3.rb:153-239 — before extracting anything, compare `Formula/p/php@8.1.rb` and `Formula/p/php@8.2.rb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 5 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 225 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 (82–84 lines × 3) Formula/p/python-freethreading.rb:82— Formula/p/python-freethreading.rb:82-165 | Formula/p/python@3.14.rb:134-215 | Formula/p/python@3.15.rb:101-182 — before extracting anything, compare `Formula/p/python-freethreading.rb` and `Formula/p/python@3.14.rb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 152 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 (76–81 lines × 5) REDACTED:85— REDACTED:85-165 | Formula/l/llvm@19.rb:114-189 | Formula/l/llvm@20.rb:98-173 | Formula/l/llvm@21.rb:97-173 | Formula/l/llvm@22.rb:90-166 — before extracting anything, compare `REDACTED` and `Formula/l/llvm@22.rb` as WHOLE FILES: 83% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 2 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. 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 (76 lines × 3) Formula/g/gcc@13.rb:66— Formula/g/gcc@13.rb:66-141 | Formula/g/gcc@14.rb:71-146 | Formula/g/gcc@15.rb:73-148 — before extracting anything, compare `Formula/g/gcc@14.rb` and `Formula/g/gcc@15.rb` as WHOLE FILES: 86% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 1 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. 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 (69–70 lines × 2) Formula/m/mysql.rb:87— Formula/m/mysql.rb:87-156 | Formula/m/mysql@9.7.rb:92-160 — before extracting anything, compare `Formula/m/mysql.rb` and `Formula/m/mysql@9.7.rb` as WHOLE FILES: 88% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 2 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. 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 (34–68 lines × 5) Formula/f/ffmpeg-full.rb:94— Formula/f/ffmpeg-full.rb:94-161 | Formula/f/ffmpeg.rb:63-96 | Formula/f/ffmpeg@6.rb:108-172 | Formula/f/ffmpeg@7.rb:93-157 | Formula/f/ffmpeg@8.rb:63-96 — before extracting anything, compare `Formula/f/ffmpeg-full.rb` and `Formula/f/ffmpeg@6.rb` as WHOLE FILES: 82% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 1 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. 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 (67–68 lines × 2) Formula/l/llvm@14.rb:83— Formula/l/llvm@14.rb:83-149 | Formula/l/llvm@15.rb:74-141 — before extracting anything, compare `Formula/l/llvm@14.rb` and `Formula/l/llvm@15.rb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 167 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 (63–64 lines × 3) Formula/p/python@3.10.rb:239— Formula/p/python@3.10.rb:239-302 | Formula/p/python@3.11.rb:246-309 | Formula/p/python@3.9.rb:224-286 — before extracting anything, compare `Formula/p/python@3.10.rb` and `Formula/p/python@3.11.rb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 6 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 169 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Formula/p/python@3.10.rb:239` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.
Duplicated block (63 lines × 2) Formula/o/openjdk.rb:76— Formula/o/openjdk.rb:76-138 | Formula/o/openjdk@25.rb:82-144 — before extracting anything, compare `Formula/o/openjdk.rb` and `Formula/o/openjdk@25.rb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 112 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 (57–59 lines × 2) Formula/l/llvm@17.rb:68— Formula/l/llvm@17.rb:68-124 | Formula/l/llvm@18.rb:73-131 — before extracting anything, compare `Formula/l/llvm@17.rb` and `Formula/l/llvm@18.rb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 6 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 232 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `Formula/l/llvm@18.rb:134` calls `rpath` and `Formula/l/llvm@17.rb:126` does not — after which the two agree again for 3 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (58 lines × 2) Formula/o/openjdk@17.rb:85— Formula/o/openjdk@17.rb:85-142 | Formula/o/openjdk@21.rb:84-141 — before extracting anything, compare `Formula/o/openjdk@17.rb` and `Formula/o/openjdk@21.rb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 162 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 (57 lines × 9) Formula/l/llvm@14.rb:153— Formula/l/llvm@14.rb:153-209 | Formula/l/llvm@15.rb:147-203 | Formula/l/llvm@16.rb:167-223 | Formula/l/llvm@17.rb:137-193 | Formula/l/llvm@18.rb:148-204 | Formula/l/llvm@19.rb:183-239 | Formula/l/llvm@20.rb:167-223 | Formula/l/llvm@21.rb:167-223 | Formula/l/llvm@22.rb:160-216 — before extracting anything, compare `Formula/l/llvm@14.rb` and `Formula/l/llvm@15.rb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 167 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 (51–55 lines × 3) Formula/o/openjdk@11.rb:81— Formula/o/openjdk@11.rb:81-135 | Formula/o/openjdk@17.rb:83-133 | Formula/o/openjdk@21.rb:82-132 — before extracting anything, compare `Formula/o/openjdk@17.rb` and `Formula/o/openjdk@21.rb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 162 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 (54–55 lines × 2) Formula/m/mariadb@10.11.rb:74— Formula/m/mariadb@10.11.rb:74-128 | Formula/m/mariadb@10.6.rb:73-126 — before extracting anything, compare `Formula/m/mariadb@10.11.rb` and `Formula/m/mariadb@10.6.rb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 83 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 (51–54 lines × 5) Formula/l/llvm@17.rb:66— Formula/l/llvm@17.rb:66-116 | Formula/l/llvm@18.rb:71-123 | Formula/l/llvm@19.rb:96-149 | Formula/l/llvm@20.rb:80-133 | Formula/l/llvm@21.rb:80-132 — before extracting anything, compare `Formula/l/llvm@17.rb` and `Formula/l/llvm@18.rb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 6 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 232 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 (53–54 lines × 2) Formula/p/postgresql@17.rb:63— Formula/p/postgresql@17.rb:63-115 | Formula/p/postgresql@18.rb:64-117 — before extracting anything, compare `Formula/p/postgresql@17.rb` and `Formula/p/postgresql@18.rb` as WHOLE FILES: 89% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 2 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. 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 (53 lines × 4) Formula/m/mariadb.rb:71— Formula/m/mariadb.rb:71-123 | Formula/m/mariadb@11.4.rb:76-128 | Formula/m/mariadb@11.8.rb:75-127 | Formula/m/mariadb@12.3.rb:75-127 — before extracting anything, compare `Formula/m/mariadb.rb` and `Formula/m/mariadb@11.4.rb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 89 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 (50–53 lines × 2) Formula/p/percona-server.rb:100— Formula/p/percona-server.rb:100-152 | Formula/p/percona-server@8.4.rb:93-142 — before extracting anything, compare `Formula/p/percona-server.rb` and `Formula/p/percona-server@8.4.rb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 104 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 (52 lines × 3) Formula/p/python@3.12.rb:236— Formula/p/python@3.12.rb:236-287 | Formula/p/python@3.13.rb:220-271 | Formula/p/python@3.14.rb:261-312 — before extracting anything, compare `Formula/p/python@3.12.rb` and `Formula/p/python@3.13.rb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 9 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 313 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Formula/p/python@3.12.rb:236` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (50 lines × 4) Formula/p/python@3.12.rb:273— Formula/p/python@3.12.rb:273-322 | Formula/p/python@3.13.rb:257-306 | Formula/p/python@3.14.rb:298-347 | Formula/p/python@3.15.rb:259-308 — before extracting anything, compare `Formula/p/python@3.12.rb` and `Formula/p/python@3.13.rb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 9 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 313 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. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.
Duplicated block (50 lines × 2) Formula/p/postgresql@12.rb:46— Formula/p/postgresql@12.rb:46-95 | Formula/p/postgresql@13.rb:45-94 — 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. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
Duplicated block (48–49 lines × 6) Formula/p/python-freethreading.rb:85— Formula/p/python-freethreading.rb:85-133 | Formula/p/python@3.11.rb:121-168 | Formula/p/python@3.12.rb:104-151 | Formula/p/python@3.13.rb:98-145 | Formula/p/python@3.14.rb:137-184 | Formula/p/python@3.15.rb:104-151 — before extracting anything, compare `Formula/p/python-freethreading.rb` and `Formula/p/python@3.11.rb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 111 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 (49 lines × 4) Formula/p/python@3.12.rb:216— Formula/p/python@3.12.rb:216-264 | Formula/p/python@3.13.rb:200-248 | Formula/p/python@3.14.rb:241-289 | Formula/p/python@3.15.rb:208-256 — before extracting anything, compare `Formula/p/python@3.12.rb` and `Formula/p/python@3.13.rb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 9 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 313 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Formula/p/python@3.12.rb:216` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (47–49 lines × 2) Formula/m/mysql@8.0.rb:75— Formula/m/mysql@8.0.rb:75-123 | Formula/m/mysql@8.4.rb:93-139 — 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 (47 lines × 2) Formula/p/python@3.10.rb:181— Formula/p/python@3.10.rb:181-227 | Formula/p/python@3.9.rb:166-212 — before extracting anything, compare `Formula/p/python@3.10.rb` and `Formula/p/python@3.9.rb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 9 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 286 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 (44 lines × 4) Formula/p/php@8.1.rb:217— Formula/p/php@8.1.rb:217-260 | Formula/p/php@8.2.rb:224-267 | Formula/p/php@8.3.rb:224-267 | Formula/p/php@8.4.rb:219-262 — before extracting anything, compare `Formula/p/php@8.1.rb` and `Formula/p/php@8.2.rb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 5 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 225 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 (42–44 lines × 2) Formula/p/python@3.10.rb:116— Formula/p/python@3.10.rb:116-159 | Formula/p/python@3.9.rb:104-145 — before extracting anything, compare `Formula/p/python@3.10.rb` and `Formula/p/python@3.9.rb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 9 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 286 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 (42 lines × 2) Formula/l/llvm@14.rb:210— Formula/l/llvm@14.rb:210-251 | Formula/l/llvm@15.rb:207-248 — before extracting anything, compare `Formula/l/llvm@14.rb` and `Formula/l/llvm@15.rb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 167 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 (41 lines × 3) Formula/p/php@8.1.rb:92— Formula/p/php@8.1.rb:92-132 | Formula/p/php@8.2.rb:99-139 | Formula/p/php@8.3.rb:99-139 — before extracting anything, compare `Formula/p/php@8.1.rb` and `Formula/p/php@8.2.rb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 5 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 225 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `Formula/p/php@8.2.rb:140` calls `sdk_for_formula` and `Formula/p/php@8.1.rb:133` does not — after which the two agree again for 2 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (40–41 lines × 2) Formula/w/wxwidgets.rb:61— Formula/w/wxwidgets.rb:61-100 | Formula/w/wxwidgets@3.2.rb:51-91 — 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 (37–38 lines × 3) Formula/p/postgresql@16.rb:58— Formula/p/postgresql@16.rb:58-94 | Formula/p/postgresql@17.rb:66-102 | Formula/p/postgresql@18.rb:67-104 — before extracting anything, compare `Formula/p/postgresql@17.rb` and `Formula/p/postgresql@18.rb` as WHOLE FILES: 89% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 2 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. 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 (38 lines × 2) Formula/m/mariadb@10.11.rb:126— Formula/m/mariadb@10.11.rb:126-163 | Formula/m/mariadb@11.4.rb:122-159 — before extracting anything, compare `Formula/m/mariadb@10.11.rb` and `Formula/m/mariadb@11.4.rb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 98 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 (35–36 lines × 3) Formula/b/bazel.rb:75— Formula/b/bazel.rb:75-110 | Formula/b/bazel@7.rb:71-105 | Formula/b/bazel@8.rb:81-116 — 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 all 3 call sites, so a change lands once.
Duplicated block (34–36 lines × 3) Formula/r/ruby@3.2.rb:108— Formula/r/ruby@3.2.rb:108-143 | Formula/r/ruby@3.3.rb:86-121 | Formula/r/ruby@3.4.rb:94-127 — before extracting anything, compare `Formula/r/ruby@3.2.rb` and `Formula/r/ruby@3.3.rb` as WHOLE FILES: 86% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 2 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. 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 (35 lines × 4) Formula/p/php@8.1.rb:94— Formula/p/php@8.1.rb:94-128 | Formula/p/php@8.2.rb:101-135 | Formula/p/php@8.3.rb:101-135 | Formula/p/php@8.4.rb:96-130 — before extracting anything, compare `Formula/p/php@8.1.rb` and `Formula/p/php@8.2.rb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 5 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 225 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `Formula/p/php@8.2.rb:140` calls `sdk_for_formula` and `Formula/p/php@8.1.rb:133` does not — after which the two agree again for 2 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (34 lines × 4) Formula/l/llvm@19.rb:250— Formula/l/llvm@19.rb:250-283 | Formula/l/llvm@20.rb:234-267 | Formula/l/llvm@21.rb:234-267 | Formula/l/llvm@22.rb:231-264 — before extracting anything, compare `Formula/l/llvm@19.rb` and `Formula/l/llvm@20.rb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 8 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 310 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 (33–34 lines × 2) Formula/l/lua.rb:59— Formula/l/lua.rb:59-92 | Formula/l/lua@5.4.rb:72-104 — 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. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `Formula/l/lua@5.4.rb:106` calls `shared_library` and `Formula/l/lua.rb:93` does not — after which the two agree again for 4 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (32–34 lines × 2) Formula/p/percona-xtrabackup.rb:173— Formula/p/percona-xtrabackup.rb:173-204 | Formula/p/percona-xtrabackup@8.0.rb:172-205 — 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. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Formula/p/percona-xtrabackup@8.0.rb:172` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `Formula/p/percona-xtrabackup@8.0.rb:206` calls `env_script_all_files`, `formula_opt_libexec` and `Formula/p/percona-xtrabackup.rb:207` does not — after which the two agree again for 4 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (34 lines × 2) Formula/r/ruby@3.1.rb:78— Formula/r/ruby@3.1.rb:78-111 | Formula/r/ruby@3.3.rb:72-105 — 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 (32–33 lines × 7) Formula/p/python@3.10.rb:224— Formula/p/python@3.10.rb:224-255 | Formula/p/python@3.11.rb:231-262 | Formula/p/python@3.12.rb:201-232 | Formula/p/python@3.13.rb:185-216 | Formula/p/python@3.14.rb:225-257 | Formula/p/python@3.15.rb:192-224 | Formula/p/python@3.9.rb:209-240 — before extracting anything, compare `Formula/p/python@3.10.rb` and `Formula/p/python@3.11.rb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 6 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 169 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 (31–33 lines × 3) Formula/g/ghc@9.10.rb:159— Formula/g/ghc@9.10.rb:159-191 | Formula/g/ghc@9.6.rb:118-148 | Formula/g/ghc@9.8.rb:122-154 — 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 all 3 call sites, so a change lands once.
Duplicated block (31–32 lines × 3) Formula/o/openssl@3.0.rb:70— Formula/o/openssl@3.0.rb:70-101 | Formula/o/openssl@3.6.rb:71-101 | Formula/o/openssl@3.rb:74-104 — before extracting anything, compare `Formula/o/openssl@3.6.rb` and `Formula/o/openssl@3.rb` as WHOLE FILES: 85% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 2 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. 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. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.
Duplicated block (31 lines × 2) Formula/p/python-freethreading.rb:212— Formula/p/python-freethreading.rb:212-242 | Formula/p/python@3.15.rb:242-272 — before extracting anything, compare `Formula/p/python-freethreading.rb` and `Formula/p/python@3.15.rb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 5 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 209 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 (24–30 lines × 3) Formula/e/erlang@26.rb:61— Formula/e/erlang@26.rb:61-90 | Formula/e/erlang@27.rb:70-94 | Formula/e/erlang@28.rb:70-93 — before extracting anything, compare `Formula/e/erlang@27.rb` and `Formula/e/erlang@28.rb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 77 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 (28–29 lines × 3) Formula/e/erlang.rb:80— Formula/e/erlang.rb:80-107 | Formula/e/erlang@27.rb:75-103 | Formula/e/erlang@28.rb:74-102 — before extracting anything, compare `Formula/e/erlang.rb` and `Formula/e/erlang@27.rb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 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.
Duplicated block (26–28 lines × 4) Formula/l/llvm@19.rb:304— Formula/l/llvm@19.rb:304-329 | Formula/l/llvm@20.rb:288-313 | Formula/l/llvm@21.rb:288-315 | Formula/l/llvm@22.rb:285-312 — before extracting anything, compare `Formula/l/llvm@19.rb` and `Formula/l/llvm@20.rb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 8 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 310 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 (27–28 lines × 2) Formula/p/pypy3.11.rb:202— Formula/p/pypy3.11.rb:202-228 | Formula/p/pypy3.12.rb:181-208 — 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. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Formula/p/pypy3.12.rb:181` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (25–28 lines × 2) Formula/v/vim-classic.rb:42— Formula/v/vim-classic.rb:42-69 | Formula/v/vim.rb:62-86 — 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 (27 lines × 3) Formula/p/python@3.12.rb:328— Formula/p/python@3.12.rb:328-354 | Formula/p/python@3.13.rb:312-338 | Formula/p/python@3.14.rb:358-384 — before extracting anything, compare `Formula/p/python@3.12.rb` and `Formula/p/python@3.13.rb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 9 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 313 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 (23–27 lines × 2) Formula/p/python-freethreading.rb:151— Formula/p/python-freethreading.rb:151-173 | Formula/p/python@3.11.rb:208-234 — before extracting anything, compare `Formula/p/python-freethreading.rb` and `Formula/p/python@3.11.rb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 111 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 (25 lines × 4) Formula/p/python@3.10.rb:187— Formula/p/python@3.10.rb:187-211 | Formula/p/python@3.11.rb:189-213 | Formula/p/python@3.12.rb:158-182 | Formula/p/python@3.9.rb:172-196 — before extracting anything, compare `Formula/p/python@3.10.rb` and `Formula/p/python@3.11.rb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 6 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 169 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 (23–25 lines × 2) Formula/g/glibc@2.13.rb:129— Formula/g/glibc@2.13.rb:129-151 | Formula/g/glibc@2.17.rb:135-159 — 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. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Formula/g/glibc@2.13.rb:129` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (24 lines × 5) Formula/r/ruby.rb:133— Formula/r/ruby.rb:133-156 | Formula/r/ruby@3.1.rb:128-151 | Formula/r/ruby@3.2.rb:131-154 | Formula/r/ruby@3.3.rb:109-132 | Formula/r/ruby@3.4.rb:115-138 — before extracting anything, compare `Formula/r/ruby.rb` and `Formula/r/ruby@3.4.rb` as WHOLE FILES: 82% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 1 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. 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 (24 lines × 3) Formula/m/mariadb@10.11.rb:141— Formula/m/mariadb@10.11.rb:141-164 | Formula/m/mariadb@10.5.rb:123-146 | Formula/m/mariadb@11.4.rb:137-160 — before extracting anything, compare `Formula/m/mariadb@10.11.rb` and `Formula/m/mariadb@10.5.rb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 52 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 (24 lines × 2) REDACTED:237— REDACTED:237-260 | Formula/d/dotnet@9.rb:145-168 — 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 (23 lines × 7) Formula/m/mysql.rb:144— Formula/m/mysql.rb:144-166 | Formula/m/mysql@8.0.rb:111-133 | Formula/m/mysql@8.4.rb:127-149 | Formula/m/mysql@9.7.rb:148-170 | Formula/p/percona-server.rb:151-173 | Formula/p/percona-server@8.0.rb:158-180 | Formula/p/percona-server@8.4.rb:141-163 — before extracting anything, compare `Formula/m/mysql.rb` and `Formula/m/mysql@9.7.rb` as WHOLE FILES: 88% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 2 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Formula/m/mysql.rb:144` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (23 lines × 5) Formula/m/mariadb.rb:112— Formula/m/mariadb.rb:112-134 | Formula/m/mariadb@10.11.rb:121-143 | Formula/m/mariadb@11.4.rb:117-139 | Formula/m/mariadb@11.8.rb:116-138 | Formula/m/mariadb@12.3.rb:116-138 — before extracting anything, compare `Formula/m/mariadb.rb` and `Formula/m/mariadb@10.11.rb` as WHOLE FILES: 84% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 2 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. 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 (22 lines × 3) Formula/l/llvm@16.rb:236— Formula/l/llvm@16.rb:236-257 | Formula/l/llvm@17.rb:204-225 | Formula/l/llvm@18.rb:215-236 — before extracting anything, compare `Formula/l/llvm@16.rb` and `Formula/l/llvm@17.rb` as WHOLE FILES: 89% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 2 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. 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 (22 lines × 2) Formula/t/telnet.rb:31— Formula/t/telnet.rb:31-52 | Formula/t/telnetd.rb:26-47 — 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 (21 lines × 5) Formula/l/llvm@17.rb:194— Formula/l/llvm@17.rb:194-214 | Formula/l/llvm@18.rb:205-225 | Formula/l/llvm@19.rb:240-260 | Formula/l/llvm@20.rb:224-244 | Formula/l/llvm@21.rb:224-244 — before extracting anything, compare `Formula/l/llvm@17.rb` and `Formula/l/llvm@18.rb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 6 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 232 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 (19–21 lines × 3) Formula/g/ghc@9.4.rb:132— Formula/g/ghc@9.4.rb:132-150 | Formula/g/ghc@9.6.rb:143-161 | Formula/g/ghc@9.8.rb:147-167 — 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 all 3 call sites, so a change lands once.
Duplicated block (21 lines × 2) Formula/r/ruby@3.3.rb:64— Formula/r/ruby@3.3.rb:64-84 | Formula/r/ruby@3.4.rb:68-88 — before extracting anything, compare `Formula/r/ruby@3.3.rb` and `Formula/r/ruby@3.4.rb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 81 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 (19 lines × 6) Formula/l/llvm@17.rb:198— Formula/l/llvm@17.rb:198-216 | Formula/l/llvm@18.rb:209-227 | Formula/l/llvm@19.rb:244-262 | Formula/l/llvm@20.rb:228-246 | Formula/l/llvm@21.rb:228-246 | Formula/l/llvm@22.rb:225-243 — before extracting anything, compare `Formula/l/llvm@17.rb` and `Formula/l/llvm@18.rb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 6 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 232 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 (18–19 lines × 6) Formula/p/python-freethreading.rb:149— Formula/p/python-freethreading.rb:149-167 | Formula/p/python@3.11.rb:207-224 | Formula/p/python@3.12.rb:176-193 | Formula/p/python@3.13.rb:160-177 | Formula/p/python@3.14.rb:199-217 | Formula/p/python@3.15.rb:166-184 — before extracting anything, compare `Formula/p/python-freethreading.rb` and `Formula/p/python@3.11.rb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 111 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 (18–19 lines × 3) Formula/lib/libpq.rb:54— Formula/lib/libpq.rb:54-72 | Formula/lib/libpq@16.rb:45-62 | Formula/lib/libpq@17.rb:49-66 — 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 all 3 call sites, so a change lands once. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Formula/lib/libpq.rb:54` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (16–19 lines × 2) Formula/k/keystone.rb:25— Formula/k/keystone.rb:25-43 | Formula/lib/libchaos.rb:33-48 — the copies sit in different shards of ONE directory: `Formula` is split into subdirectories by a prefix of the file name rather than by module, so `Formula/k` and `Formula/lib` are siblings in a single flat namespace and this is not the cross-module problem the paths make it look like. Whether the block can be extracted at all turns on how this tree loads code — an index of definition files that are loaded independently and never load one another has no location to put a shared function, and there the 2 copies are maintained separately by design rather than by neglect. Check that first: if the files here can reach a common one, extract the block into it and call it from each site; if they cannot, this row is telling you the cost of the layout, not a refactor you can perform.
Duplicated block (18 lines × 5) Formula/p/php.rb:240— Formula/p/php.rb:240-257 | Formula/p/php@8.1.rb:245-262 | Formula/p/php@8.2.rb:252-269 | Formula/p/php@8.3.rb:252-269 | Formula/p/php@8.4.rb:247-264 — before extracting anything, compare `Formula/p/php.rb` and `Formula/p/php@8.4.rb` as WHOLE FILES: 88% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 1 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. 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 × 4) Formula/p/python@3.12.rb:342— Formula/p/python@3.12.rb:342-359 | Formula/p/python@3.13.rb:326-343 | Formula/p/python@3.14.rb:372-389 | Formula/p/python@3.15.rb:327-344 — before extracting anything, compare `Formula/p/python@3.12.rb` and `Formula/p/python@3.13.rb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 9 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 313 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Formula/p/python@3.12.rb:342` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members' bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it.
Duplicated block (18 lines × 3) Formula/p/python-tk@3.10.rb:26— Formula/p/python-tk@3.10.rb:26-43 | Formula/p/python-tk@3.11.rb:29-46 | Formula/p/python-tk@3.9.rb:27-44 — 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 all 3 call sites, so a change lands once.
Duplicated block (18 lines × 2) Formula/g/ghc.rb:107— Formula/g/ghc.rb:107-124 | Formula/g/ghc@9.12.rb:102-119 — 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 (9–16 lines × 4) Formula/lib/libgit2@1.7.rb:33— Formula/lib/libgit2@1.7.rb:33-41 | Formula/lib/libgit2@1.8.rb:35-43 | Formula/lib/libsndfile.rb:39-54 | Formula/r/raylib.rb:33-44 — the copies sit in different shards of ONE directory: `Formula` is split into subdirectories by a prefix of the file name rather than by module, so `Formula/lib` and `Formula/r` are siblings in a single flat namespace and this is not the cross-module problem the paths make it look like. Whether the block can be extracted at all turns on how this tree loads code — an index of definition files that are loaded independently and never load one another has no location to put a shared function, and there the 4 copies are maintained separately by design rather than by neglect. Check that first: if the files here can reach a common one, extract the block into it and call it from each site; if they cannot, this row is telling you the cost of the layout, not a refactor you can perform.
Duplicated block (12–16 lines × 4) Formula/p/python-freethreading.rb:164— Formula/p/python-freethreading.rb:164-175 | Formula/p/python@3.10.rb:214-229 | Formula/p/python@3.11.rb:221-236 | Formula/p/python@3.9.rb:199-214 — before extracting anything, compare `Formula/p/python-freethreading.rb` and `Formula/p/python@3.11.rb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 111 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 (16 lines × 3) Formula/f/filebeat.rb:50— Formula/f/filebeat.rb:50-65 | Formula/m/metricbeat.rb:42-57 | Formula/p/packetbeat.rb:49-64 — the copies sit in different shards of ONE directory: `Formula` is split into subdirectories by a prefix of the file name rather than by module, so `Formula/f` and `Formula/m` are siblings in a single flat namespace and this is not the cross-module problem the paths make it look like. Whether the block can be extracted at all turns on how this tree loads code — an index of definition files that are loaded independently and never load one another has no location to put a shared function, and there the 3 copies are maintained separately by design rather than by neglect. Check that first: if the files here can reach a common one, extract the block into it and call it from each site; if they cannot, this row is telling you the cost of the layout, not a refactor you can perform.
Duplicated block (14–15 lines × 3) Formula/f/flux.rb:56— Formula/f/flux.rb:56-70 | Formula/i/influxdb@1.rb:39-52 | Formula/i/influxdb@2.rb:57-71 — the copies sit in different shards of ONE directory: `Formula` is split into subdirectories by a prefix of the file name rather than by module, so `Formula/f` and `Formula/i` are siblings in a single flat namespace and this is not the cross-module problem the paths make it look like. Whether the block can be extracted at all turns on how this tree loads code — an index of definition files that are loaded independently and never load one another has no location to put a shared function, and there the 3 copies are maintained separately by design rather than by neglect. Check that first: if the files here can reach a common one, extract the block into it and call it from each site; if they cannot, this row is telling you the cost of the layout, not a refactor you can perform.
Duplicated block (14–15 lines × 2) Formula/j/json_spirit.rb:37— Formula/j/json_spirit.rb:37-50 | Formula/s/spglib.rb:23-37 — the copies sit in different shards of ONE directory: `Formula` is split into subdirectories by a prefix of the file name rather than by module, so `Formula/j` and `Formula/s` are siblings in a single flat namespace and this is not the cross-module problem the paths make it look like. Whether the block can be extracted at all turns on how this tree loads code — an index of definition files that are loaded independently and never load one another has no location to put a shared function, and there the 2 copies are maintained separately by design rather than by neglect. Check that first: if the files here can reach a common one, extract the block into it and call it from each site; if they cannot, this row is telling you the cost of the layout, not a refactor you can perform.
Duplicated block (13–14 lines × 2) Formula/r/rocq-elpi.rb:71— Formula/r/rocq-elpi.rb:71-83 | Formula/r/rocq-micromega-plugin.rb:47-60 — 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. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Formula/r/rocq-elpi.rb:71` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members' bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it.
Duplicated block (13 lines × 7) Formula/m/mariadb.rb:111— Formula/m/mariadb.rb:111-123 | Formula/m/mariadb@10.11.rb:120-132 | Formula/m/mariadb@10.5.rb:105-117 | Formula/m/mariadb@10.6.rb:118-130 | Formula/m/mariadb@11.4.rb:116-128 | Formula/m/mariadb@11.8.rb:115-127 | Formula/m/mariadb@12.3.rb:115-127 — before extracting anything, compare `Formula/m/mariadb.rb` and `Formula/m/mariadb@10.11.rb` as WHOLE FILES: 84% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 2 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. 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 (13 lines × 4) Formula/r/redict.rb:23— Formula/r/redict.rb:23-35 | Formula/r/redis@6.2.rb:34-46 | Formula/r/redis@8.2.rb:32-44 | Formula/v/valkey.rb:31-43 — the copies sit in different shards of ONE directory: `Formula` is split into subdirectories by a prefix of the file name rather than by module, so `Formula/r` and `Formula/v` are siblings in a single flat namespace and this is not the cross-module problem the paths make it look like. Whether the block can be extracted at all turns on how this tree loads code — an index of definition files that are loaded independently and never load one another has no location to put a shared function, and there the 4 copies are maintained separately by design rather than by neglect. Check that first: if the files here can reach a common one, extract the block into it and call it from each site; if they cannot, this row is telling you the cost of the layout, not a refactor you can perform.
Duplicated block (9–12 lines × 8) Formula/b/braid.rb:68— Formula/b/braid.rb:68-76 | Formula/c/cucumber-ruby.rb:121-129 | Formula/f/foreman.rb:28-36 | Formula/l/lolcat.rb:39-48 | Formula/m/mdless.rb:57-65 | Formula/t/terraform_landscape.rb:46-54 | Formula/t/tmuxinator.rb:32-41 | Formula/u/um.rb:27-38 — the copies sit in different shards of ONE directory: `Formula` is split into subdirectories by a prefix of the file name rather than by module, so `Formula/b` and `Formula/c` are siblings in a single flat namespace and this is not the cross-module problem the paths make it look like. Whether the block can be extracted at all turns on how this tree loads code — an index of definition files that are loaded independently and never load one another has no location to put a shared function, and there the 8 copies are maintained separately by design rather than by neglect. Check that first: if the files here can reach a common one, extract the block into it and call it from each site; if they cannot, this row is telling you the cost of the layout, not a refactor you can perform.
Duplicated block (12 lines × 5) Formula/o/openjdk.rb:136— Formula/o/openjdk.rb:136-147 | Formula/o/openjdk@11.rb:145-156 | Formula/o/openjdk@17.rb:140-151 | Formula/o/openjdk@21.rb:139-150 | Formula/o/openjdk@25.rb:142-153 — before extracting anything, compare `Formula/o/openjdk.rb` and `Formula/o/openjdk@25.rb` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 112 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 (12 lines × 4) Formula/z/zig.rb:60— Formula/z/zig.rb:60-71 | Formula/z/zig@0.14.rb:55-66 | Formula/z/zig@0.15.rb:61-72 | Formula/z/zig@0.16.rb:64-75 — 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 all 4 call sites, so a change lands once.
Duplicated block (10–11 lines × 2) Formula/c/csvtk.rb:31— Formula/c/csvtk.rb:31-40 | Formula/s/seqkit.rb:31-41 — the copies sit in different shards of ONE directory: `Formula` is split into subdirectories by a prefix of the file name rather than by module, so `Formula/c` and `Formula/s` are siblings in a single flat namespace and this is not the cross-module problem the paths make it look like. Whether the block can be extracted at all turns on how this tree loads code — an index of definition files that are loaded independently and never load one another has no location to put a shared function, and there the 2 copies are maintained separately by design rather than by neglect. Check that first: if the files here can reach a common one, extract the block into it and call it from each site; if they cannot, this row is telling you the cost of the layout, not a refactor you can perform. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `Formula/s/seqkit.rb:45` calls `shell_output` and `Formula/c/csvtk.rb:44` does not — after which the two agree again for 2 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (9–10 lines × 5) Formula/a/apify-cli.rb:22— Formula/a/apify-cli.rb:22-31 | Formula/c/chrome-devtools-mcp.rb:15-24 | Formula/h/heroku.rb:23-31 | Formula/m/mermaid-cli.rb:19-28 | Formula/s/sanity.rb:19-27 — the copies sit in different shards of ONE directory: `Formula` is split into subdirectories by a prefix of the file name rather than by module, so `Formula/a` and `Formula/c` are siblings in a single flat namespace and this is not the cross-module problem the paths make it look like. Whether the block can be extracted at all turns on how this tree loads code — an index of definition files that are loaded independently and never load one another has no location to put a shared function, and there the 5 copies are maintained separately by design rather than by neglect. Check that first: if the files here can reach a common one, extract the block into it and call it from each site; if they cannot, this row is telling you the cost of the layout, not a refactor you can perform.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 28) Formula/q/qt3d.rb:58— Formula/q/qt3d.rb:58-66 | Formula/q/qt5compat.rb:40-48 | Formula/q/qtcanvaspainter.rb:39-47 | Formula/q/qtcharts.rb:39-47 | Formula/q/qtconnectivity.rb:45-53 | Formula/q/qtdatavis3d.rb:39-47 | Formula/q/qtgraphs.rb:42-50 | Formula/q/qtgrpc.rb:47-55 | Formula/q/qthttpserver.rb:37-45 | Formula/q/qtlanguageserver.rb:34-42 | Formula/q/qtlocation.rb:38-46 | Formula/q/qtlottie.rb:45-53 | Formula/q/qtnetworkauth.rb:38-46 | Formula/q/qtpositioning.rb:42-50 | Formula/q/qtquick3d.rb:56-64 | Formula/q/qtquick3dphysics.rb:42-50 | Formula/q/qtquicktimeline.rb:36-44 | Formula/q/qtremoteobjects.rb:40-48 | Formula/q/qtscxml.rb:40-48 | Formula/q/qtsensors.rb:39-47 | Formula/q/qtserialbus.rb:38-46 | Formula/q/qtserialport.rb:43-51 | Formula/q/qtshadertools.rb:39-47 | Formula/q/qtspeech.rb:40-48 | Formula/q/qtsvg.rb:42-50 | Formula/q/qtvirtualkeyboard.rb:46-54 | Formula/q/qtwebchannel.rb:39-47 | Formula/q/qtwebsockets.rb:41-49 — 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 all 28 call sites, so a change lands once. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `Formula/q/qtlottie.rb:57` calls `resource` and `Formula/q/qtquick3dphysics.rb:55` does not — after which the two agree again for 2 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 53) Formula/a/algolia.rb:22— Formula/a/algolia.rb:22-29 | Formula/a/aws-iam-authenticator.rb:31-42 | Formula/a/azqr.rb:24-31 | Formula/b/bom.rb:22-32 | Formula/c/calicoctl.rb:30-40 | Formula/c/cliam.rb:25-37 | Formula/c/crane.rb:24-32 | Formula/c/ctrld.rb:21-30 | Formula/d/dependabot.rb:22-29 | Formula/d/depot.rb:29-41 | Formula/d/diffoci.rb:24-31 | Formula/d/doctl.rb:22-35 | Formula/d/dyff.rb:24-31 | Formula/e/egctl.rb:28-38 | Formula/f/firefly.rb:29-40 | Formula/g/gator.rb:23-30 | Formula/g/gmailctl.rb:22-29 | Formula/g/goclone.rb:25-36 | Formula/g/golangci-lint.rb:23-35 | Formula/h/hack-browser-data.rb:24-36 | Formula/h/havener.rb:24-31 | Formula/h/hcloud.rb:22-32 | Formula/k/kargo.rb:22-34 | Formula/k/kontext.rb:19-29 | Formula/k/kubeaudit.rb:28-39 | Formula/k/kubefwd.rb:22-29 | Formula/k/kumactl.rb:27-39 | Formula/k/kustomize.rb:27-38 | Formula/l/license-eye.rb:24-31 | Formula/m/mdz.rb:27-34 | Formula/m/minder.rb:22-29 | Formula/n/nelm.rb:46-53 | Formula/n/neosync.rb:28-39 | Formula/n/netfetch.rb:30-37 | Formula/o/openfga.rb:22-33 | Formula/o/oras.rb:28-38 | Formula/p/porter.rb:29-39 | Formula/p/prestd.rb:27-34 | Formula/q/qshell.rb:22-28 | Formula/r/ratify.rb:29-40 | Formula/r/rekor-cli.rb:26-38 | Formula/s/slsa-verifier.rb:33-46 | Formula/s/squealer.rb:25-31 | Formula/s/syft.rb:28-40 | Formula/t/talosctl.rb:27-38 | Formula/t/terraform-mcp-server.rb:22-32 | Formula/t/terrascan.rb:27-34 | Formula/t/tock.rb:22-34 | Formula/t/tracetest.rb:25-32 | Formula/v/videoalchemy.rb:25-32 | Formula/v/virtctl.rb:30-37 | Formula/y/yorkie.rb:27-38 | Formula/y/youtubedr.rb:23-30 — the copies sit in different shards of ONE directory: `Formula` is split into subdirectories by a prefix of the file name rather than by module, so `Formula/a` and `Formula/b` are siblings in a single flat namespace and this is not the cross-module problem the paths make it look like. Whether the block can be extracted at all turns on how this tree loads code — an index of definition files that are loaded independently and never load one another has no location to put a shared function, and there the 53 copies are maintained separately by design rather than by neglect. Check that first: if the files here can reach a common one, extract the block into it and call it from each site; if they cannot, this row is telling you the cost of the layout, not a refactor you can perform. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `Formula/a/algolia.rb:33` calls `shell_output` and `Formula/n/neosync.rb:43` does not — after which the two agree again for 2 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 4) Formula/a/anyquery.rb:23— Formula/a/anyquery.rb:23-39 | Formula/b/brev.rb:30-39 | Formula/d/docker-agent.rb:22-35 | Formula/m/mender-cli.rb:32-41 — the copies sit in different shards of ONE directory: `Formula` is split into subdirectories by a prefix of the file name rather than by module, so `Formula/a` and `Formula/b` are siblings in a single flat namespace and this is not the cross-module problem the paths make it look like. Whether the block can be extracted at all turns on how this tree loads code — an index of definition files that are loaded independently and never load one another has no location to put a shared function, and there the 4 copies are maintained separately by design rather than by neglect. Check that first: if the files here can reach a common one, extract the block into it and call it from each site; if they cannot, this row is telling you the cost of the layout, not a refactor you can perform.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 69) Formula/a/apko.rb:31— Formula/a/apko.rb:31-43 | Formula/a/arduino-cli.rb:29-40 | Formula/a/atlantis.rb:28-40 | Formula/b/betterleaks.rb:22-29 | Formula/c/cek.rb:23-29 | Formula/c/cntb.rb:24-31 | Formula/c/conftest.rb:23-30 | Formula/c/copa.rb:23-34 | Formula/d/dockerfilegraph.rb:25-36 | Formula/d/draft.rb:22-29 | Formula/d/driftctl.rb:34-45 | Formula/f/filebrowser.rb:24-35 | Formula/f/frizbee.rb:24-31 | Formula/g/gebug.rb:25-32 | Formula/g/gibo.rb:22-28 | Formula/g/gitleaks.rb:32-39 | Formula/g/gittuf.rb:22-29 | Formula/g/gphotos-uploader-cli.rb:24-30 | Formula/g/gut.rb:24-31 | Formula/g/gwctl.rb:25-36 | Formula/h/helmfile.rb:25-38 | Formula/h/hishtory.rb:30-40 | Formula/h/hubble.rb:30-37 | Formula/i/immich-go.rb:29-36 | Formula/i/infisical.rb:22-29 | Formula/i/ingress2gateway.rb:24-31 | Formula/k/k9s.rb:30-40 | Formula/k/kafkactl.rb:22-33 | Formula/k/kconf.rb:25-37 | Formula/k/kor.rb:23-30 | Formula/k/kpt.rb:40-46 | Formula/k/kubecm.rb:24-31 | Formula/k/kubefirst.rb:31-38 | Formula/k/kubeshark.rb:30-41 | Formula/l/leetgo.rb:22-32 | Formula/l/lnk.rb:23-33 | Formula/m/melange.rb:27-39 | Formula/m/mockery.rb:30-37 | Formula/m/mods.rb:28-35 | Formula/n/nanobot.rb:27-37 | Formula/o/oasdiff.rb:38-45 | Formula/o/oasis.rb:22-32 | Formula/o/octosql.rb:25-32 | Formula/o/ots.rb:25-32 | Formula/o/ov.rb:27-34 | Formula/p/parlay.rb:25-32 | Formula/p/pet.rb:24-31 | Formula/p/pgstream.rb:24-31 | Formula/p/polaris.rb:22-29 | Formula/p/policy-engine.rb:22-29 | Formula/p/popeye.rb:24-35 | Formula/p/pulsarctl.rb:34-47 | Formula/q/qrcp.rb:26-36 | Formula/r/reckoner.rb:25-32 | Formula/r/regal.rb:27-39 | Formula/r/regula.rb:28-39 | Formula/r/rospo.rb:23-30 | Formula/r/runme.rb:22-33 | Formula/s/sidekick.rb:24-31 | Formula/s/signmykey.rb:25-32 | Formula/s/snitch.rb:24-34 | Formula/s/sonobuoy.rb:23-30 | Formula/s/svu.rb:24-31 | Formula/t/tbls.rb:22-33 | Formula/t/typioca.rb:25-32 | Formula/v/vexctl.rb:23-36 | Formula/v/vibecheck.rb:24-31 | Formula/w/webdav.rb:22-29 | Formula/w/witness.rb:29-36 — the copies sit in different shards of ONE directory: `Formula` is split into subdirectories by a prefix of the file name rather than by module, so `Formula/a` and `Formula/b` are siblings in a single flat namespace and this is not the cross-module problem the paths make it look like. Whether the block can be extracted at all turns on how this tree loads code — an index of definition files that are loaded independently and never load one another has no location to put a shared function, and there the 69 copies are maintained separately by design rather than by neglect. Check that first: if the files here can reach a common one, extract the block into it and call it from each site; if they cannot, this row is telling you the cost of the layout, not a refactor you can perform. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `Formula/l/leetgo.rb:36` calls `shell_output` and `Formula/a/arduino-cli.rb:44` does not — after which the two agree again for 2 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 4) Formula/a/ast-grep.rb:22— Formula/a/ast-grep.rb:22-28 | Formula/b/bindgen.rb:25-32 | Formula/m/mcat.rb:24-30 | Formula/v/vrc-get.rb:27-32 — the copies sit in different shards of ONE directory: `Formula` is split into subdirectories by a prefix of the file name rather than by module, so `Formula/a` and `Formula/b` are siblings in a single flat namespace and this is not the cross-module problem the paths make it look like. Whether the block can be extracted at all turns on how this tree loads code — an index of definition files that are loaded independently and never load one another has no location to put a shared function, and there the 4 copies are maintained separately by design rather than by neglect. Check that first: if the files here can reach a common one, extract the block into it and call it from each site; if they cannot, this row is telling you the cost of the layout, not a refactor you can perform. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 14) Formula/b/backplane-cli.rb:22— Formula/b/backplane-cli.rb:22-28 | Formula/b/beads_viewer.rb:22-28 | Formula/b/bitbucket-cli.rb:24-33 | Formula/c/chainloop-cli.rb:27-36 | Formula/c/chart-releaser.rb:24-34 | Formula/c/cilium-cli.rb:30-37 | Formula/h/harbor-cli.rb:22-34 | Formula/j/jaguar.rb:27-37 | Formula/o/open-code-review.rb:22-28 | Formula/q/qbittorrent-cli.rb:24-31 | Formula/r/roadrunner.rb:28-38 | Formula/s/soft-serve.rb:22-28 | Formula/t/tetra.rb:28-35 | Formula/t/two-ms.rb:27-33 — the copies sit in different shards of ONE directory: `Formula` is split into subdirectories by a prefix of the file name rather than by module, so `Formula/b` and `Formula/c` are siblings in a single flat namespace and this is not the cross-module problem the paths make it look like. Whether the block can be extracted at all turns on how this tree loads code — an index of definition files that are loaded independently and never load one another has no location to put a shared function, and there the 14 copies are maintained separately by design rather than by neglect. Check that first: if the files here can reach a common one, extract the block into it and call it from each site; if they cannot, this row is telling you the cost of the layout, not a refactor you can perform.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 7) Formula/b/bagel.rb:24— Formula/b/bagel.rb:24-36 | Formula/b/boring.rb:24-31 | Formula/c/clusterctl.rb:32-46 | Formula/c/cozypkg.rb:27-33 | Formula/d/doggo.rb:23-30 | Formula/g/ghalint.rb:29-36 | Formula/g/grype.rb:23-30 — the copies sit in different shards of ONE directory: `Formula` is split into subdirectories by a prefix of the file name rather than by module, so `Formula/b` and `Formula/c` are siblings in a single flat namespace and this is not the cross-module problem the paths make it look like. Whether the block can be extracted at all turns on how this tree loads code — an index of definition files that are loaded independently and never load one another has no location to put a shared function, and there the 7 copies are maintained separately by design rather than by neglect. Check that first: if the files here can reach a common one, extract the block into it and call it from each site; if they cannot, this row is telling you the cost of the layout, not a refactor you can perform.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 13) Formula/c/chain-bench.rb:33— Formula/c/chain-bench.rb:33-39 | Formula/f/fjira.rb:24-30 | Formula/g/gotun.rb:23-28 | Formula/k/khaos.rb:24-29 | Formula/k/kustomizer.rb:25-31 | Formula/m/mcptools.rb:25-31 | Formula/n/nfpm.rb:22-28 | Formula/p/portal.rb:25-31 | Formula/s/sqlcmd.rb:29-35 | Formula/s/swctl.rb:22-28 | Formula/t/timoni.rb:22-28 | Formula/t/tpack.rb:23-28 | Formula/w/wishlist.rb:25-30 — the copies sit in different shards of ONE directory: `Formula` is split into subdirectories by a prefix of the file name rather than by module, so `Formula/c` and `Formula/f` are siblings in a single flat namespace and this is not the cross-module problem the paths make it look like. Whether the block can be extracted at all turns on how this tree loads code — an index of definition files that are loaded independently and never load one another has no location to put a shared function, and there the 13 copies are maintained separately by design rather than by neglect. Check that first: if the files here can reach a common one, extract the block into it and call it from each site; if they cannot, this row is telling you the cost of the layout, not a refactor you can perform. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `Formula/s/swctl.rb:32` calls `shell_output` and `Formula/s/sqlcmd.rb:39` does not — after which the two agree again for 2 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (20 lines × 2) Formula/c/clamav.rb:55— Formula/c/clamav.rb:55-80 | Formula/t/transmission-cli.rb:39-58 — the copies sit in different shards of ONE directory: `Formula` is split into subdirectories by a prefix of the file name rather than by module, so `Formula/c` and `Formula/t` are siblings in a single flat namespace and this is not the cross-module problem the paths make it look like. Whether the block can be extracted at all turns on how this tree loads code — an index of definition files that are loaded independently and never load one another has no location to put a shared function, and there the 2 copies are maintained separately by design rather than by neglect. Check that first: if the files here can reach a common one, extract the block into it and call it from each site; if they cannot, this row is telling you the cost of the layout, not a refactor you can perform.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 3) Formula/d/dua-cli.rb:27— Formula/d/dua-cli.rb:27-33 | Formula/o/odbc2parquet.rb:26-31 | Formula/s/sprocket.rb:33-39 — the copies sit in different shards of ONE directory: `Formula` is split into subdirectories by a prefix of the file name rather than by module, so `Formula/d` and `Formula/o` are siblings in a single flat namespace and this is not the cross-module problem the paths make it look like. Whether the block can be extracted at all turns on how this tree loads code — an index of definition files that are loaded independently and never load one another has no location to put a shared function, and there the 3 copies are maintained separately by design rather than by neglect. Check that first: if the files here can reach a common one, extract the block into it and call it from each site; if they cannot, this row is telling you the cost of the layout, not a refactor you can perform.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 5) Formula/o/openliberty-jakartaee8.rb:20— Formula/o/openliberty-jakartaee8.rb:20-28 | Formula/o/openliberty-jakartaee9.rb:21-29 | Formula/o/openliberty-microprofile4.rb:20-28 | Formula/o/openliberty-webprofile8.rb:20-28 | Formula/o/openliberty-webprofile9.rb:21-29 — 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 all 5 call sites, so a change lands once.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 15) Formula/a/alembic.rb:30— Formula/a/alembic.rb:30-41 | Formula/b/behaviortree.cpp.rb:27-35 | Formula/c/c-blosc2.rb:37-52 | Formula/d/draco.rb:22-31 | Formula/d/dynet.rb:37-45 | Formula/e/enkits.rb:23-31 | Formula/f/faiss.rb:29-39 | Formula/f/falcosecurity-libs.rb:39-55 | Formula/i/iccdev.rb:39-47 | Formula/lib/liboqs.rb:32-42 | Formula/m/manifold.rb:23-33 | Formula/m/mlx-c.rb:40-50 | Formula/n/ngt.rb:34-43 | Formula/p/papilo.rb:27-40 | Formula/v/viennacl.rb:26-34 — the copies sit in different shards of ONE directory: `Formula` is split into subdirectories by a prefix of the file name rather than by module, so `Formula/a` and `Formula/b` are siblings in a single flat namespace and this is not the cross-module problem the paths make it look like. Whether the block can be extracted at all turns on how this tree loads code — an index of definition files that are loaded independently and never load one another has no location to put a shared function, and there the 15 copies are maintained separately by design rather than by neglect. Check that first: if the files here can reach a common one, extract the block into it and call it from each site; if they cannot, this row is telling you the cost of the layout, not a refactor you can perform.
Duplicated block (5 lines × 10) Formula/a/aws-c-auth.rb:27— Formula/a/aws-c-auth.rb:27-33 | Formula/a/aws-c-event-stream.rb:26-32 | Formula/a/aws-c-http.rb:26-32 | Formula/a/aws-c-io.rb:25-31 | Formula/a/aws-c-mqtt.rb:30-36 | Formula/a/aws-c-s3.rb:29-35 | Formula/lib/libks.rb:32-37 | Formula/p/pcb2gcode.rb:50-55 | Formula/p/putty.rb:40-45 | Formula/v/vcflib.rb:38-42 — the copies sit in different shards of ONE directory: `Formula` is split into subdirectories by a prefix of the file name rather than by module, so `Formula/a` and `Formula/lib` are siblings in a single flat namespace and this is not the cross-module problem the paths make it look like. Whether the block can be extracted at all turns on how this tree loads code — an index of definition files that are loaded independently and never load one another has no location to put a shared function, and there the 10 copies are maintained separately by design rather than by neglect. Check that first: if the files here can reach a common one, extract the block into it and call it from each site; if they cannot, this row is telling you the cost of the layout, not a refactor you can perform.
Duplicated block (5 lines × 7) Formula/a/aws-crt-cpp.rb:32— Formula/a/aws-crt-cpp.rb:32-42 | Formula/a/ayatana-ido.rb:36-41 | Formula/g/gmic.rb:44-55 | Formula/lib/libayatana-appindicator.rb:28-38 | Formula/lib/libemf2svg.rb:37-41 | Formula/lib/libzip.rb:35-45 | Formula/s/stubby.rb:30-38 — the copies sit in different shards of ONE directory: `Formula` is split into subdirectories by a prefix of the file name rather than by module, so `Formula/a` and `Formula/g` are siblings in a single flat namespace and this is not the cross-module problem the paths make it look like. Whether the block can be extracted at all turns on how this tree loads code — an index of definition files that are loaded independently and never load one another has no location to put a shared function, and there the 7 copies are maintained separately by design rather than by neglect. Check that first: if the files here can reach a common one, extract the block into it and call it from each site; if they cannot, this row is telling you the cost of the layout, not a refactor you can perform.
Duplicated block (5 lines × 25) Formula/b/bitwuzla.rb:37— Formula/b/bitwuzla.rb:37-45 | Formula/b/bubblewrap.rb:29-35 | Formula/d/dtc.rb:35-45 | Formula/f/felinks.rb:45-70 | Formula/g/gegl.rb:49-58 | Formula/g/gspell.rb:39-47 | Formula/g/gtksourceview5.rb:45-52 | Formula/h/harfbuzz.rb:45-60 | Formula/i/iputils.rb:20-28 | Formula/k/kmod.rb:30-39 | Formula/lib/libbluray.rb:35-43 | Formula/lib/liblc3.rb:27-34 | Formula/lib/libvirt.rb:54-68 | Formula/lib/libxkbcommon.rb:31-41 | Formula/m/muon.rb:28-41 | Formula/p/pango.rb:42-53 | Formula/p/pcsc-lite.rb:35-46 | Formula/p/pipewire.rb:43-55 | Formula/q/qdl.rb:30-38 | Formula/s/siril.rb:84-92 | Formula/t/thorvg.rb:31-43 | Formula/v/vapoursynth-subtext.rb:28-32 | Formula/w/wireplumber.rb:25-33 | Formula/w/wl-clipboard.rb:21-27 | Formula/z/zix.rb:26-32 — the copies sit in different shards of ONE directory: `Formula` is split into subdirectories by a prefix of the file name rather than by module, so `Formula/b` and `Formula/d` are siblings in a single flat namespace and this is not the cross-module problem the paths make it look like. Whether the block can be extracted at all turns on how this tree loads code — an index of definition files that are loaded independently and never load one another has no location to put a shared function, and there the 25 copies are maintained separately by design rather than by neglect. Check that first: if the files here can reach a common one, extract the block into it and call it from each site; if they cannot, this row is telling you the cost of the layout, not a refactor you can perform.
Duplicated block (5 lines × 17) Formula/c/cmuclmtk.rb:41— Formula/c/cmuclmtk.rb:41-46 | Formula/d/daemonlogger.rb:30-35 | Formula/d/diction.rb:26-31 | Formula/d/doublecpp.rb:29-34 | Formula/i/ipsumdump.rb:34-39 | Formula/lib/libart.rb:35-40 | Formula/lib/libcddb.rb:23-28 | Formula/lib/libcsv.rb:31-36 | Formula/lib/libidl.rb:37-42 | Formula/lib/libpcl.rb:39-43 | Formula/lib/libpoker-eval.rb:35-40 | Formula/lib/libquantum.rb:32-37 | Formula/p/paperkey.rb:35-40 | Formula/p/pgdbf.rb:27-32 | Formula/s/shntool.rb:32-37 | Formula/s/startup-notification.rb:31-36 | Formula/x/xml-coreutils.rb:31-36 — the copies sit in different shards of ONE directory: `Formula` is split into subdirectories by a prefix of the file name rather than by module, so `Formula/c` and `Formula/d` are siblings in a single flat namespace and this is not the cross-module problem the paths make it look like. Whether the block can be extracted at all turns on how this tree loads code — an index of definition files that are loaded independently and never load one another has no location to put a shared function, and there the 17 copies are maintained separately by design rather than by neglect. Check that first: if the files here can reach a common one, extract the block into it and call it from each site; if they cannot, this row is telling you the cost of the layout, not a refactor you can perform. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `Formula/lib/libart.rb:44` calls `shell_output` and `Formula/lib/libcddb.rb:32` does not — after which the two agree again for 2 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 7) Formula/c/coordgen.rb:27— Formula/c/coordgen.rb:27-34 | Formula/f/ffmpegthumbnailer.rb:27-34 | Formula/lib/libcouchbase.rb:37-44 | Formula/n/nng.rb:28-33 | Formula/p/pdfpc.rb:51-58 | Formula/q/qpid-proton.rb:28-35 | Formula/s/sdl3_ttf.rb:32-40 — the copies sit in different shards of ONE directory: `Formula` is split into subdirectories by a prefix of the file name rather than by module, so `Formula/c` and `Formula/f` are siblings in a single flat namespace and this is not the cross-module problem the paths make it look like. Whether the block can be extracted at all turns on how this tree loads code — an index of definition files that are loaded independently and never load one another has no location to put a shared function, and there the 7 copies are maintained separately by design rather than by neglect. Check that first: if the files here can reach a common one, extract the block into it and call it from each site; if they cannot, this row is telling you the cost of the layout, not a refactor you can perform.
Duplicated block (5 lines × 12) Formula/c/ctl.rb:26— Formula/c/ctl.rb:26-32 | Formula/lib/libvatek.rb:26-30 | Formula/lib/libyojimbo.rb:25-31 | Formula/m/minisat.rb:29-35 | Formula/m/msdfgen.rb:32-38 | Formula/n/ntfs2btrfs.rb:34-39 | Formula/o/opendht.rb:38-44 | Formula/p/primecount.rb:26-31 | Formula/p/prometheus-cpp.rb:32-38 | Formula/q/qpdf.rb:29-35 | Formula/q/quickjs-ng.rb:24-30 | Formula/s/staq.rb:39-45 — the copies sit in different shards of ONE directory: `Formula` is split into subdirectories by a prefix of the file name rather than by module, so `Formula/c` and `Formula/lib` are siblings in a single flat namespace and this is not the cross-module problem the paths make it look like. Whether the block can be extracted at all turns on how this tree loads code — an index of definition files that are loaded independently and never load one another has no location to put a shared function, and there the 12 copies are maintained separately by design rather than by neglect. Check that first: if the files here can reach a common one, extract the block into it and call it from each site; if they cannot, this row is telling you the cost of the layout, not a refactor you can perform.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 5) Formula/e/ed.rb:42— Formula/e/ed.rb:42-49 | Formula/f/findutils.rb:48-55 | Formula/g/gnu-units.rb:40-47 | Formula/g/grep.rb:65-72 | Formula/lib/libtool.rb:54-61 — the copies sit in different shards of ONE directory: `Formula` is split into subdirectories by a prefix of the file name rather than by module, so `Formula/e` and `Formula/f` are siblings in a single flat namespace and this is not the cross-module problem the paths make it look like. Whether the block can be extracted at all turns on how this tree loads code — an index of definition files that are loaded independently and never load one another has no location to put a shared function, and there the 5 copies are maintained separately by design rather than by neglect. Check that first: if the files here can reach a common one, extract the block into it and call it from each site; if they cannot, this row is telling you the cost of the layout, not a refactor you can perform.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 7) Formula/g/gnu-indent.rb:48— Formula/g/gnu-indent.rb:48-56 | Formula/g/gnu-sed.rb:48-56 | Formula/g/gnu-tar.rb:74-82 | Formula/g/gnu-time.rb:35-43 | Formula/g/gnu-which.rb:40-48 | Formula/g/gpatch.rb:35-43 | Formula/m/make.rb:66-74 — the copies sit in different shards of ONE directory: `Formula` is split into subdirectories by a prefix of the file name rather than by module, so `Formula/g` and `Formula/m` are siblings in a single flat namespace and this is not the cross-module problem the paths make it look like. Whether the block can be extracted at all turns on how this tree loads code — an index of definition files that are loaded independently and never load one another has no location to put a shared function, and there the 7 copies are maintained separately by design rather than by neglect. Check that first: if the files here can reach a common one, extract the block into it and call it from each site; if they cannot, this row is telling you the cost of the layout, not a refactor you can perform.
Duplicated block (16 lines × 4) Formula/g/go@1.23.rb:29— Formula/g/go@1.23.rb:29-44 | Formula/g/go@1.24.rb:39-54 | Formula/g/go@1.25.rb:32-47 | Formula/g/go@1.26.rb:38-53 — 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 all 4 call sites, so a change lands once.
Duplicated block (29 lines × 2) Formula/m/mysql-client.rb:60— Formula/m/mysql-client.rb:60-88 | Formula/m/mysql-client@9.7.rb:66-94 — 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 (5 lines × 3) Formula/o/orbuculum.rb:47— Formula/o/orbuculum.rb:47-51 | Formula/v/vapoursynth-imwri.rb:40-46 | Formula/v/vapoursynth-ocr.rb:29-35 — the copies sit in different shards of ONE directory: `Formula` is split into subdirectories by a prefix of the file name rather than by module, so `Formula/o` and `Formula/v` are siblings in a single flat namespace and this is not the cross-module problem the paths make it look like. Whether the block can be extracted at all turns on how this tree loads code — an index of definition files that are loaded independently and never load one another has no location to put a shared function, and there the 3 copies are maintained separately by design rather than by neglect. Check that first: if the files here can reach a common one, extract the block into it and call it from each site; if they cannot, this row is telling you the cost of the layout, not a refactor you can perform.
Duplicated block (19 lines × 3) Formula/p/protobuf.rb:38— Formula/p/protobuf.rb:38-56 | Formula/p/protobuf@29.rb:64-83 | Formula/p/protobuf@33.rb:41-60 — 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 all 3 call sites, so a change lands once.
Duplicated block (14 lines × 5) Formula/q/qt-libiodbc.rb:31— Formula/q/qt-libiodbc.rb:31-44 | Formula/q/qt-mariadb.rb:31-45 | Formula/q/qt-mysql.rb:31-45 | Formula/q/qt-postgresql.rb:29-43 | Formula/q/qt-unixodbc.rb:31-44 — before extracting anything, compare `Formula/q/qt-libiodbc.rb` and `Formula/q/qt-unixodbc.rb` as WHOLE FILES: 88% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 1 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. 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.
M1 · Documentation (README)· README may be stale · ×1
README may be stale — 8362 code files changed in the last 6 months but the README was not touched — it may no longer reflect the system.
X19 · Unrestored process-global state· Process-global state is restored only on the happy path · ×1
Process-global state is restored only on the happy path Formula/p/pkgconf.rb:102— this block changes state that belongs to the whole process and changes it back at the end of the same body — the environment variable `PKG_CONFIG_LIBDIR` (changed at line 116, put back at line 137) — which says the change was meant to last no longer than this call. But the restore is an ordinary statement on the straight-line path, not an `ensure`, so it is skipped by any exception raised in between: the process then keeps the overwritten value for the rest of its life, and every later relative path, subprocess, write to the standard streams or warning in ANY thread or fiber resolves against it. That failure is silent and remote from its cause — the method that breaks is not the method that moved the value. The durable fix is not to widen the restore but to stop mutating the global: pass the value to the operation that needs it — `chdir:` and an environment hash to `system`/`spawn`/`Open3` (`system({'K' => v}, cmd, chdir: dir)`), an absolute path built with `File.join`/`File.expand_path`, an explicit IO to the code that writes. Where the global genuinely must move, use the block form `Dir.chdir(dir) { … }` or wrap it `begin`/`ensure` so the restore runs on every path.
Hand-rolled JSON/XML parsing via regex Formula/z/zipkin.rb:10— A regex whose pattern encodes JSON/XML syntax is parsing a structured format by hand — malformed or differently-typed content (e.g. `"amount": "5"` as a string) silently mis-parses instead of failing validation. This Ruby code already uses a real parser in the same package; use it here too.
Hand-rolled JSON/XML parsing via regex Formula/w/wiremock-standalone.rb:10— A regex whose pattern encodes JSON/XML syntax is parsing a structured format by hand — malformed or differently-typed content (e.g. `"amount": "5"` as a string) silently mis-parses instead of failing validation. This Ruby code already uses a real parser in the same package; use it here too.
Hand-rolled JSON/XML parsing via regex Formula/t/tin.rb:12— A regex whose pattern encodes JSON/XML syntax is parsing a structured format by hand — malformed or differently-typed content (e.g. `"amount": "5"` as a string) silently mis-parses instead of failing validation. This Ruby code already uses a real parser in the same package; use it here too.
Hand-rolled JSON/XML parsing via regex Formula/t/tiny-remapper.rb:10— A regex whose pattern encodes JSON/XML syntax is parsing a structured format by hand — malformed or differently-typed content (e.g. `"amount": "5"` as a string) silently mis-parses instead of failing validation. This Ruby code already uses a real parser in the same package; use it here too.
Hand-rolled JSON/XML parsing via regex Formula/t/trino.rb:49— A regex whose pattern encodes JSON/XML syntax is parsing a structured format by hand — malformed or differently-typed content (e.g. `"amount": "5"` as a string) silently mis-parses instead of failing validation. This Ruby code already uses a real parser in the same package; use it here too.
Hand-rolled JSON/XML parsing via regex Formula/s/sqlancer.rb:32— A regex whose pattern encodes JSON/XML syntax is parsing a structured format by hand — malformed or differently-typed content (e.g. `"amount": "5"` as a string) silently mis-parses instead of failing validation. This Ruby code already uses a real parser in the same package; use it here too.
Hand-rolled JSON/XML parsing via regex Formula/s/svgbob.rb:49— A regex whose pattern encodes JSON/XML syntax is parsing a structured format by hand — malformed or differently-typed content (e.g. `"amount": "5"` as a string) silently mis-parses instead of failing validation. This Ruby code already uses a real parser in the same package; use it here too.
Hand-rolled JSON/XML parsing via regex Formula/s/svgbob.rb:50— A regex whose pattern encodes JSON/XML syntax is parsing a structured format by hand — malformed or differently-typed content (e.g. `"amount": "5"` as a string) silently mis-parses instead of failing validation. This Ruby code already uses a real parser in the same package; use it here too.
Hand-rolled JSON/XML parsing via regex Formula/s/swagger2markup-cli.rb:11— A regex whose pattern encodes JSON/XML syntax is parsing a structured format by hand — malformed or differently-typed content (e.g. `"amount": "5"` as a string) silently mis-parses instead of failing validation. This Ruby code already uses a real parser in the same package; use it here too.
Hand-rolled JSON/XML parsing via regex Formula/r/rhino.rb:10— A regex whose pattern encodes JSON/XML syntax is parsing a structured format by hand — malformed or differently-typed content (e.g. `"amount": "5"` as a string) silently mis-parses instead of failing validation. This Ruby code already uses a real parser in the same package; use it here too.
Hand-rolled JSON/XML parsing via regex Formula/q/quilt-installer.rb:10— A regex whose pattern encodes JSON/XML syntax is parsing a structured format by hand — malformed or differently-typed content (e.g. `"amount": "5"` as a string) silently mis-parses instead of failing validation. This Ruby code already uses a real parser in the same package; use it here too.
Hand-rolled JSON/XML parsing via regex Formula/p/pari-elldata.rb:14— A regex whose pattern encodes JSON/XML syntax is parsing a structured format by hand — malformed or differently-typed content (e.g. `"amount": "5"` as a string) silently mis-parses instead of failing validation. This Ruby code already uses a real parser in the same package; use it here too.
Hand-rolled JSON/XML parsing via regex Formula/p/pari-galdata.rb:14— A regex whose pattern encodes JSON/XML syntax is parsing a structured format by hand — malformed or differently-typed content (e.g. `"amount": "5"` as a string) silently mis-parses instead of failing validation. This Ruby code already uses a real parser in the same package; use it here too.
Hand-rolled JSON/XML parsing via regex Formula/p/pari-galpol.rb:14— A regex whose pattern encodes JSON/XML syntax is parsing a structured format by hand — malformed or differently-typed content (e.g. `"amount": "5"` as a string) silently mis-parses instead of failing validation. This Ruby code already uses a real parser in the same package; use it here too.
Hand-rolled JSON/XML parsing via regex Formula/p/pari-seadata-big.rb:14— A regex whose pattern encodes JSON/XML syntax is parsing a structured format by hand — malformed or differently-typed content (e.g. `"amount": "5"` as a string) silently mis-parses instead of failing validation. This Ruby code already uses a real parser in the same package; use it here too.
Hand-rolled JSON/XML parsing via regex Formula/p/pari-seadata.rb:14— A regex whose pattern encodes JSON/XML syntax is parsing a structured format by hand — malformed or differently-typed content (e.g. `"amount": "5"` as a string) silently mis-parses instead of failing validation. This Ruby code already uses a real parser in the same package; use it here too.
Hand-rolled JSON/XML parsing via regex Formula/p/pax-runner.rb:11— A regex whose pattern encodes JSON/XML syntax is parsing a structured format by hand — malformed or differently-typed content (e.g. `"amount": "5"` as a string) silently mis-parses instead of failing validation. This Ruby code already uses a real parser in the same package; use it here too.
Hand-rolled JSON/XML parsing via regex Formula/o/openapi-generator.rb:10— A regex whose pattern encodes JSON/XML syntax is parsing a structured format by hand — malformed or differently-typed content (e.g. `"amount": "5"` as a string) silently mis-parses instead of failing validation. This Ruby code already uses a real parser in the same package; use it here too.
Hand-rolled JSON/XML parsing via regex Formula/n/nginx.rb:14— A regex whose pattern encodes JSON/XML syntax is parsing a structured format by hand — malformed or differently-typed content (e.g. `"amount": "5"` as a string) silently mis-parses instead of failing validation. This Ruby code already uses a real parser in the same package; use it here too.
Hand-rolled JSON/XML parsing via regex Formula/m/mac.rb:11— A regex whose pattern encodes JSON/XML syntax is parsing a structured format by hand — malformed or differently-typed content (e.g. `"amount": "5"` as a string) silently mis-parses instead of failing validation. This Ruby code already uses a real parser in the same package; use it here too.
Hand-rolled JSON/XML parsing via regex Formula/m/maven-shell.rb:10— A regex whose pattern encodes JSON/XML syntax is parsing a structured format by hand — malformed or differently-typed content (e.g. `"amount": "5"` as a string) silently mis-parses instead of failing validation. This Ruby code already uses a real parser in the same package; use it here too.
Hand-rolled JSON/XML parsing via regex Formula/m/mill.rb:10— A regex whose pattern encodes JSON/XML syntax is parsing a structured format by hand — malformed or differently-typed content (e.g. `"amount": "5"` as a string) silently mis-parses instead of failing validation. This Ruby code already uses a real parser in the same package; use it here too.
Hand-rolled JSON/XML parsing via regex Formula/m/mockserver.rb:10— A regex whose pattern encodes JSON/XML syntax is parsing a structured format by hand — malformed or differently-typed content (e.g. `"amount": "5"` as a string) silently mis-parses instead of failing validation. This Ruby code already uses a real parser in the same package; use it here too.
Hand-rolled JSON/XML parsing via regex Formula/lib/libmetalink.rb:10— A regex whose pattern encodes JSON/XML syntax is parsing a structured format by hand — malformed or differently-typed content (e.g. `"amount": "5"` as a string) silently mis-parses instead of failing validation. This Ruby code already uses a real parser in the same package; use it here too.
Hand-rolled JSON/XML parsing via regex Formula/l/latexml.rb:299— A regex whose pattern encodes JSON/XML syntax is parsing a structured format by hand — malformed or differently-typed content (e.g. `"amount": "5"` as a string) silently mis-parses instead of failing validation. This Ruby code already uses a real parser in the same package; use it here too.
Duplicated predicate Formula/c/camlp-streams.rb:29— `ENV["HOMEBREW_GITHUB_ACTIONS"] && !(Formula["ocaml-findlib"].etc/"findlib.conf").exist?` appears character-identically in 5 files — Formula/c/camlp-streams.rb, Formula/c/camlpdf.rb, Formula/l/ledit.rb, Formula/o/ocaml-zarith.rb. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
Duplicated predicate Formula/d/dbacl.rb:28— `Hardware::CPU.arm? && Hardware::CPU.is_64_bit?` appears character-identically in 5 files — Formula/d/dbacl.rb, Formula/i/idutils.rb, Formula/lib/libdsk.rb, Formula/s/swift.rb. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
Duplicated predicate Formula/a/argyll-cms.rb:116— `OS.linux? && ENV["HOMEBREW_GITHUB_ACTIONS"]` appears character-identically in 49 files — Formula/a/argyll-cms.rb, Formula/a/asnmap.rb, Formula/b/bvi.rb, Formula/c/cherrytree.rb. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
Duplicated predicate Formula/a/aws-sdk-cpp.rb:41— `OS.linux? && ENV["HOMEBREW_GITHUB_ACTIONS"].present?` appears character-identically in 2 files — Formula/a/aws-sdk-cpp.rb, Formula/h/heartbeat.rb. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
Duplicated predicate Formula/a/aerc.rb:27— `OS.linux? && Hardware::CPU.arch == :arm64` appears character-identically in 23 files — Formula/a/aerc.rb, Formula/b/bigquery-emulator.rb, Formula/c/caire.rb, Formula/d/devcockpit.rb. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
Duplicated predicate Formula/b/biome.rb:32— `OS.linux? && Hardware::CPU.arm? && ENV["HOMEBREW_GITHUB_ACTIONS"].present? && ENV["GITHUB_ACTIONS_HOMEBREW_SELF_HOSTED"].blank?` appears character-identically in 6 files — Formula/b/biome.rb, Formula/i/influxdb.rb, Formula/lib/librefang.rb, Formula/o/opencrabs.rb. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
Duplicated predicate Formula/a/aalib.rb:57— `OS.linux? && Hardware::CPU.arm? && Hardware::CPU.is_64_bit?` appears character-identically in 85 files — Formula/a/aalib.rb, Formula/a/argtable.rb, Formula/a/asn1c.rb, Formula/b/bbe.rb. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
Duplicated predicate Formula/b/bazel.rb:68— `OS.linux? && build.bottle? && ENV["HOMEBREW_DYNAMIC_LINKER"]` appears character-identically in 3 files — Formula/b/bazel.rb, Formula/b/bazel@7.rb, Formula/b/bazel@8.rb. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
Duplicated predicate Formula/f/ftnchek.rb:44— `OS.linux? || (OS.mac? && MacOS.version >= :ventura)` appears character-identically in 2 files — Formula/f/ftnchek.rb, Formula/lib/libxmi.rb. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
Duplicated predicate Formula/l/llvm@16.rb:355— `OS.mac? && !MacOS::CLT.version.null? && MacOS::CLT.version < "26.4"` appears character-identically in 3 files — Formula/l/llvm@16.rb, Formula/l/llvm@17.rb, Formula/l/llvm@18.rb. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
Duplicated predicate Formula/lib/libupnp.rb:27— `OS.mac? && DevelopmentTools.clang_build_version < 1700` appears character-identically in 3 files — Formula/lib/libupnp.rb, Formula/n/ncmpc.rb, Formula/s/seqan3.rb. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
Duplicated predicate Formula/b/botan.rb:61— `OS.mac? && DevelopmentTools.clang_build_version <= 1400` appears character-identically in 2 files — Formula/b/botan.rb, Formula/q/qca.rb. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
Duplicated predicate Formula/d/dc3dd.rb:30— `OS.mac? && DevelopmentTools.clang_build_version >= 1700` appears character-identically in 5 files — Formula/d/dc3dd.rb, Formula/d/drafter.rb, Formula/f/fibjs.rb, Formula/f/freeimage.rb. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
Duplicated predicate Formula/b/beagle.rb:44— `OS.mac? && Hardware::CPU.arm? && Hardware::CPU.virtualized?` appears character-identically in 2 files — Formula/b/beagle.rb, Formula/b/beast.rb. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
Duplicated predicate Formula/g/gnu-apl.rb:72— `OS.mac? && MacOS.version >= :golden_gate` appears character-identically in 5 files — Formula/g/gnu-apl.rb, Formula/m/memcached.rb, Formula/n/nfdump.rb, Formula/q/qemu.rb. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
Duplicated predicate Formula/l/llvm@16.rb:371— `OS.mac? && MacOS::Xcode.installed? && MacOS::Xcode.version < "26.4"` appears character-identically in 3 files — Formula/l/llvm@16.rb, Formula/l/llvm@17.rb, Formula/l/llvm@18.rb. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
Duplicated predicate Formula/p/petsc-complex.rb:60— `OS.mac? || File.foreach("#{lib}/petsc/conf/petscvariables").any?` appears character-identically in 2 files — Formula/p/petsc-complex.rb, Formula/p/petsc.rb. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
Duplicated predicate Formula/n/node.rb:174— `args.include?(flag) || ignored_shared_flags.include?(flag)` appears character-identically in 3 files — Formula/n/node.rb, Formula/n/node@22.rb, Formula/n/node@24.rb. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
Duplicated predicate Formula/c/carla.rb:62— `build.stable? && OS.mac? && MacOS.version >= :sequoia` appears character-identically in 2 files — Formula/c/carla.rb, Formula/p/povray.rb. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
Duplicated predicate Formula/c/coreutils.rb:133— `path.directory? || path.basename.to_s == ".DS_Store"` appears character-identically in 2 files — Formula/c/coreutils.rb, Formula/u/uutils-coreutils.rb. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
Duplicated predicate Formula/c/calabash.rb:20— `release["draft"] || release["prerelease"]` appears character-identically in 7 files — Formula/c/calabash.rb, Formula/c/core-lightning.rb, Formula/k/kpt.rb, Formula/n/nelm.rb. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
D26 · Project Cohesion· Projects may be oversized for their cohesion · ×1
Projects may be oversized for their cohesion — 1 of 1 project(s) overshoot their size bounds, lowering Project Cohesion to 0.0/10. The most over is `(repository root)` (487819 LoC, 8703 module-visible types across 29 directories). Review these for cohesion — draw the boundary inside the module first (group each responsibility into its own package or directory and keep the cross-boundary members non-public), since splitting a published package moves types between packages and breaks consumers.
D28 · Secrets (history)· Rotate the exposed credentials · ×1
Thin README — The root README is 52 words, against a bar of 120. Of the three newcomer-critical sections this check looks for by heading, it found no a testing section, no an architecture or project-map section. Sections are matched on HEADING text only, so material written under a heading this check does not recognise — or with no heading at all — is not seen and this row may understate what the document covers.
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.
M2 · Architecture documentation· No architecture diagram/doc · ×1
No architecture diagram/doc — No C4/Structurizr/PlantUML/Mermaid/Graphviz/D2 diagram, no drawn diagram named for the architecture, no file named `architecture` or `design` in any markup this check reads, and nothing in the README, docs or contributor guides that announces the shape — no `## Architecture` heading, no "architecture overview"/"high-level design" phrasing, no "the architecture is …" introduction, no guided code tour. A shape laid out in prose that never names itself as the architecture is not visible to this check, and neither is one kept outside the repository, so this row reports the absence of a re-findable shape document — not evidence that nobody wrote the shape down.
No changelog — No CHANGELOG/HISTORY/RELEASES file — what shipped when isn't easy to reconstruct for support or audit. (Versioning/tagging makes releases traceable, but a changelog records the what.)
X5 · Nullable reference types· Ruby's type checker does not check nil everywhere · ×1
Ruby's type checker does not check nil everywhere — This repository commits no Sorbet configuration (`sorbet/config`) and no `Steepfile`, so nothing type-checks its 8678 Ruby product file(s): a nilable value reaches a method call silently and raises `NoMethodError: undefined method … for nil` the first time it is nil. A `# typed:` sigil does nothing without a `sorbet/config` beside the code; a Steep run configured only on a command line is not something this check can read.
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.
none (no readable dependency manifest): not applicable — Not scored — no dependency manifest in a supported ecosystem was read for this repository. A gap in the analyzer's language coverage, NOT a finding that the repository is free of vulnerable dependencies (a Python pyproject.toml/requirements.txt (pip/uv/Poetry), a Swift Package.swift/Package.resolved, a Cargo manifest, a Go module (go.mod/go.sum), a Gradle version catalogue, a Maven POM, an sbt build (build.sbt), composer.json, package.json, a Dart pubspec.yaml, an Elixir mix.exs/mix.lock (Hex), a rebar.config / erlang.mk DEPS (Hex), a Ruby Gemfile/Gemfile.lock or .gemspec (Bundler/RubyGems) — not scanned yet).
trivy: not applicable — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Docker Compose, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation, ARM, Bicep, Ansible); nothing to scan.
semgrep: not applicable — No personal data was found crossing a boundary the PII/GDPR ruleset checks — nothing written to a log or console sink, placed in a URL or query string, or persisted to browser storage. That is a clean result for the LEAK surface only: this ruleset detects personal data escaping, it does not inventory the personal data a repository holds, so it is not evidence that this repository has no personal-data surface. The personal-data map (Appendix C) and the C1-C5 compliance cards are what speak to that.
disclosure: not applicable — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.
runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.
runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.
runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.
none (no readable dependency manifest): not applicable — Not scored — no dependency manifest in a supported ecosystem was read for this repository. A gap in the analyzer's language coverage, NOT a finding that the repository is free of vulnerable dependencies (a Python pyproject.toml/requirements.txt (pip/uv/Poetry), a Swift Package.swift/Package.resolved, a Cargo manifest, a Go module (go.mod/go.sum), a Gradle version catalogue, a Maven POM, an sbt build (build.sbt), composer.json, package.json, a Dart pubspec.yaml, an Elixir mix.exs/mix.lock (Hex), a rebar.config / erlang.mk DEPS (Hex), a Ruby Gemfile/Gemfile.lock or .gemspec (Bundler/RubyGems) — not scanned yet).
0
—
Run 01a1729f-f1f0-78aa-95fb-44b54457a1d5 · every finding is also locatable in findings.md, and the complete scoring record (with exit codes + durations) in sidecar.json.
Issues: 41 · Warnings: 694 · Recommendations: 80 — Appendix A · all findings · full markdown report.
Generated by Watchdog — deterministic code-health analysis. 25-10-2026 @ 10:34 UTC.
Downloadable artifacts
Machine-readable and reproducible from this commit + frozen rubric — drop them straight into a contract appendix, a CRA dossier, or a downstream SCA / VEX tool.