JetBrains/resharper-fsharp

Executive summary

JetBrains/resharper-fsharp scores 50 out of 100 and is rated Weak, while four of its six lenses score higher still: Architecture and Performance at 100, both rated Exemplary, and Code Health and Maturity at 53, both rated Adequate.

The score is lower than those four because the weakest lens counts most, and here that is Security and Compliance, which scores 42 and is rated Weak. Its Platform End-of-Life dimension scores 2 out of 10, and until that reaches 4, Security and Compliance can't be rated higher than Adequate. The first actions are to resolve the 3 End-of-life runtime finding(s) in Platform End-of-Life and to resolve the 6 High secret finding(s) in Secrets (history), and if Security and Compliance rose to 70, the score would rise from 50 to about 55.

31 findings are critical: 11 in Explicit Debt, eight in Static Analysis (SAST), six in Secret Scanning and six in Secrets (history).

Watchdog couldn't measure 9 dimensions in this code, among them Cyclomatic Complexity, Cognitive Complexity and Cohesion (LCOM4), so they are left out of the score. The product code is 70,697 lines, which would take an estimated 1.0 person-years, around €150,000, to rebuild.

Code Health 53 Adequate, capped by Explicit Debt and Nullable reference types Architecture 100 ★ Exemplary Maturity 53 Adequate, capped by Architecture documentation Production Readiness 48 Weak, capped by Secret Scanning and Security & performance tooling Security and Compliance 42 Weak, capped by Platform End-of-Life Performance 100 ★ Exemplary

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

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

Security and Compliance 42 · counts for 46%Production Readiness 48 · counts for 25%Code Health 53 · counts for 14%Maturity 53 · counts for 8%Architecture 100 · counts for 4%Performance 100 · counts for 2%

If Security and Compliance rose from 42 to 70, the lowest score rated Strong, the score would rise from 50 to about 55.

Code composition: what the lines of code are

Business logic 12%Supporting code 24%Tests 64%

New since the last survey: 1 finding

This critical or serious finding wasn't in the previous survey, on 9 October 2026.

Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED

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: 1 finding

This critical or serious finding was in the previous survey, on 9 October 2026, and is gone from this one.

Supply-chain Provenance & Signing REDACTED

Rebuild cost: about €150,000 · Estimate

Cost to rebuild	€48,000 to €250,000, for 808 to 2,581 hours of work, about 1.0 person-years for 1 to 2 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	×0.7 at a score of 50. Better code takes more work to write, so the factor is ×1.0 at a score of 70, lower below it and higher above it.
Size	Medium: 70,697 lines of product code
Comment lines	The estimate prices 70,202 lines. Comment lines count towards the size of 70,697 lines but aren't priced as work.

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.

Top priorities

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

Resolve the 3 End-of-life runtime finding(s) in Platform End-of-Life — start with ClassLibrary1.fsproj, CSharpLibrary.csproj, FSharp.TypeProviders.Host.NetCore.csproj.

Raises the score by about 5 points · Low effort · Platform End-of-Life

Resolve the 6 High secret finding(s) in Secrets (history) — start with REDACTED (5), REDACTED.

Raises the score by about 5 points · Low effort · Secrets (history)

Resolve the 6 Leaked secret finding(s) in Secret Scanning — start with REDACTED (5), REDACTED.

Raises the score by about 5 points · Low effort · Secret Scanning

Diagnosis: what the measurements show together

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

Where the investment is most exposed · Value at risk

This code would cost about €150,000 to build again, about 1.0 person-years of work. Its weakest lens is Security and Compliance, at 42 (Weak). Security and Compliance is about how well the product is protected, and how it handles personal data. Because the weakest lens counts most in the score, work on Security and Compliance also moves the score most.

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

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

If you do one thing first · First action

Resolve the 3 End-of-life runtime finding(s) in Platform End-of-Life. Of all the actions in this report, it raises the score most for the work it takes: about 5 points for low effort, because it clears the 3 Platform End-of-Life findings. The next survey will show the change in the score.

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

Architecture — bounded-context dependency graph

Each box is a bounded context (its layer projects grouped, or a project count when large); arrows show dependencies between contexts. A shared kernel is where many arrows converge.

Architecture: which parts of the code depend on which

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

307 modules, with 270 dependencies between them. 2 loops run through 8 of the modules, marked above the diagonal.

The table shows the 40 modules with the most connections; 267 more are left out to keep it readable.

Which modules use which. The module on each row uses the module in each column, and the number counts the pairs of types that connect them. A cell above the diagonal is part of a loop.
uses →	1 DocumentRangeExtensions	2 FSharpFileSystemPathExtensions	3 JetBrains.ReSharper.Plugins.FSharp.Checker.FcsCheckerService	4 JetBrains.ReSharper.Plugins.FSharp.ProjectModel.FSharpProjectModelUtil	5 JetBrains.ReSharper.Plugins.FSharp.Util.SettingsStoreUtil	6 com.jetbrains.rider.ideaInterop.fileTypes.fsharp.lexer	7 JetBrains.ReSharper.Plugins.FSharp.ProjectModel.Util	8 JetBrains.ReSharper.Plugins.FSharp.Psi.PsiUtil	9 JetBrains.ReSharper.Plugins.FSharp.Util.CommonUtil	10 com.jetbrains.rider.ideaInterop.fileTypes.fsharp.highlighting	11 com.jetbrains.rider.ideaInterop.fileTypes.fsharp.psi	12 JetBrains.ReSharper.Plugins.FSharp.Psi.Features.CodeCompletion	13 JetBrains.ReSharper.Plugins.FSharp.Psi.Features.CodeCompletion.FSharpCodeCompletionContext	14 JetBrains.ReSharper.Plugins.FSharp.Psi.Features.Util.FcsTypeUtil	21 JetBrains.ReSharper.Plugins.FSharp.Psi.Services.Util.FSharpCompletionUtil	22 JetBrains.ReSharper.Plugins.FSharp.Util.FSharpSymbolUtil	23 JetBrains.ReSharper.Plugins.FSharp.ProjectModel.Host.ProjectItems.ItemsContainer	27 JetBrains.ReSharper.Plugins.FSharp.Settings	28 JetBrains.ReSharper.Plugins.FSharp.Shim.FileSystem	29 JetBrains.ReSharper.Plugins.FSharp.ProjectModel.Scripts	30 JetBrains.ReSharper.Plugins.FSharp.Services.Formatter	31 JetBrains.ReSharper.Plugins.FSharp.ProjectModel	32 JetBrains.ReSharper.Plugins.FSharp.Shim.TypeProviders	33 JetBrains.ReSharper.Plugins.FSharp.Checker	34 JetBrains.ReSharper.Plugins.FSharp.Checker.FcsProjectBuilder	38 JetBrains.ReSharper.Plugins.FSharp.Shim.AssemblyReader
1 DocumentRangeExtensions
2 FSharpFileSystemPathExtensions
3 JetBrains.ReSharper.Plugins.FSharp.Checker.FcsCheckerService
4 JetBrains.ReSharper.Plugins.FSharp.ProjectModel.FSharpProjectModelUtil
5 JetBrains.ReSharper.Plugins.FSharp.Util.SettingsStoreUtil
6 com.jetbrains.rider.ideaInterop.fileTypes.fsharp.lexer
7 JetBrains.ReSharper.Plugins.FSharp.ProjectModel.Util		1
8 JetBrains.ReSharper.Plugins.FSharp.Psi.PsiUtil	1
9 JetBrains.ReSharper.Plugins.FSharp.Util.CommonUtil		1
10 com.jetbrains.rider.ideaInterop.fileTypes.fsharp.highlighting						1
11 com.jetbrains.rider.ideaInterop.fileTypes.fsharp.psi						1
12 JetBrains.ReSharper.Plugins.FSharp.Psi.Features.CodeCompletion	1	2						2
13 JetBrains.ReSharper.Plugins.FSharp.Psi.Features.CodeCompletion.FSharpCodeCompletionContext								1
14 JetBrains.ReSharper.Plugins.FSharp.Psi.Features.Util.FcsTypeUtil								2
15 JetBrains.ReSharper.Plugins.FSharp.Psi.LanguageService.Parsing		2	1					1	1
16 JetBrains.ReSharper.Plugins.FSharp.Psi.Util.OpensUtil	1				1			2
17 com.jetbrains.rider.ideaInterop.fileTypes.fsharp.psi.impl						1					18
18 com.jetbrains.rider.plugins.fsharp.services.fsi										2
19 JetBrains.ReSharper.Plugins.FSharp.Psi.Daemon.Stages	1				3			6						1
20 JetBrains.ReSharper.Plugins.FSharp.Psi.Features.Util.FSharpNamingService								1	1					1
21 JetBrains.ReSharper.Plugins.FSharp.Psi.Services.Util.FSharpCompletionUtil													1
22 JetBrains.ReSharper.Plugins.FSharp.Util.FSharpSymbolUtil														1
23 JetBrains.ReSharper.Plugins.FSharp.ProjectModel.Host.ProjectItems.ItemsContainer		5					1		6						2
24 JetBrains.ReSharper.Plugins.FSharp.Psi.Features.Generate.GenerateOverrides								1								1
25 JetBrains.ReSharper.Plugins.FSharp.Psi.Features.Intentions	1							4							2
26 JetBrains.ReSharper.Plugins.FSharp.Psi.Features.ParameterInfo	1													1	1	1
27 JetBrains.ReSharper.Plugins.FSharp.Settings									3						4							1
28 JetBrains.ReSharper.Plugins.FSharp.Shim.FileSystem		2							2						1
29 JetBrains.ReSharper.Plugins.FSharp.ProjectModel.Scripts		4	1					2	1						2			1				1		1
30 JetBrains.ReSharper.Plugins.FSharp.Services.Formatter		2			1			1							1			2
31 JetBrains.ReSharper.Plugins.FSharp.ProjectModel		2					2													1
32 JetBrains.ReSharper.Plugins.FSharp.Shim.TypeProviders							1								1			1		2				2
33 JetBrains.ReSharper.Plugins.FSharp.Checker		2		1			3	6	7						1		2	1		1		1	1
34 JetBrains.ReSharper.Plugins.FSharp.Checker.FcsProjectBuilder							1															1
35 JetBrains.ReSharper.Plugins.FSharp.Psi.Features.CodeCompletion.Rules												1	12		1	1						1
36 JetBrains.ReSharper.Plugins.FSharp.Psi.Features.Fsi				1					2						1			2				1
37 JetBrains.ReSharper.Plugins.FSharp.Psi.Daemon.Analyzers								3																1
38 JetBrains.ReSharper.Plugins.FSharp.Shim.AssemblyReader		3					1		3						1			1	1					1
39 JetBrains.ReSharper.Plugins.FSharp.Tests			1				2	1	2								1			1		2		3	2
40 JetBrains.ReSharper.Plugins.FSharp.Tests.Host															1		1	1			1			1		1

Uses a module listed above itPart of a loopThe module itself

At a glance — Code Health · 53% · Adequate · gated by D17, X5 ·

The Good

D3 · .NET / C# God Classes 8.9 D4 · .NET / C# Code Duplication 9.7 GD1 · Repo Unfinished & placeholder code 9.9 IC1 · Repo Incompleteness & stubs 10.0 X1 · Repo Async correctness 10.0 X12 · Repo Unreachable branch 10.0 X13 · Repo Undrained process stream 10.0 X16 · Repo Unfloored truncation loop 10.0 X18 · Repo Disposal-pattern correctness 10.0 X19 · Repo Unrestored process-global state 10.0 X20 · Repo Mistyped argument guard 10.0 X21 · Repo Side-effecting pattern guard 10.0 X22 · Repo Contradicted release guard 10.0 X23 · Repo Unguarded diagnostic materialisation 10.0 X25 · Repo Inert configuration knob 10.0 X26 · Repo Unsynchronised callback handoff 10.0 X27 · Repo Collection changed while being enumerated 10.0 X28 · Repo Index access outside its own emptiness guard 10.0 X29 · Repo Per-element action decided by a fixed element 10.0 X3 · Repo Exception handling 10.0 X30 · Repo Support guard that admits what it rejects 10.0 X32 · Repo Type resolved by simple name across every loaded assembly 10.0 X4 · Repo Structured logging 10.0

The Ugly

D17 · .NET / C# Explicit Debt 0.0 X5 · Repo Nullable reference types 2.0

At a glance — Architecture · 100% · Exemplary ·

The Good

D5 · .NET / C# Coupling 10.0 D26 · .NET / C# Project Cohesion 10.0 D35 · .NET / C# Change Coupling 9.9 AX10 · Repo Code composition 10.0 AX3 · Repo Project dependency cycles 10.0 AX5 · Repo Architecture & structure 10.0 AX6 · Repo Interface segregation 10.0 AX7 · Repo Slice cohesion 10.0 AX8 · Repo Test isolation 10.0

At a glance — Maturity · 53% · Adequate · gated by M2 ·

The Good

D16 · .NET / C# Bus Factor 8.7 D19 · .NET / C# Documentation Quality 8.0 D21 · .NET / C# Naming Consistency 10.0 D34 · .NET / C# Knowledge Freshness 9.7 M3 · Repo Folder & project structure 10.0 M4 · Repo Documentation accuracy 9.5

The Bad

M1 · Repo Documentation (README) 5.2

The Ugly

D20 · .NET / C# ADR Quality 0.0 M2 · Repo Architecture documentation 0.0

At a glance — Readiness · 48% · Weak · gated by D13, P3 ·

The Good

D14 · .NET / C# License Compliance 10.0 P1 · Repo CI/CD gates 10.0 P6 · Repo Release Hygiene 10.0

The Bad

P2 · Repo Observability 6.5

The Ugly

D13 · .NET / C# Secret Scanning 0.0 P3 · Repo Security & performance tooling 0.0

At a glance — Security · 42% · Weak · gated by D44 ·

The Good

X14 · Repo Bypassable address classification 10.0 X15 · Repo Unvalidated length from an untrusted reader 10.0 X17 · Repo Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document 10.0 X24 · Repo Document value interpolated into markup unescaped 10.0

The Bad

D29 · .NET / C# Static Analysis (SAST) 6.7

The Ugly

D28 · .NET / C# Secrets (history) 4.0 D44 · .NET / C# Platform End-of-Life 2.0

At a glance — Performance · 100% · Exemplary ·

The Good

PF3 · Repo Async & latency hygiene 10.0

Security & Compliance — OWASP Top-10 mapping

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

OWASP category	Findings	Severity
A07:2025 — Authentication Failures	12	High / Critical
A05:2025 — Injection	9	High / Critical

Roadmap

Begin by addressing the three End-of-Life runtime findings in the platform projects to ensure long-term viability. Immediately remediate the high-severity secrets and leaked credentials found in history and scanning tools, focusing on the identified key files. Next, clear the explicit debt by resolving the NoWarn suppressions in the specified project files, and finally, fix the static analysis issues related to process argument interpolation in the listed source files.

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

Do this	Helps	Effort	Dimension
Resolve the 3 End-of-life runtime finding(s) in Platform End-of-Life — start with ClassLibrary1.fsproj, CSharpLibrary.csproj, FSharp.TypeProviders.Host.NetCore.csproj.	+5.2 pts	Low	Platform End-of-Life
Resolve the 6 High secret finding(s) in Secrets (history) — start with REDACTED (5), REDACTED.	+4.7 pts	Low	Secrets (history)
Resolve the 6 Leaked secret finding(s) in Secret Scanning — start with REDACTED (5), REDACTED.	+4.6 pts	Low	Secret Scanning
Resolve the 2 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED, REDACTED.	+3.1 pts	Low	Static Analysis (SAST)
Resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality.	+2.6 pts	Low	ADR Quality
Resolve the 11 NoWarnInCsproj finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with FSharp.Fantomas.Host.csproj (2), FSharp.TypeProviders.Host.NetCore.csproj (2), FSharp.Debugger.csproj.	+3.7 pts	Medium	Explicit Debt
Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED.	+1.7 pts	Low	Static Analysis (SAST)
Add a SAST step to CI running what this repository's stack ships: `semgrep --config=auto` plus gitleaks for committed secrets (F# is not a CodeQL language and has no language-specific SAST engine) — so a security regression fails the build instead of landing.	+2.8 pts	Medium	Security & performance tooling

File quality

Per-file score 0–10 — a quality signature. Of 75 files carrying findings, judged against the Production bar: 1% slop · 51% mixed · 48% near-clean.

File	Score	Band	Worst signal
REDACTED	1.3	Slop	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp.TypeProviders.Host/FSharp.TypeProviders.Host.NetCore/FSharp.TypeProviders.Host.NetCore.csproj	4.3	Mixed	Explicit Debt: NoWarnInCsproj
REDACTED	4.4	Mixed	Secret Scanning: Leaked secret: REDACTED
REDACTED	4.4	Mixed	Secret Scanning: Leaked secret: REDACTED
REDACTED	4.4	Mixed	Secret Scanning: Leaked secret: REDACTED
REDACTED	4.4	Mixed	Secret Scanning: Leaked secret: REDACTED
REDACTED	4.4	Mixed	Secret Scanning: Leaked secret: REDACTED
REDACTED	4.4	Mixed	Secret Scanning: Leaked secret: REDACTED
REDACTED	5.7	Mixed	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/PostfixTemplates/ForPostfixTemplate.fs	5.9	Mixed	Code Duplication: Duplicated block (11 lines × 2)
ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp.Fantomas.Host/FSharp.Fantomas.Host.csproj	6.4	Mixed	Explicit Debt: NoWarnInCsproj
ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/Parsing/FSharpImplTreeBuilder.fs	7.1	Mixed	God Classes: FileTooLong: Parsing/FSharpImplTreeBuilder.fs
REDACTED	7.2	Mixed	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/FSharpTypingAssist.fs	7.4	Mixed	God Classes: FileTooLong: src/FSharpTypingAssist.fs
ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/CodeCompletion/Rules/GenerateLambdaRule.fs	7.4	Mixed	Code Duplication: Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens)
ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/CodeCompletion/Rules/ImportModuleMemberRule.fs	7.4	Mixed	Code Duplication: Duplicated block (12–13 lines × 2)
ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/CodeCompletion/Rules/ImportExtensionMemberRule.fs	7.4	Mixed	Code Duplication: Duplicated block (6 lines × 2)
ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp.Debugger/FSharp.Debugger.csproj	7.6	Mixed	Explicit Debt: NoWarnInCsproj
ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.TypeProviders.Protocol/FSharp.TypeProviders.Protocol.csproj	7.6	Mixed	Explicit Debt: NoWarnInCsproj
ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi/FSharp.Psi.csproj	7.6	Mixed	Explicit Debt: NoWarnInCsproj

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 — 31

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 — 116

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 — 28

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

Could not be resolved — 11

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. 54 of 57 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); 3 documentation/naming judgement(s) are LLM-assisted and labelled advisory. Overall confidence is 0.7 — 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 — 57 dimensions across the health lenses

D3D4D5D13D14D16D17D19D20D21D26D28D29D34D35D44AX10AX3AX5AX6AX7AX8GD1IC1M1M2M3M4P1P2P3P6PF3X1X12X13X14X15X16X17X18X19X20X21X22X23X24X25X26X27X28X29X3X30X32X4X5

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, 159 of 175 do; the remainder are repo-wide signals — a dimension-level measurement, not a single line. (Every path in this report is repo-relative by construction: paths are normalized at the producer and the report is rejected if any rooted path leaks through.)
Is there a tool behind the number? Every score below names the method that produced it — Roslyn, git, a scanner, or (for a handful of documentation/naming dimensions) an LLM labelled sampled · advisory — not a narrative.
Does re-running give the same result? Run it again on the same commit and the score — and this report, byte for byte — is identical. A report whose numbers move between runs is describing the run, not the code.

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

Tools & methods

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

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

Every finding is locatable in findings.md. Run 01a16b3c-1816-7ada-8b8f-5de404f58303.

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

Run transparency — what happened this run

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

D1 Cyclomatic Complexity — 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. Most of this repository's production source (.cs, .fs) had no cyclomatic complexity computed for it: no method bodies were exposed for those file kinds by any language model this pass could load.
D2 Cognitive Complexity — 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. Most of this repository's production source (.cs, .fs) had no cognitive complexity computed for it: no method bodies were exposed for those file kinds by any language model this pass could load.
D4 Code Duplication — measured, with a gap in what it reached — Watchdog measured this, but not all of it. What it did not reach is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — so the numbers on that dimension cover less than the repository, and the part left out is not evidence that it would have passed. The 49 duplicated block group(s) on this row were found in the languages this pass could tokenize, and they do NOT cover all of this repository's production source: .cs (28,444 lines, 40% of production source) went unread, because no language model this pass could load exposed a clone-unit token stream for those file kinds. Duplication in that source is UNMEASURED — its absence from the count above is a gap in this analyzer's language coverage, not a finding that the code is free of duplication.
D6 Cohesion (LCOM4) — 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. 416 of 416 class(es) with two or more methods were found, but the language model this pass loaded exposed none of their method bodies, so which method touches which field could not be seen.
D11 Test Reliability — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Test reliability NOT MEASURED: the analyzer environment could not build/run the test suite (a target framework / SDK band or targeting pack the analyzer image doesn't carry), so no test ever ran. This is OUR limitation, not a defect in the repo — it is excluded from the score. We track the analyzer-image gap so it can be closed.
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. `dotnet list package` did not return usable output (restore or query failed); no outdated/vulnerable/deprecated data to assess. The tool said: `dotnet list package` exited 1 with no output.
D14 License Compliance — measured, with a gap in what it reached — Watchdog measured this, but not all of it. What it did not reach is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — so the numbers on that dimension cover less than the repository, and the part left out is not evidence that it would have passed. This repository declares a Gradle build (build.gradle/build.gradle.kts), but the licence verdict published here was taken over its NuGet package dependencies. Nothing was read about its Gradle dependencies' licensing in either direction, and a clean score on this card must not be read as covering them.
D15 Churn × Complexity Hotspots — 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. A hotspot is churn × complexity. Churn was measured (142351 line(s) across the 90-day window), but no complexity could be computed for .cs, .fs, which is most of this repository's production code — so every churned file would score as complexity 0 and the hotspot list would be empty no matter how tangled the code is. Not scored — this is a gap in the analysis run, not a finding about this repository.
D17 Explicit Debt — measured, with a gap in what it reached — Watchdog measured this, but not all of it. What it did not reach is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — so the numbers on that dimension cover less than the repository, and the part left out is not evidence that it would have passed. The C# workspace loaded this repository's projects but reported a load failure, and the dead-code reference search is unreliable over a graph that did not load cleanly, so it was skipped. The other debt markers on this row were read; dead symbols were not, and their absence from the score is not a finding that the code has none. First load diagnostic: Failure: Msbuild failed when processing the file 'ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi/FSharp.Psi.csproj' with message: The SDK 'JetBrains.Toolset.MainSolution.Sdk/20200625.1.1.2' specified could not be found. ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi/FSharp.Psi.csproj.
D17 Explicit Debt — measured, with a gap in what it reached — Watchdog measured this, but not all of it. What it did not reach is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — so the numbers on that dimension cover less than the repository, and the part left out is not evidence that it would have passed. The 12 deducted marker(s) and the 5.1/KLoC density on this row were taken over this repository's .NET projects ALONE: .fs (37,599 lines, 53% of production source), .cs (28,444 lines, 40% of production source) went unread, because every marker collector on this path is reached through a C# workspace. D17's marker collectors need a compiler we do not have for that language, so none of its nine marker kinds were read there. The debt in that source is UNMEASURED — its absence from the score above is a gap in this analyzer's language coverage, not a finding that the code carries none.
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. The loaded project set declares no packable project and no `.Contracts` project, so there is no intentionally-exposed surface for API consistency to be judged over.
D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Large codebase (70,697 production LoC in the .NET projects) with no declared bounded contexts — cross-boundary type coupling is unassessed Bounded contexts cannot be inferred from a codebase that is not physically organised by them (D-321), so with none declared there are no boundaries for the coupling pass to measure across. You can widen what we reach: name this codebase's bounded contexts (≥2 module groups, e.g. per subsystem) so cross-boundary type coupling can be assessed. Declare them in `.codehealth/config.yaml` at the repository root (create it if absent), mapping each context name to the module-path or namespace prefixes that belong to it — e.g. `architecture:` → `contexts:` → `Billing: ["src/billing", "Acme.Billing"]`, `Catalog: ["src/catalog", "Acme.Catalog"]`.
D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — 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. `ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp.Debugger/src/FSharpAsyncStepper.cs`, `ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp.Debugger/src/FSharpSequencePointInvokedMethodsProvider.cs`, `ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp.Debugger/src/FSharpUnitReturnValueFilter.cs`, `ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.ProjectModelBase/src/FSharpAsyncUtil.cs`, `ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.ProjectModelBase/src/FSharpZones.cs`, … (+94 more) produced a parse error, so every rule in this engine's `gdpr.yml` was absent there. That absence is NOT a clean result: these rules detect personal data crossing a boundary into a log sink, a URL or browser storage, and a file that was never parsed cannot report any of the three. The rest of the tree analysed normally and its rows above stand; only these files are unaccounted for. You can widen what we reach: fix the syntax error (or exclude the file deliberately) and re-scan to cover it.
D39 IL Efficiency — 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. IL NOT MEASURED: the analyzer's own build of this repository failed for an ENVIRONMENT reason (exit 1) — MSBuild's engine or the CLR gave up, or our image does not carry the SDK band/targeting pack this repository needs. This is OUR limitation, not a defect in the repo, and it is not a statement that this repository fails to build. D18 owns the question of whether this repository builds; it was not answered here.
D43 Malicious Dependencies — 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. Osv: osv-scanner exited 127 with no findings — dependency CVEs were not measured. 'osv-scanner' exited 127 and produced no findings, and that exit code has no documented repo-side meaning — so this run measured nothing, and nothing here is a statement about the repository.
AXB1 Runtime evidence locked — no reproducible boot — 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. Subject: 1 markup document(s) — HTML, Razor, JSX, Vue, Svelte or server templates. The Runtime Evidence tier boots an app only via docker-compose, an Aspire AppHost, a Dockerfile, an npm dev script, a web service's own toolchain entry point (cargo, go, dotnet, Python, Spring Boot), or an Android app's own Gradle wrapper (run on an emulator); an Apple or Flutter app needs a host it lacks. None applied, so no live runtime a11y/egress/header evidence was collected. You can widen what we reach: add a docker-compose.yml (or an Aspire AppHost) that brings the app up with its dependencies. Watchdog then boots it in an isolated sandbox and gathers real runtime evidence — you change nothing in your pipeline (no CI step, no SDK).
P5 DR & Backup — 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. No backup/snapshot/replication config, RTO/RPO or restore-procedure documentation was found — and no production persistence was detected either (no data-access packages, no data-store services, no database resources), so there is nothing in this repository whose loss a DR control would recover. If this system's data lives in a platform or ops repo we can't see, that's where the DR evidence belongs.
Package restore incomplete — third-party types were unresolved in part of the solution — NuGet restore did not complete for ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi/FSharp.Psi.csproj, ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Features/FSharp.Psi.Features.fsproj, ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Common/FSharp.Common.fsproj, ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.ProjectModelBase/FSharp.ProjectModelBase.csproj, ReSharper.FSharp/test/src/FSharp.Tests/FSharp.Tests.fsproj and 14 more, so those projects were analysed with framework references only: every check keyed on a third-party type saw an error type there and reported nothing. Findings on those projects are a lower bound; run `dotnet restore` on them and rescan.

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.

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.
D13 Secret Scanning: Secret detection is signature- and entropy-based on the current tree — a secret that does not match a known pattern, or one already rotated, will not be flagged (a clean scan is "nothing matched", not "no secrets exist").
D14 License Compliance: License compatibility is checked against declared package metadata and a policy — mislabelled or missing license metadata, and obligations that depend on how you distribute, are not resolved here.
D16 Bus Factor: Bus-factor is a time-decayed model of commit attribution (who has recently, repeatedly worked a file), not comprehension — pairing, review and reading-without-committing spread knowledge it can't see; bot commits and shared accounts still distort it.
D17 Explicit Debt: Acknowledged-debt signals (TODO/FIXME, suppressions, dead code) are textual — undocumented debt that nobody marked, and debt that lives in design rather than annotations, is invisible. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, generated stubs) is excluded — it is never the team's dead code to delete.
D19 Documentation Quality: Documentation quality is judged by an LLM over a bounded sample of docs — it reads what is written, not whether the docs match the running system, and it is advisory, not a measurement. Its critique rows are drawn from a closed category vocabulary and each row means the same thing in every run, so two scans can be compared row by row; the SET that fires is still a sample, and does not repeat exactly. Measured on one frozen input, six scans at one engine SHA: 2-5 critique rows per scan, 8 distinct rows across the six, 3 of those 8 seen in only one scan. So a D19 row is evidence about the documentation, but a COUNT of D19 rows is not a quantity — never read a change in it as an improvement or a regression.
D20 ADR Quality: ADR quality is an LLM read of the decision records present — it cannot know about decisions made and never recorded, and its verdict is sampled and advisory.
D21 Naming Consistency: Naming quality is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it assesses clarity/consistency of the names it sees, not domain-correctness, and is advisory.
D26 Project Cohesion: Project focus is sized from members/namespaces per project — a project that is broad by deliberate design reads the same as one that has sprawled.
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.
M4 Documentation accuracy: Onboarding quality is an LLM read of the docs/setup present — it cannot run the onboarding or measure how long a real new joiner takes; the verdict is sampled and advisory.
P6 Release Hygiene: Rollback/observability controls are inferred from repo artefacts (pipelines, dashboards-as-code) — controls configured in external tooling, with no in-repo trace, cannot be credited.

The LLM boundary

LLM-set scores this run (3): D19, D21, M4 (model: Local LLM). For these, a model reads a bounded sample and sets the numeric score; each names its own sample and method on its card. They are sampled and advisory by design: they vary at the margins between runs and are never a deterministic measurement. Every other score in this report is tool-computed at confidence 1.0.

Dimensions

D3 · God Classes8.9 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Over-large classes that try to do too much ("god classes").

Method: God-class detection by line and method-count thresholds per logical type (partial classes unified), filtered for generated code and registration/contract false positives. Deterministic.

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

22 god class(es) detected.

FileTooLong: AssemblyReader/ProjectFcsModuleReader.fs · ×10ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Common/src/Shim/AssemblyReader/ProjectFcsModuleReader.fs

TooManyMethods: ProjectFcsModuleReader · ×7ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Common/src/Shim/AssemblyReader/ProjectFcsModuleReader.fs:138

TooManyFunctions: PsiUtil · ×3ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Services/src/Util/PsiUtil.fs:2

ClassTooLong: FSharpEnterHandlerDelegate · ×2rider-fsharp/src/main/java/com/jetbrains/rider/plugins/fsharp/editorActions/FSharpEnterHandlerDelegate.kt:33

What to do

Resolve the 10 FileTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with ProjectFcsModuleReader.fs, FSharpTypingAssist.fs, FSharpImplTreeBuilder.fs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (10 warning-level).
Resolve the 7 TooManyMethods finding(s) in God Classes — start with ProjectFcsModuleReader.fs, FSharpTreeBuilderBase.fs, FSharpTypingAssist.fs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (7 warning-level).
Resolve the 3 TooManyFunctions finding(s) in God Classes — start with PsiUtil.fs, FcsErrorsStageProcessBase.fs, FSharpHighlightingAttributeIds.fs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 warning-level).
Enforce God Classes in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D4 · Code Duplication9.7 / 10Stronggated by 54 serious findings✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

49 duplicated block group(s) detected. A further 5 rows report members as variants of one another; they aggregate block groups already counted above and are not themselves counted. 1 of the 54 are in trees this repository does not ship — vendored, example/demo, fixture and benchmark code — and are ranked below the shipped groups rather than excluded from them: the duplication there is real and is still counted in this dimension's score. The dimensions that publish a production-file census leave those trees out of theirs, so this count is deliberately drawn over the wider population. Measured on part of this repository only: .cs (40% of production source) was not exposed to the token comparison, so duplication there is unmeasured and is not in this count.

Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) · ×12ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Daemon/src/Analyzers/AppExpressionAnalyzer.fs:5

Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) · ×6ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/Debugger/FSharpSourceCallableExpressionsProvider.fs:262

Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) · ×5ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/CodeCompletion/Rules/ImportExtensionMemberRule.fs:56

Duplicated block (5 lines × 3) · ×5ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Daemon/src/Analyzers/RedundantQualifierAnalyzer.fs:7

Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) · ×3ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/CodeCompletion/Rules/GenerateLambdaRule.fs:1

+ 15 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

What to do

Resolve the 12 Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with AppExpressionAnalyzer.fs, AsPatAnalyzer.fs, IndexerExprAnalyzer.fs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (12 warning-level).
Resolve the 6 Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with FSharpSourceCallableExpressionsProvider.fs, FSharpTypingAssist.fs, FSharpImplTreeBuilder.fs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (6 warning-level).
Resolve the 5 Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with ImportExtensionMemberRule.fs, UnionCasePatternRule.fs, FSharpInternalActionGroup.fs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (5 warning-level).
Enforce Code Duplication in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

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

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

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d5_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

6 secret(s) detected.

REDACTED

What to do

Resolve the 6 Leaked secret finding(s) in Secret Scanning — start with REDACTED (5), REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (6 issue-level).
Enforce Secret Scanning in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

0 of 106 packages use a banned license. ★ DEPTH: this repository's MSBuild projects declare 32 direct `PackageReference`(s), and 83 further package(s) were reached beyond them by closing the graph over nuget.org's own nuspec dependency graph — so a banned licence pulled in only by a dependency's OWN dependencies is inside this verdict. A package whose licence nuget.org could not be asked for is not graded, and version ranges are taken at their lower bound, so this is the closure as that graph states it rather than a restored consumer's exact resolution. ★ COVERAGE OF THIS VERDICT: it grades this repository's NuGet package dependencies and nothing else. The repository also declares a Gradle build (build.gradle/build.gradle.kts), and the licences of those dependencies were NOT read by this pass — a gap in this engine's coverage, not a statement about them. So this result says the graded closure carries no banned licence; it does NOT say this repository's licensing is clear.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d14_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D16 · Bus Factor8.7 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether knowledge is concentrated in too few people (the "bus factor").

Method: Living knowledge per author via time-decayed commit attribution (6-month half-life, focus weighting) across largest source files. Deterministic, avoids blame's mechanical-refactor false positives.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 8.7 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

42 source file(s) have their living knowledge concentrated in one author (≥90% of recent, decayed contribution). The largest is ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Common/src/Shim/AssemblyReader/ProjectFcsModuleReader.fs. Counted over 326 of the 1009 production source files in this repository: 679 are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over, and the remaining 4 have no attributable history left to measure.

Off-boarding risk: anonymized user #1 · ×3

Further sole-owners (lower concentration)

What to do

Resolve the 3 Off-boarding risk finding(s) in Bus Factor. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 recommendation-level).
Resolve the 1 Further sole-owners (lower concentration) finding(s) in Bus Factor. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

Detailed fixes: d16_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D17 · Explicit Debt0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

12 deducted debt markers + unmeasured dead symbols across 186 LoC in the .NET projects (5.1/KLoC) → score 0.0. Dead code not measured: the solution did not load cleanly, so the reference search was skipped. Measured on the .NET source only: .fs, .cs (93% of production source) was not read, and carries at least 0 uncounted task marker(s) in 0 file(s).

NoWarnInCsproj · ×11ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp.Fantomas.Host/FSharp.Fantomas.Host.csproj:15

FixmeCommentReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp.RiderPlugin/src/Install/ExemptFromZoningValidation.cs:13

What to do

Resolve the 11 NoWarnInCsproj finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with FSharp.Fantomas.Host.csproj (2), FSharp.TypeProviders.Host.NetCore.csproj (2), FSharp.Debugger.csproj. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (11 issue-level).
Resolve the 1 FixmeComment finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with ExemptFromZoningValidation.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Enforce Explicit Debt in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D19 · Documentation QualityStrong◐ Sampled · advisory

What it measures: Whether the project's documentation is clear, complete, and useful.

Method: Judged by language model at low temperature (0.0-0.1) on a deterministic doc sample (READMEs plus first 25 architecture docs), with two-pass stability filtering. Advisory, sampled.

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

The repository's root README gives a clear overview (F# support in JetBrains Rider implemented as two components and open-source dependencies) plus installation/build steps for the plugin. The ReSharper.FSharp/docs/dump_psi_to_file.md file is an internal usage/doc guide for dumping PSI to a test file, showing how to manipulate it and run tests. Both documents are well-structured with headings and examples.

XML-doc coverage: FSharp.RiderPluginReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp.RiderPlugin/FSharp.RiderPlugin.csproj

What to do

Improve Documentation Quality — currently 8.0/10. — The repository's root README gives a clear overview (F# support in JetBrains Rider implemented as two components and open-source dependencies) plus installation/build steps for the plugin. The ReSharper.FSharp/docs/dump_psi_to_file.md file is an internal usage/doc guide for dumping PSI to a test file, showing how to manipulate it and run tests. Both documents are well-structured with headings and examples.

Detailed fixes: d19_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D20 · ADR Quality0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

No architecture decision records were found.

No ADRs found

What to do

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D21 · Naming ConsistencyExemplary◐ Sampled · advisory

What it measures: Whether names — types, methods, variables — are clear and consistent.

Method: Judged by language model at low temperature (0.0-0.1) on a deterministic random symbol sample (fixed size, not exhaustive), with disclosed confidence band. Advisory, sampled.

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

0 naming inconsistencies across 32 sampled symbols.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d21_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

0 of 10 projects flagged as possibly oversized/incoherent.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d26_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D28 · Secrets (history)4.0 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 4.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

6 finding(s): 0 critical, 6 high, 0 medium, 0 low.

REDACTED

What to do

Resolve the 6 High secret finding(s) in Secrets (history) — start with REDACTED (5), REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (6 issue-level).

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)6.7 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

Method: Polyglot static analysis via semgrep across the repo using the pinned, image-baked p/security-audit + p/owasp-top-ten rulesets (no scan-time registry fetch); severity rules (ERROR/WARNING/INFO) map to a full-band severity-weighted score. Exhaustive, deterministic; degrades on parse failure.

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

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

9 finding(s): 0 critical, 8 high, 1 medium, 0 low. 6 unpinned-GitHub-Actions row(s) are reported here but scored by D36 (supply-chain provenance), which measures that posture as `pinned_actions` — one pinning decision is charged once, not once per lens. semgrep hit a parse error in 98 file(s) — `ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp.Debugger/src/FSharpAsyncStepper.cs` (line 27), `ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp.Debugger/src/FSharpSequencePointInvokedMethodsProvider.cs` (line 21), `ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp.Debugger/src/FSharpUnitReturnValueFilter.cs` (line 10), `ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.ProjectModelBase/src/FSharpAsyncUtil.cs` (lines 189–209), `ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.ProjectModelBase/src/FSharpZones.cs` (lines 13–27), … (+93 more) — so no absence of findings in the named regions is evidence of anything; rows reported elsewhere in those files are real. Fix the syntax error (or exclude the file deliberately) and re-scan to cover them. In 70 of those file(s) — `ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp.Debugger/src/FSharpAsyncStepper.cs`, `ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp.Debugger/src/FSharpSequencePointInvokedMethodsProvider.cs`, `ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp.Debugger/src/FSharpUnitReturnValueFilter.cs`, `ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi/src/Annotations/FSharpAnnotatedCacheProcessor.cs`, `ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi/src/CodeFormatter/FSharpCodeFormatter.cs`, … (+65 more) — the break is a C# primary constructor, which semgrep's grammar cannot parse and which hides the type from every rule scoped to it; those files were re-scanned from a shadow copy with the constructor's parameter list blanked (line and column preserving), which restores the type to the rules, and 0 additional row(s) came from that pass. Only the header's own parameter list is unread in them.

REDACTED

What to do

Resolve the 2 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED, REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 issue-level).
Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
No action in Static Analysis (SAST) — all 6 REDACTED finding(s) are reported here at file:line but scored by D36 (supply-chain provenance), so none is charged to this dimension. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (6 issue-level, 0 of them charged here).

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D34 · Knowledge Freshness9.7 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether anyone still has living knowledge of each file, or it has been orphaned — last understood long ago by someone now gone quiet. The sibling of the bus factor: D16 asks who owns it, D34 asks whether anyone still knows it.

Method: File orphaning as total living-knowledge decay below one focused-commit's worth within a year, computed per-file from the D16 decay model. Exhaustive, deterministic over fixed history.

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

9 of 330 significant source file(s) are orphaned — their living knowledge has decayed to nothing, so no one currently understands them. The largest is ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi/src/Parsing/FSharpPreprocessedLexer.cs. Counted over 330 of the 1009 production source files in this repository: the rest are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over.

Orphaned file · ×9ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi/src/Parsing/FSharpPreprocessedLexer.cs:1

Orphaned files with no living knowledge

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d34_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D35 · Change Coupling9.9 / 10Stronggated by 7 serious findings✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

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

Strongest change-coupling: FsiHost.fs↔SandboxDocumentLanguageSupportFSharpScript.fs 75%; FSharpVcsCodeVisionRangesProviderStage.fs↔SandboxDocumentLanguageSupportFSharpScript.fs 64%; FSharpVcsCodeVisionRangesProviderStage.fs↔FsiHost.fs 64%

Change coupling: FsiOptionsPage.fs ↔ FSharpQuickDefinitionService.fs · ×6ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/Fsi/FsiOptionsPage.fs:1

Change coupling clique: FSharpVcsCodeVisionRangesProviderStage.fs, FsiHost.fs, SandboxDocumentLanguageSupportFSharpScript.fsReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Daemon/src/Stages/FSharpVcsCodeVisionRangesProviderStage.fs

What to do

Resolve the 6 Change coupling finding(s) in Change Coupling — start with FsiOptionsPage.fs, FSharpGeneratedMemberBase.cs, ForPostfixTemplate.fs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (6 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 Change coupling clique finding(s) in Change Coupling — start with FSharpVcsCodeVisionRangesProviderStage.fs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D44 · Platform End-of-Life2.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 2.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

3 end-of-life runtime(s) and 0 end-of-life framework(s), read from 73 platform declaration(s) and 4 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.

End-of-life runtime: .NET net5.0 · ×3rider-fsharp/src/test/testData/solutions/SplitNestedWithFile/ClassLibrary1/ClassLibrary1.fsproj:3

What to do

Resolve the 3 End-of-life runtime finding(s) in Platform End-of-Life — start with ClassLibrary1.fsproj, CSharpLibrary.csproj, FSharp.TypeProviders.Host.NetCore.csproj. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 warning-level).

Detailed fixes: d44_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions

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

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

Other · Architecture — How the codebase splits by code ROLE — domain, application, infrastructure, test, generated. The significance map behind the knowledge/coupling weighting, and a DDD signal in its own right: a thin domain core under fat infrastructure is the anemic-domain smell, quantified. How each file's role is decided, because the split is only as good as that: a generated name or a build-output tree makes it Generated, a test project makes it Test, and otherwise the file's NAMESPACE and PATH words are matched against fixed vocabularies in a fixed ORDER — domain, then infrastructure, then application — so a file whose words hit two layers is counted under the earlier one. A production file matching none of them counts as application, so that share reads 'application or unclassified' rather than a measured application layer. Roles come from naming convention, never from what the code does.

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

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

What to do

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

AX5 · Architecture & structure10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Architecture — Whether the codebase has a recognisable, scale-appropriate structure (a named architectural style, or modular enough for its size) rather than being an ad-hoc ball of mud.

Method: Roslyn plus csproj analysis: architecture style detection (DDD, clean, vertical-slice, CQRS) and structure fitness for repo size. Deterministic.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

Other · Architecture — Whether interfaces stay focused rather than fat — the Interface-Segregation principle (SOLID 'I').

Method: Roslyn scan: public interface declared-member counts (accessors fold into their property/event); fat-interface threshold (over 15 declared members) flagged per type. Each finding also reports the distinct-OPERATION count — members counted by name, so an overload group counts once — which decides whether it states the caller-side ISP harm or the implementer-side burden of an overload set. TypeScript: exported interfaces that declare behaviour, counted over their REQUIRED operations (method signatures and function-typed properties with no `?`, once per signature) — data-shape interfaces and ambient .d.ts declarations are outside the population; JavaScript declares no interfaces and is not applicable. Deterministic, type-level.

Do you agree with this assessment?

AX7 · Slice cohesion10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Architecture — Whether feature slices stay independent (no direct cross-slice references) — the discipline that makes vertical-slice architecture pay off.

Method: Roslyn scan (vertical-slice gated): feature slices resolved from namespaces (.Features.*, .Slices.*) or project names; cross-slice type references detected. Deterministic, traceable.

Do you agree with this assessment?

AX8 · Test isolation10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Architecture — Whether production projects stay free of references to test projects — tests may depend on production, never the reverse.

Method: Csproj graph: each production project checked for references to test projects (identified by test-framework presence, not name). Zero violations is clean. Deterministic.

Do you agree with this assessment?

GD1 · Unfinished & placeholder code9.9 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Code Health — Unreviewed-generation residue: shipped members still throwing NotImplementedException, and placeholder string literals left in non-test, non-generated code. Scored as a quality signature, never as a claim about authorship.

Method: Roslyn syntax scan: NotImplementedException throws and placeholder string literals in non-test, non-generated shipped code. Deterministic, code-shape signature.

A shipped binding's whole body still raises a "not implemented" error — generated scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface. (×23) — ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Common/src/ProjectModel/FSharpLanguageLevelProvider.fs:190, ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/Search/FSharpPathReference.fs:73, ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/Search/FSharpPathReference.fs:74, …

What to do

Finish or delete NotImplementedException stubs and replace placeholder literals before shipping.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

Method: Roslyn syntax scan: incompleteness by code shape (constant-returning methods, async-never-await, #if false branches, 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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

M1 · Documentation (README)5.2 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

291 code files changed in the last 6 months but the README was not touched — it may no longer reflect the system.

What to do

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.
Add a README to the 10 of 10 project(s) that lack one — worth up to 2 pts.
Review the README against recent changes; refresh the parts that drifted.

Do you agree with this assessment?

M2 · Architecture documentation0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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

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

No Architecture Decision Records found — 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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

M4 · Documentation accuracy9.5 / 10Exemplary◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

README.md names `rider-fsharp/prepare`, but no file or folder `rider-fsharp/prepare` exists. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — README.md:30

What to do

Reconcile the README with reality: README.md names `rider-fsharp/prepare`, but no file or folder `rider-fsharp/prepare` exists.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

Readiness · Readiness — Whether an automated pipeline builds and tests every change.

Method: Filesystem scan: CI workflow files (.github/workflows, .gitlab-ci.yml, etc.) for build and test stages. Exhaustive, deterministic.

Do you agree with this assessment?

P2 · Observability6.5 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Only 5/6 runnable modules use logging (modules with no entry point or server are excluded — they are libraries a runnable module hosts). Silent: `rider-fsharp/projectTemplates/FSharpConsoleApplicationTemplate`.

What to do

Extend structured logging to the remaining runnable modules so everything you run is diagnosable in production.

Do you agree with this assessment?

P3 · Security & performance tooling0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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

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

No static application security testing detected. For this repository's stack, add `semgrep --config=auto` plus gitleaks for committed secrets (F# is not a CodeQL language and has no language-specific SAST engine) as a CI step. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: the 1998 CI workflow file(s) in this repository, and the scanner and linter configuration checked in beside them. A scan that runs outside CI, one configured in your forge's web UI rather than in a committed file, or a tool whose name is none of those this check carries, is not seen — if that is your case the row is wrong, and saying so is more useful than adding a second scanner.

What to do

Add a SAST step to CI running what this repository's stack ships: `semgrep --config=auto` plus gitleaks for committed secrets (F# is not a CodeQL language and has no language-specific SAST engine) — so a security regression fails the build instead of landing.
Enable Dependabot/Renovate or a dependency-review gate.
Add gitleaks/trufflehog in CI to block PRs that introduce committed secrets.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

Other · Code Health — Whether the code avoids sync-over-async (deadlock-prone blocking on tasks) and async void.

Method: Roslyn syntax scan: async methods scanned for .Wait()/.GetAwaiter().GetResult() and async-void outside event handlers. Deterministic, hard fact per invocation.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X12 · Unreachable branch10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether any branch is dead by construction — a switch arm whose label can never equal a case-normalised subject, or an `else if` whose predicate the arm above has already swallowed.

Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: switch labels compared against the subject's own case normaliser, and if/else-if chains checked for a literal an earlier arm's containment test already swallows. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X13 · Undrained process stream10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a child process that has BOTH standard streams redirected drains both — reading one to the end while the other is never read deadlocks once the child fills the unread pipe.

Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: ProcessStartInfo launches with both streams redirected, checked for a drain of each stream across the enclosing type. 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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

X16 · Unfloored truncation loop10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X18 · Disposal-pattern correctness10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X19 · Unrestored process-global state10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X20 · Mistyped argument guard10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether an argument guard throws the exception its own condition describes — a guard that rejects a value for being EMPTY and reports it as `ArgumentNullException` tells the caller a parameter was null when it provably was not.

Method: Roslyn syntax: `throw new ArgumentNullException(nameof(p))` statements controlled by an `if`, whose condition is read for a test that is true of a NON-null `p` — an emptiness test that dereferences it (`p.Count == 0`, `!p.Any()`) or a BCL predicate documented true of the empty value (`string.IsNullOrEmpty(p)`). Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

X22 · Contradicted release guard10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X23 · Unguarded diagnostic materialisation10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X25 · Inert configuration knob10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X26 · Unsynchronised callback handoff10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a value handed from a callback to the body that waits on it crosses on something built to be crossed — a `Queue<T>`/`List<T>`/`Dictionary<K,V>` written inside an event handler and read back outside it is mutated by two flows at once, and the semaphore or completion source beside it orders how MANY items exist while leaving the collection's own head, tail and backing array unprotected.

Method: Roslyn syntax: method, accessor, local-function and lambda bodies that declare BOTH a non-thread-safe generic collection (`Queue`/`Stack`/`List`/`Dictionary`/`HashSet`/`Sorted*`/`LinkedList`) and a synchronisation primitive (`SemaphoreSlim`/`TaskCompletionSource`/`ManualResetEvent(Slim)`/`AutoResetEvent`/`CountdownEvent`) as locals, then read for a `+=`-registered lambda that raises that primitive while the body outside every lambda waits on it — and, in that scope, a mutating call on the collection inside the lambda paired with a mention of it outside. Any `lock` in the scope abstains it. On a repository with no .NET source the same handoff is read in Java off the engine’s own token stream (test source sets, vendored and demonstration paths not): an `ArrayList`/`LinkedList`/`ArrayDeque`/`PriorityQueue`/`Hash*`/`LinkedHash*`/`Tree*` local and a `CountDownLatch`/`Semaphore`/`CompletableFuture` local, a lambda or anonymous class that raises the primitive and mutates the collection, and a wait outside it; any `synchronized` or `lock()` abstains the body. Because each of those primitives orders what the callback wrote before raising it, only a touch that provably overlaps the callback is convicted: one after the registration and before the next wait, or one in a loop registered-before, waiting on every pass and not declaring the collection. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

Other · Code Health — Whether a `foreach` leaves the collection it is walking alone — a body that adds to or removes from the very collection the loop is enumerating invalidates the enumerator it is holding, so the next `MoveNext` throws `InvalidOperationException` and the remaining items are never seen.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

X3 · Exception handling10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether exceptions are handled rather than silently swallowed or rethrown with lost stack traces.

Method: Roslyn syntax scan: every catch clause counted; empty catches and bare rethrows flagged. Population is all catch clauses, not estimated. Deterministic, hard fact.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

X32 · Type resolved by simple name across every loaded assembly10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a plugin lookup names the type it means — searching every assembly loaded into the process for a candidate whose SIMPLE name equals a string supplied at runtime, and taking the first one found, is decided by assembly LOAD ORDER rather than by this source, so the same name can resolve to a different type on the next run.

Method: Roslyn syntax only, no semantic model: every invocation of `First`/`FirstOrDefault`/`Single`/`SingleOrDefault` whose OWN expression subtree contains both a `GetAssemblies()` call and a `GetTypes()`/`GetExportedTypes()` call — a single-element pick out of every type loaded into the process. A nested selector in the same chain sees no `GetAssemblies()` in its own subtree and is outside the population, so one lookup counts once however many links its chain has. A finding additionally needs both remaining halves: the selector must be `First`/`FirstOrDefault` (`Single`/`SingleOrDefault` reports the ambiguity rather than resolving it, and is counted and never reported), and the chain must carry an `==` comparison of `<lambda parameter>.Name` against something that is not a literal. The receiver must be a plain identifier bound by one of the chain’s own lambdas, which places `assembly.GetName().Name == "X"` outside the rule by construction. One exemption: a `.Name` test joined by `&&` to a `FullName`/`AssemblyQualifiedName` test on the same identifier is spared; joined by `||` it is not. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

X5 · Nullable reference types2.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

Other · Code Health — Whether nullable reference types are enabled and not undermined by heavy `!` suppression.

Method: Roslyn compiler-options scan: NullableContextOptions per project; null-forgiving (!) suppression density per 1k syntax nodes. Deterministic, adoption plus suppression penalty.

0/2 NRT-eligible project(s) enable <Nullable>enable</Nullable> (projects targeting a pre-C#-8 framework are excluded — NRTs aren't available there). NRTs catch a whole class of null-deref bugs at compile time.

What to do

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

Reference — by lens

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

Lens	Score	Rating	Impact
Code Health	53%	Adequate — gated by D17, X5	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Architecture	100%	Exemplary	Solid.
Maturity	53%	Adequate — gated by M2	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Readiness	48%	Weak — gated by D13, P3	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Security	42%	Weak — gated by D44	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Performance	100%	Exemplary	Strongest area.

Unscored — 3 check(s) recorded observations but carry no score

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

D36 Supply-chain Provenance & Signing — 1 observation(s) recorded · The CI pipeline builds and tests but publishes no released artifact — no package publish, container push, GitHub release or deployment step. Supply-chain provenance, signing and SBOM attest RELEASED artifacts, so there is nothing to attest here. Add them to the release pipeline when this repo starts shipping artifacts (a published package, a container image, a deployed service or a tagged release). Build integrity and workflow-token hygiene are reported below: they describe what the CI runs and the token it runs with, neither of which is affected by whether the pipeline ships an artifact.
SC1 Supply-chain hygiene — 1 observation(s) recorded · Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
X10 Duplicated predicate — 5 observation(s) recorded · Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score.

Not evidenced — 2 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.

P4 Deployment & Rollback — not evidenced — no deploy/rollback/approval signal in the repo; absence of evidence is not evidence of a manual release
P5 DR & Backup — not evidenced — repo shows no backup/RTO/RPO controls; absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control

Not included — 58 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 user-facing web UI (the repo is a library/CLI/worker/headless service) — accessibility is not applicable.
AC2 Forms & labels — No user-facing web UI (the repo is a library/CLI/worker/headless service) — accessibility is not applicable.
AC3 Page structure — No user-facing web UI (the repo is a library/CLI/worker/headless service) — accessibility is not applicable.
AC4 Keyboard semantics — No user-facing web UI (the repo is a library/CLI/worker/headless service) — accessibility is not applicable.
AC5 ARIA correctness — No user-facing web UI (the repo is a library/CLI/worker/headless service) — accessibility is not applicable.
AC6 Visual & motion safety — No user-facing web UI (the repo is a library/CLI/worker/headless service) — accessibility is not applicable.
AC7 A11y enforcement — No user-facing web UI (the repo is a library/CLI/worker/headless service) — accessibility is not applicable.
AX1 Captive dependencies — no DI registrations detected
AX2 Stateful singletons — no singleton implementations detected
AX4 Dependency direction — not applicable to a vertical-slice architecture (the inward-dependency rule is for layered/clean styles)
AX9 CQS / query purity — no CQRS query handlers detected — query purity is not applicable to this codebase
AXB1 Runtime evidence locked — no reproducible boot — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
AXB2 Runtime readiness — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
C1 Data Protection — No personal data detected in the analyzed source — no PII-typed entity/column names (Email, FirstName, DateOfBirth, …), no ASP.NET Identity / user-account model, and no stored user credentials. GDPR data-protection controls are therefore N/A here. If this is intentional, record the no-PII posture in an ADR; if the app does process personal data, name those fields conventionally so this dimension activates.
C2 Access Controls — No access-control surface detected in the analyzed source — no web/app surface to authorize (no HTTP API or web-UI project) and no authorization code at all (no [Authorize]/policies, no imperative guard methods). Access control is therefore N/A here — this is a library/CLI, which is authorized by its CALLER, not by itself. If this codebase grows request handlers, the dimension reactivates and a default-deny posture is expected then.
C3 Audit Trail — No personal data detected in the analyzed source — no PII-typed entity/column names (Email, FirstName, DateOfBirth, …), no ASP.NET Identity / user-account model, and no stored user credentials. GDPR data-protection controls are therefore N/A here. If this is intentional, record the no-PII posture in an ADR; if the app does process personal data, name those fields conventionally so this dimension activates.
C4 Data Retention — No personal data detected in the analyzed source — no PII-typed entity/column names (Email, FirstName, DateOfBirth, …), no ASP.NET Identity / user-account model, and no stored user credentials. GDPR data-protection controls are therefore N/A here. If this is intentional, record the no-PII posture in an ADR; if the app does process personal data, name those fields conventionally so this dimension activates.
C5 Data-Subject Rights — No personal data detected in the analyzed source — no PII-typed entity/column names (Email, FirstName, DateOfBirth, …), no ASP.NET Identity / user-account model, and no stored user credentials. GDPR data-protection controls are therefore N/A here. If this is intentional, record the no-PII posture in an ADR; if the app does process personal data, name those fields conventionally so this dimension activates.
D1 Cyclomatic Complexity — cyclomatic complexity not measured — .cs, .fs exposed no member bodies
D10 Test Quality — ~49292 lines of test source are present (.fs, .kt) 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 measured — analyzer environment
D12 Dependency Hygiene — Dependency hygiene not measured
D15 Churn × Complexity Hotspots — complexity unreadable for .cs, .fs — churn × complexity hotspots could not be measured
D18 Solution Shape — D18 scores the shape of a C#/VB .NET solution, but this repository's production source is mostly .fs, .java, .kt, which the C#/VB workspace does not load — the projects that loaded are an immaterial minority, so solution shape was not assessed for this repository. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer's reach, not a verdict about this repository.
D2 Cognitive Complexity — cognitive complexity not measured — .cs, .fs exposed no member bodies
D22 Internal API Consistency — No intentionally-exposed public API to evaluate for consistency.
D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — Cross-context type coupling could not be assessed — this codebase's bounded contexts are neither declared nor inferable.
D24 Comment Value — No inline comments to assess — comment value is not applicable here.
D25 ADR Conformance — no ADRs to check
D27 Navigability — No calls could be sampled, so navigability was not assessed — tracing effort is measured over resolved call sites and this target exposed none. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer's reach, not a verdict about this repository.
D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities — nuget: the solution did not restore on the analyzer's .NET SDK (an SDK/target-framework/restore mismatch, common for an older codebase), so there was no restored dependency graph to scan; nuget packages.config: osv-scanner exited 127 with no findings — dependency CVEs were not measured
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) — 99 file(s) were not parsed by semgrep — the PII/GDPR ruleset never ran over them
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 — IL not measured — the analyzer's build of the target did not succeed
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 — Scanner failed to run — not a clean result
D6 Cohesion (LCOM4) — cohesion (LCOM4) not measured — the code model exposed no member bodies
D7 Architectural Integrity — no checkable ADRs and no dependency cycles — architectural integrity not assessed
D8 Code Coverage — Coverage NOT MEASURED: `--collect:"XPlat Code Coverage"` names a data collector that ships in the `coverlet.collector` package, and this repository wires up none — no test project references it and no runsettings declares one. The absence of coverage here is therefore not evidence about the suite or about our analyzer environment: without a collector, `--collect` produces nothing even from a suite that builds and passes. Add a `coverlet.collector` PackageReference to the test project(s) (or commit the Cobertura/OpenCover/lcov report your CI produces) and real coverage will be measured. It is excluded from the score rather than counted as a near-zero defect.
D9 Test Distribution — 7 test project(s) found on disk but excluded from the analyzed solution.
DM1 Domain Modelling — not scored — this repository shows only 1 of the 3 signals this lens looks for (33 value object(s))
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
P12 CI test-gate honesty — Reported, not scored — and nothing was matched here. The coverage check applies to any stack, and the automatic-re-run check to any GitHub-Actions workflow, but the checks for excluded tests, skipped tests and sleep-based synchronisation currently recognise only some ecosystems' test-runner idioms, so on a repository built with another stack the zeros below mean 'not checked', not 'clean'.
P7 Outbound HTTP resilience — not applicable — this isn't a service/API/worker
P8 Schema migrations — no EF Core usage detected
P9 Domain vs controller coverage — no coverage report found on disk — produce a coverage report in a standard format (Cobertura — `dotnet test --collect:"XPlat Code Coverage"` with a `coverlet.collector` PackageReference) 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 — Performance is assessed only for perf-relevant repos — a packaged library, one that ships benchmarks, or one already using allocation-aware APIs. This repo isn't one, so the Performance lens is not applicable and is excluded from the score.
PF2 Allocation hygiene — Performance is assessed only for perf-relevant repos — a packaged library, one that ships benchmarks, or one already using allocation-aware APIs. This repo isn't one, so the Performance lens is not applicable and is excluded from the score.
S1 Web-Security Posture — No web surface detected in the analyzed source — no HTTP API or web-UI project (no controllers/minimal-API endpoints, no Razor/Blazor views) and no web middleware (HTTPS redirection, HSTS, security headers, cookies). Transport security, security headers, secure cookies, CSRF/input-validation and middleware-order controls are therefore N/A here — this is a library/CLI/worker, not a web app. Crypto hygiene was still checked and found nothing to flag. If this codebase becomes web-facing, the dimension reactivates automatically.
X2 Cancellation propagation — no async method does work a token could cancel
X6 Hand-rolled structured-format parsing — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
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.

Critical — 31 finding(s)

D17 · Explicit Debt · NoWarnInCsproj · ×11

NoWarnInCsproj ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp.Fantomas.Host/FSharp.Fantomas.Host.csproj:15 — NU1701 — this warning is switched off for the WHOLE project, including builds years from now. It is raised by the build itself — the packaging, restore or SDK step — about the project as a whole, not by the compiler or an analyzer at a line of code, so there is no call site to narrow it to and no per-site directive that could carry a reason: this element is the only place the decision can be recorded. Say WHY here, in a comment on the entry, or fix what the rule is reporting and drop the code from the list.
NoWarnInCsproj ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp.TypeProviders.Host/FSharp.TypeProviders.Host.NetCore/FSharp.TypeProviders.Host.NetCore.csproj:14 — NU1701 — this warning is switched off for the WHOLE project, including builds years from now. It is raised by the build itself — the packaging, restore or SDK step — about the project as a whole, not by the compiler or an analyzer at a line of code, so there is no call site to narrow it to and no per-site directive that could carry a reason: this element is the only place the decision can be recorded. Say WHY here, in a comment on the entry, or fix what the rule is reporting and drop the code from the list.
NoWarnInCsproj ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp.Fantomas.Host/FSharp.Fantomas.Host.csproj:15 — MSB3277 — this warning is switched off for the WHOLE project, including builds years from now. It is raised by the build itself — the packaging, restore or SDK step — about the project as a whole, not by the compiler or an analyzer at a line of code, so there is no call site to narrow it to and no per-site directive that could carry a reason: this element is the only place the decision can be recorded. Say WHY here, in a comment on the entry, or fix what the rule is reporting and drop the code from the list.
NoWarnInCsproj ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp.Debugger/FSharp.Debugger.csproj:13 — MSB3277 — this warning is switched off for the WHOLE project, including builds years from now. It is raised by the build itself — the packaging, restore or SDK step — about the project as a whole, not by the compiler or an analyzer at a line of code, so there is no call site to narrow it to and no per-site directive that could carry a reason: this element is the only place the decision can be recorded. Say WHY here, in a comment on the entry, or fix what the rule is reporting and drop the code from the list.
NoWarnInCsproj ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.TypeProviders.Protocol/FSharp.TypeProviders.Protocol.csproj:12 — MSB3277 — this warning is switched off for the WHOLE project, including builds years from now. It is raised by the build itself — the packaging, restore or SDK step — about the project as a whole, not by the compiler or an analyzer at a line of code, so there is no call site to narrow it to and no per-site directive that could carry a reason: this element is the only place the decision can be recorded. Say WHY here, in a comment on the entry, or fix what the rule is reporting and drop the code from the list.
NoWarnInCsproj ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi/FSharp.Psi.csproj:12 — MSB3277 — this warning is switched off for the WHOLE project, including builds years from now. It is raised by the build itself — the packaging, restore or SDK step — about the project as a whole, not by the compiler or an analyzer at a line of code, so there is no call site to narrow it to and no per-site directive that could carry a reason: this element is the only place the decision can be recorded. Say WHY here, in a comment on the entry, or fix what the rule is reporting and drop the code from the list.
NoWarnInCsproj ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.ProjectModelBase/FSharp.ProjectModelBase.csproj:12 — MSB3277 — this warning is switched off for the WHOLE project, including builds years from now. It is raised by the build itself — the packaging, restore or SDK step — about the project as a whole, not by the compiler or an analyzer at a line of code, so there is no call site to narrow it to and no per-site directive that could carry a reason: this element is the only place the decision can be recorded. Say WHY here, in a comment on the entry, or fix what the rule is reporting and drop the code from the list.
NoWarnInCsproj ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Fantomas.Protocol/FSharp.Fantomas.Protocol.csproj:12 — MSB3277 — this warning is switched off for the WHOLE project, including builds years from now. It is raised by the build itself — the packaging, restore or SDK step — about the project as a whole, not by the compiler or an analyzer at a line of code, so there is no call site to narrow it to and no per-site directive that could carry a reason: this element is the only place the decision can be recorded. Say WHY here, in a comment on the entry, or fix what the rule is reporting and drop the code from the list.
NoWarnInCsproj ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp.TypeProviders.Host/FSharp.TypeProviders.Host/FSharp.TypeProviders.Host.csproj:15 — MSB3277 — this warning is switched off for the WHOLE project, including builds years from now. It is raised by the build itself — the packaging, restore or SDK step — about the project as a whole, not by the compiler or an analyzer at a line of code, so there is no call site to narrow it to and no per-site directive that could carry a reason: this element is the only place the decision can be recorded. Say WHY here, in a comment on the entry, or fix what the rule is reporting and drop the code from the list.
NoWarnInCsproj ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp.TypeProviders.Host/FSharp.TypeProviders.Host.NetCore/FSharp.TypeProviders.Host.NetCore.csproj:14 — MSB3277 — this warning is switched off for the WHOLE project, including builds years from now. It is raised by the build itself — the packaging, restore or SDK step — about the project as a whole, not by the compiler or an analyzer at a line of code, so there is no call site to narrow it to and no per-site directive that could carry a reason: this element is the only place the decision can be recorded. Say WHY here, in a comment on the entry, or fix what the rule is reporting and drop the code from the list.
NoWarnInCsproj ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp.RiderPlugin/proj/src/FSharp.RiderPlugin.csproj:12 — MSB3277 — this warning is switched off for the WHOLE project, including builds years from now. It is raised by the build itself — the packaging, restore or SDK step — about the project as a whole, not by the compiler or an analyzer at a line of code, so there is no call site to narrow it to and no per-site directive that could carry a reason: this element is the only place the decision can be recorded. Say WHY here, in a comment on the entry, or fix what the rule is reporting and drop the code from the list.

D13 · Secret Scanning · Leaked secret · ×6

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

D28 · Secrets (history) · High secret · ×6

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED

REDACTED
REDACTED

Serious — 116 finding(s)

GD1 · Unfinished & placeholder code · Unfinished stub · ×23

Unfinished stub — raises a "not implemented" error ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Common/src/ProjectModel/FSharpLanguageLevelProvider.fs:190 — A shipped binding's whole body still raises a "not implemented" error — generated scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface.
Unfinished stub — raises a "not implemented" error ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/Search/FSharpPathReference.fs:73 — A shipped binding's whole body still raises a "not implemented" error — generated scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface.
Unfinished stub — raises a "not implemented" error ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/Search/FSharpPathReference.fs:74 — A shipped binding's whole body still raises a "not implemented" error — generated scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface.
Unfinished stub — raises a "not implemented" error ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/Search/FSharpPathReference.fs:75 — A shipped binding's whole body still raises a "not implemented" error — generated scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface.
Unfinished stub — raises a "not implemented" error ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Intentions/src/QuickFixes/ImportMemberFix.fs:96 — A shipped binding's whole body still raises a "not implemented" error — generated scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface.
Unfinished stub — raises a "not implemented" error ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Services/src/Refactorings/FSharpInlineVariable.fs:25 — A shipped binding's whole body still raises a "not implemented" error — generated scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface.
Unfinished stub — raises a "not implemented" error ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Services/src/Refactorings/FSharpInlineVariable.fs:26 — A shipped binding's whole body still raises a "not implemented" error — generated scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface.
Unfinished stub — raises a "not implemented" error ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Services/src/Refactorings/FSharpInlineVariable.fs:27 — A shipped binding's whole body still raises a "not implemented" error — generated scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface.
Unfinished stub — raises a "not implemented" error ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Services/src/Refactorings/FSharpInlineVariable.fs:28 — A shipped binding's whole body still raises a "not implemented" error — generated scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface.
Unfinished stub — raises a "not implemented" error ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Services/src/Refactorings/FSharpInlineVariable.fs:29 — A shipped binding's whole body still raises a "not implemented" error — generated scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface.
Unfinished stub — raises a "not implemented" error ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Services/src/Refactorings/FSharpInlineVariable.fs:30 — A shipped binding's whole body still raises a "not implemented" error — generated scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface.
Unfinished stub — raises a "not implemented" error ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Services/src/Refactorings/FSharpInlineVariable.fs:31 — A shipped binding's whole body still raises a "not implemented" error — generated scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface.
Unfinished stub — raises a "not implemented" error ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Services/src/Refactorings/FSharpInlineVariable.fs:32 — A shipped binding's whole body still raises a "not implemented" error — generated scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface.
Unfinished stub — raises a "not implemented" error ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Services/src/Refactorings/FSharpInlineVariable.fs:33 — A shipped binding's whole body still raises a "not implemented" error — generated scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface.
Unfinished stub — raises a "not implemented" error ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Services/src/Refactorings/FSharpInlineVariable.fs:34 — A shipped binding's whole body still raises a "not implemented" error — generated scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface.
Unfinished stub — raises a "not implemented" error ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Services/src/Refactorings/FSharpInlineVariable.fs:35 — A shipped binding's whole body still raises a "not implemented" error — generated scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface.
Unfinished stub — raises a "not implemented" error ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Services/src/Refactorings/FSharpInlineVariable.fs:36 — A shipped binding's whole body still raises a "not implemented" error — generated scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface.
Unfinished stub — raises a "not implemented" error ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Services/src/Refactorings/FSharpInlineVariable.fs:37 — A shipped binding's whole body still raises a "not implemented" error — generated scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface.
Unfinished stub — raises a "not implemented" error ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Services/src/Refactorings/FSharpInlineVariable.fs:38 — A shipped binding's whole body still raises a "not implemented" error — generated scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface.
Unfinished stub — raises a "not implemented" error ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Services/src/Util/FSharpStringLexer.fs:67 — A shipped binding's whole body still raises a "not implemented" error — generated scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface.
Unfinished stub — raises a "not implemented" error ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Services/src/Util/FSharpStringLexer.fs:99 — A shipped binding's whole body still raises a "not implemented" error — generated scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface.
Unfinished stub — raises a "not implemented" error ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Services/src/Util/FSharpStringLexer.fs:170 — A shipped binding's whole body still raises a "not implemented" error — generated scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface.
Unfinished stub — raises a "not implemented" error ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Services/src/Util/FSharpStringLexer.fs:193 — A shipped binding's whole body still raises a "not implemented" error — generated scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) · ×12

Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Daemon/src/Analyzers/AppExpressionAnalyzer.fs:5 — ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Daemon/src/Analyzers/AppExpressionAnalyzer.fs:5-9 | ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Intentions/src/Intentions/ConvertPartiallyAppliedFunctionToLambdaAction.fs:8-12 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice.
Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Daemon/src/Analyzers/AsPatAnalyzer.fs:1 — ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Daemon/src/Analyzers/AsPatAnalyzer.fs:1-5 | ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Daemon/src/Analyzers/RedundantParenTypeUsageAnalyzer.fs:1-5 — 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) ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Daemon/src/Analyzers/IndexerExprAnalyzer.fs:1 — ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Daemon/src/Analyzers/IndexerExprAnalyzer.fs:1-5 | ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Daemon/src/Analyzers/RedundantParenPatAnalyzer.fs:1-5 — 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) ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Daemon/src/Analyzers/RecursiveInvocationAnalyzer.fs:1 — ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Daemon/src/Analyzers/RecursiveInvocationAnalyzer.fs:1-5 | ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Daemon/src/Analyzers/RedundantNew.fs:1-5 — 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) ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/PostfixTemplates/ForPostfixTemplate.fs:9 — ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/PostfixTemplates/ForPostfixTemplate.fs:9-13 | ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/PostfixTemplates/WithPostfixTemplate.fs:7-11 — 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) ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/PostfixTemplates/NewObjPostfixTemplate.fs:1 — ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/PostfixTemplates/NewObjPostfixTemplate.fs:1-5 | ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/PostfixTemplates/NotTemplate.fs:1-5 — 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) ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Intentions/src/Intentions/InvertIfAction.fs:1 — ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Intentions/src/Intentions/InvertIfAction.fs:1-5 | ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Intentions/src/Intentions/ToLiteralAction.fs:1-5 — 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) ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Intentions/src/QuickFixes/RemovePatternArgumentFix.fs:5 — ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Intentions/src/QuickFixes/RemovePatternArgumentFix.fs:5-9 | ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Intentions/src/QuickFixes/ReplaceWithWildPatFix.fs:9-13 — 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) ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Intentions/src/QuickFixes/ReplaceLetWithExpressionFix.fs:1 — ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Intentions/src/QuickFixes/ReplaceLetWithExpressionFix.fs:1-5 | ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Intentions/src/QuickFixes/ToStaticMemberFix.fs:1-5 — 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) ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Intentions/src/QuickFixes/ReplaceWithAbbreviatedTypeFix.fs:8 — ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Intentions/src/QuickFixes/ReplaceWithAbbreviatedTypeFix.fs:8-12 | ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Services/src/Util/FSharpNamingService.fs:11-16 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice. 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 (5 lines × 2) ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Intentions/src/QuickFixes/UpdateRecordFieldTypeInSignatureFix.fs:1 — ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Intentions/src/QuickFixes/UpdateRecordFieldTypeInSignatureFix.fs:1-5 | ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Intentions/src/QuickFixes/UpdateRecordFieldsInSignatureFix.fs:1-5 — 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) ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Daemon/src/Stages/InferredTypeCodeVisionProvider.fs:12 — ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Daemon/src/Stages/InferredTypeCodeVisionProvider.fs:12-16 | ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Daemon/src/Stages/PipeChainTypeHintStage.fs:13-17 — 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.

D3 · God Classes · FileTooLong · ×10

FileTooLong: AssemblyReader/ProjectFcsModuleReader.fs ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Common/src/Shim/AssemblyReader/ProjectFcsModuleReader.fs — FileTooLong — 1617 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 1117 over it, 3.23× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
FileTooLong: src/FSharpTypingAssist.fs ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/FSharpTypingAssist.fs — FileTooLong — 1465 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 965 over it, 2.93× 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: Parsing/FSharpImplTreeBuilder.fs ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/Parsing/FSharpImplTreeBuilder.fs — FileTooLong — 1281 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 781 over it, 2.56× 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: ProjectItems/FSharpItemsContainer.fs ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Common/src/ProjectModel/Host/ProjectItems/FSharpItemsContainer.fs — FileTooLong — 1119 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 619 over it, 2.24× 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: Util/MatchTree.fs ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Services/src/Util/MatchTree.fs — FileTooLong — 1018 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 518 over it, 2.04× 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: ParameterInfo/FSharpParameterInfo.fs ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/ParameterInfo/FSharpParameterInfo.fs — FileTooLong — 903 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 403 over it, 1.81× 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: Parsing/FSharpTreeBuilderBase.fs ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/Parsing/FSharpTreeBuilderBase.fs — FileTooLong — 845 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 345 over it, 1.69× 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: Refactorings/IntroduceVariable.fs ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Services/src/Refactorings/IntroduceVariable.fs — FileTooLong — 566 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 66 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: Generate/GenerateOverrides.fs ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Services/src/Generate/GenerateOverrides.fs — FileTooLong — 561 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), declaring 32 functions. The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 61 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: editorActions/FSharpEnterHandlerDelegate.kt rider-fsharp/src/main/java/com/jetbrains/rider/plugins/fsharp/editorActions/FSharpEnterHandlerDelegate.kt — FileTooLong — 526 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), about 94% of them inside a single declaration: FSharpEnterHandlerDelegate (33-748). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 26 over it, 1.05× the bar. Moving the declarations that sit BESIDE it into sibling files will not shorten this file. Extract from INSIDE that declaration instead: lift each cohesive group of its body — the parts that share the same inputs and are named together — into its own unit in a sibling file, and have the original call them.

D3 · God Classes · TooManyMethods · ×7

TooManyMethods: ProjectFcsModuleReader ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Common/src/Shim/AssemblyReader/ProjectFcsModuleReader.fs:138 — TooManyMethods — 173 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 143 over it, 5.77× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
TooManyMethods: FSharpTreeBuilderBase ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/Parsing/FSharpTreeBuilderBase.fs:25 — TooManyMethods — 76 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 46 over it, 2.53× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
TooManyMethods: FSharpTypingAssist ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/FSharpTypingAssist.fs:35 — TooManyMethods — 72 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 42 over it, 2.40× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
TooManyMethods: FSharpElementFactory ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/LanguageService/FSharpElementFactory.fs:20 — TooManyMethods — 58 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 28 over it, 1.93× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
TooManyMethods: ProjectMapping ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Common/src/ProjectModel/Host/ProjectItems/FSharpItemsContainer.fs:420 — TooManyMethods — 45 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 15 over it, 1.50× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
TooManyMethods: FcsProjectProvider ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Common/src/Checker/FcsProjectProvider.fs:71 — TooManyMethods — 34 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 4 over it, 1.13× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
TooManyMethods: FSharpExpressionTreeBuilder ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/Parsing/FSharpImplTreeBuilder.fs:712 — TooManyMethods — 32 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 2 over it, 1.07× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.

D35 · Change Coupling · Change coupling · ×6

Change coupling: FsiOptionsPage.fs ↔ FSharpQuickDefinitionService.fs ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/Fsi/FsiOptionsPage.fs:1 — `ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/Fsi/FsiOptionsPage.fs` and `ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/LanguageService/FSharpQuickDefinitionService.fs` change together 60% of the time (6 of the 10 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well — a repo-wide or module-wide sweep is evidence about the sweep rather than about any pair inside it and is left out of BOTH sides of this ratio, while a dependency bump, a formatter/rename sweep, or a commit whose edit to one of the two files was a tool directive such as //go:generate or whitespace only is left out of the shared count ONLY, so the two sides are not taken over identical commit sets). They sit in different directories, but in this ecosystem the namespace is declared in the FILE, not by the folder — so the two may well share one namespace and reference each other with no import for this pass to see. Read the pair before acting: if one derives from or overrides the other, the dependency is explicit in the type declaration and the co-change is definitional; if one registers itself into the other through a hook or an initialiser, the missing dependency is DELIBERATE and the thing to add is a comment saying so; if they simply belong together, co-locate them; if none of these holds, the coupling is hidden and worth breaking. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 6 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are `f8190966` Rename Full to `Just ordinary` zones to; `7f9e82f1` light and full zones; `72381179` [radler] CPP-37193: Mark Rider-specific features with `IRiderFeatureZ… — run `git show` on any of them.
Change coupling: FSharpGeneratedMemberBase.cs ↔ FSharpTypeMember.cs ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi/src/Impl/DeclaredElement/CompilerGenerated/FSharpGeneratedMemberBase.cs:1 — `ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi/src/Impl/DeclaredElement/CompilerGenerated/FSharpGeneratedMemberBase.cs` and `ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi/src/Impl/DeclaredElement/FSharpTypeMember.cs` change together 56% of the time (9 of the 16 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well — a repo-wide or module-wide sweep is evidence about the sweep rather than about any pair inside it and is left out of BOTH sides of this ratio, while a dependency bump, a formatter/rename sweep, or a commit whose edit to one of the two files was a tool directive such as //go:generate or whitespace only is left out of the shared count ONLY, so the two sides are not taken over identical commit sets). They sit in different directories, but in this ecosystem the namespace is declared in the FILE, not by the folder — so the two may well share one namespace and reference each other with no import for this pass to see. Read the pair before acting: if one derives from or overrides the other, the dependency is explicit in the type declaration and the co-change is definitional; if one registers itself into the other through a hook or an initialiser, the missing dependency is DELIBERATE and the thing to add is a comment saying so; if they simply belong together, co-locate them; if none of these holds, the coupling is hidden and worth breaking. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 9 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are `e4aa37f9` NP-2164 [dotnet]: name the eager Reverse methods ReverseAsArray and R…; `fc45d934` [dotnet][C#14] Extensions. Part 2. Semantics (caches, resolve, code a…; `07078399` Psi: remove some FCS checks in getting members, members properties (at that commit the files were still `ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp.Psi/src/Impl/DeclaredElement/CompilerGenerated/FSharpGeneratedMemberBase.cs` and `ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp.Psi/src/Impl/DeclaredElement/FSharpTypeMember.cs`) — run `git show` on any of them.
Change coupling: ForPostfixTemplate.fs ↔ MatchPostfixTemplate.fs ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/PostfixTemplates/ForPostfixTemplate.fs:1 — `ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/PostfixTemplates/ForPostfixTemplate.fs` and `ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/PostfixTemplates/MatchPostfixTemplate.fs` change together 55% of the time (6 of the 11 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well — a repo-wide or module-wide sweep is evidence about the sweep rather than about any pair inside it and is left out of BOTH sides of this ratio, while a dependency bump, a formatter/rename sweep, or a commit whose edit to one of the two files was a tool directive such as //go:generate or whitespace only is left out of the shared count ONLY, so the two sides are not taken over identical commit sets). They sit in the same directory, and in this ecosystem sibling files there normally share one namespace/package — so a direct reference between them needs no import and this pass cannot see whether one exists. Read the pair before acting: if one file only DECLARES what the other consumes (a constants/types file beside its user), the co-change is definitional and the question is whether the split earns its keep; if they duplicate structure, extract the common part into a shared function or type they both call; if neither holds, the coupling is hidden and worth breaking. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 6 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are `60e79192` Compleion/postfix: add 'new' for record types; `d9b48773` Completion/postfix: enable 'for', 'match' (at that commit the files were still `ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/PostfixTemplates/ForPostfixTemplate.fs` and `ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/PostfixTemplates/MatchPostfixTemplate.fs`); `68f7bb9f` Completion: add 'match' postfix template, add branch generation (at that commit the files were still `ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/PostfixTemplates/ForPostfixTemplate.fs` and `ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/PostfixTemplates/MatchPostfixTemplate.fs`) — run `git show` on any of them.
Change coupling: ClassPart.cs ↔ FSharpImplUtil.cs ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi/src/Impl/Cache2/Parts/ClassPart.cs:1 — `ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi/src/Impl/Cache2/Parts/ClassPart.cs` and `ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi/src/Impl/FSharpImplUtil.cs` change together 54% of the time (7 of the 13 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well — a repo-wide or module-wide sweep is evidence about the sweep rather than about any pair inside it and is left out of BOTH sides of this ratio, while a dependency bump, a formatter/rename sweep, or a commit whose edit to one of the two files was a tool directive such as //go:generate or whitespace only is left out of the shared count ONLY, so the two sides are not taken over identical commit sets). They sit in different directories, but in this ecosystem the namespace is declared in the FILE, not by the folder — so the two may well share one namespace and reference each other with no import for this pass to see. Read the pair before acting: if one derives from or overrides the other, the dependency is explicit in the type declaration and the co-change is definitional; if one registers itself into the other through a hook or an initialiser, the missing dependency is DELIBERATE and the thing to add is a comment saying so; if they simply belong together, co-locate them; if none of these holds, the coupling is hidden and worth breaking. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 7 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are `82e05349` Fcs/types: disambiguate type elements in-place when mapping types; `2601c01f` Psi: remove some IFSharpTypeOldDeclaration usages (at that commit the files were still `ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp.Psi/src/Impl/Cache2/Parts/ClassPart.cs` and `ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp.Psi/src/Impl/FSharpImplUtil.cs`); `37c22c2b` Specify nullability annotation when creating declared types (at that commit the files were still `ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp.Psi/src/Impl/Cache2/Parts/ClassPart.cs` and `ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp.Psi/src/Impl/FSharpImplUtil.cs`) — run `git show` on any of them.
Change coupling: REDACTED ↔ REDACTED REDACTED:1 — `REDACTED` and `REDACTED` change together 53% of the time (8 of the 15 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well — a repo-wide or module-wide sweep is evidence about the sweep rather than about any pair inside it and is left out of BOTH sides of this ratio, while a dependency bump, a formatter/rename sweep, or a commit whose edit to one of the two files was a tool directive such as //go:generate or whitespace only is left out of the shared count ONLY, so the two sides are not taken over identical commit sets). They sit in different directories, but in this ecosystem the namespace is declared in the FILE, not by the folder — so the two may well share one namespace and reference each other with no import for this pass to see. Read the pair before acting: if one derives from or overrides the other, the dependency is explicit in the type declaration and the co-change is definitional; if one registers itself into the other through a hook or an initialiser, the missing dependency is DELIBERATE and the thing to add is a comment saying so; if they simply belong together, co-locate them; if none of these holds, the coupling is hidden and worth breaking. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 8 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are `a20889b7` RIDER-140645 Refactor ReSharper.FSharp to use `GetDirectory()` for bi…; `9a526b71` [dotnet] Rider/F#/Fantomas & Type providers: fix out-of-process assem…; `aedd638c` RIDER-91362 Rename back classes/variables that were renamed by mistake — run `git show` on any of them.
Change coupling: FSharpCodeStructure.fs ↔ FSharpQuickDefinitionService.fs ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/CodeStructure/FSharpCodeStructure.fs:1 — `ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/CodeStructure/FSharpCodeStructure.fs` and `ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/LanguageService/FSharpQuickDefinitionService.fs` change together 50% of the time (5 of the 10 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well — a repo-wide or module-wide sweep is evidence about the sweep rather than about any pair inside it and is left out of BOTH sides of this ratio, while a dependency bump, a formatter/rename sweep, or a commit whose edit to one of the two files was a tool directive such as //go:generate or whitespace only is left out of the shared count ONLY, so the two sides are not taken over identical commit sets). They sit in different directories, but in this ecosystem the namespace is declared in the FILE, not by the folder — so the two may well share one namespace and reference each other with no import for this pass to see. Read the pair before acting: if one derives from or overrides the other, the dependency is explicit in the type declaration and the co-change is definitional; if one registers itself into the other through a hook or an initialiser, the missing dependency is DELIBERATE and the thing to add is a comment saying so; if they simply belong together, co-locate them; if none of these holds, the coupling is hidden and worth breaking. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 5 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are `f8190966` Rename Full to `Just ordinary` zones to; `7f9e82f1` light and full zones; `72381179` [radler] CPP-37193: Mark Rider-specific features with `IRiderFeatureZ… — run `git show` on any of them.

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

Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/Debugger/FSharpSourceCallableExpressionsProvider.fs:262 — ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/Debugger/FSharpSourceCallableExpressionsProvider.fs:262-268 | ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/Debugger/FSharpSourceCallableExpressionsProvider.fs:311-317 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/FSharpTypingAssist.fs:1042 — ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/FSharpTypingAssist.fs:1042-1048 | ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/FSharpTypingAssist.fs:1210-1216 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/Parsing/FSharpImplTreeBuilder.fs:164 — ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/Parsing/FSharpImplTreeBuilder.fs:164-170 | ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/Parsing/FSharpSigTreeBuilder.fs:123-129 — 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) ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Intentions/src/Intentions/ElifToIfAction.fs:4 — ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Intentions/src/Intentions/ElifToIfAction.fs:4-10 | ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Intentions/src/Intentions/IfToElifAction.fs:4-10 — 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) ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Intentions/src/Intentions/IfToElifAction.fs:7 — ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Intentions/src/Intentions/IfToElifAction.fs:7-13 | ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Intentions/src/QuickFixes/ConvertTupleToArrayOrListElementsFix.fs:8-14 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Services/src/Refactorings/IntroduceVariable.fs:23 — ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Services/src/Refactorings/IntroduceVariable.fs:23-29 | ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Services/src/Util/MatchTree.fs:12-18 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) · ×5

Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/CodeCompletion/Rules/ImportExtensionMemberRule.fs:56 — ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/CodeCompletion/Rules/ImportExtensionMemberRule.fs:56-61 | ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/CodeCompletion/Rules/ImportStaticMemberRule.fs:66-71 — 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 `ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/CodeCompletion/Rules/ImportExtensionMemberRule.fs:56` 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 (6 lines × 2) ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/CodeCompletion/Rules/UnionCasePatternRule.fs:21 — ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/CodeCompletion/Rules/UnionCasePatternRule.fs:21-26 | ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Services/src/Util/FSharpBindUtil.fs:6-11 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/Internal/FSharpInternalActionGroup.fs:21 — ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/Internal/FSharpInternalActionGroup.fs:21-26 | ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/Internal/FSharpInternalActionGroup.fs:55-60 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/PostfixTemplates/MatchPostfixTemplate.fs:37 — ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/PostfixTemplates/MatchPostfixTemplate.fs:37-43 | ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/PostfixTemplates/NotTemplate.fs:28-33 — 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 `ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/PostfixTemplates/MatchPostfixTemplate.fs:37` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Services/src/Util/FSharpBindUtil.fs:8 — ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Services/src/Util/FSharpBindUtil.fs:8-13 | ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Services/src/Util/RecordExprUtil.fs:10-15 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (5 lines × 3) · ×5

Duplicated block (5 lines × 3) ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Daemon/src/Analyzers/RedundantQualifierAnalyzer.fs:7 — ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Daemon/src/Analyzers/RedundantQualifierAnalyzer.fs:7-11 | ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/ParameterInfo/FSharpParameterInfo.fs:23-27 | ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Services/src/Util/FSharpExpressionUtil.fs:9-13 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere all 3 call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made 3 times.
Duplicated block (5 lines × 3) ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Daemon/src/Analyzers/RedundantQualifierAnalyzer.fs:8 — ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Daemon/src/Analyzers/RedundantQualifierAnalyzer.fs:8-13 | ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Services/src/Util/FSharpBindUtil.fs:7-11 | ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Services/src/Util/FSharpExpressionUtil.fs:10-15 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere all 3 call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made 3 times. 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 (5 lines × 3) ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/CodeCompletion/Rules/GenerateLambdaRule.fs:19 — ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/CodeCompletion/Rules/GenerateLambdaRule.fs:19-23 | ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/CodeCompletion/Rules/NameSuggestionRule.fs:15-19 | ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/CodeCompletion/Rules/ToRecursiveFunctionRule.fs:15-19 — 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 (5 lines × 3) ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/CodeCompletion/Rules/ImportModuleMemberRule.fs:47 — ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/CodeCompletion/Rules/ImportModuleMemberRule.fs:47-51 | ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/CodeCompletion/Rules/ImportTypeElementRule.fs:96-100 | ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/CodeCompletion/Rules/OverrideMemberRule.fs:45-50 — 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 all 3 call sites, so a change lands once. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.
Duplicated block (5 lines × 3) ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/PostfixTemplates/ForPostfixTemplate.fs:143 — ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/PostfixTemplates/ForPostfixTemplate.fs:143-148 | ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/PostfixTemplates/MatchPostfixTemplate.fs:42-47 | ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/PostfixTemplates/NotTemplate.fs:32-36 — 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 `ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/PostfixTemplates/ForPostfixTemplate.fs:143` 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.

D3 · God Classes · TooManyFunctions · ×3

TooManyFunctions: PsiUtil ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Services/src/Util/PsiUtil.fs:2 — TooManyFunctions — 66 functions. The bar is 30 functions; this is 36 over it, 2.20× the bar. The counted members are a module's functions — a module holds no instance state, so there is no shared data to group them by and no type to move them onto. To reduce it, extract each cohesive family of functions into a new module of its own and have this one delegate to it, so no single module carries every responsibility.
TooManyFunctions: FSharpErrors ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Daemon/src/Stages/FcsErrorsStageProcessBase.fs:40 — TooManyFunctions — 65 functions. The bar is 30 functions; this is 35 over it, 2.17× the bar. The counted members are a module's functions — a module holds no instance state, so there is no shared data to group them by and no type to move them onto. To reduce it, extract each cohesive family of functions into a new module of its own and have this one delegate to it, so no single module carries every responsibility.
TooManyFunctions: FSharpHighlightingAttributeIds ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Common/src/Util/FSharpHighlightingAttributeIds.fs:12 — TooManyFunctions — 48 functions. The bar is 30 functions; this is 18 over it, 1.60× the bar. The counted members are a module's functions — a module holds no instance state, so there is no shared data to group them by and no type to move them onto. To reduce it, extract each cohesive family of functions into a new module of its own and have this one delegate to it, so no single module carries every responsibility.

D4 · Code Duplication · Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) · ×3

Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/CodeCompletion/Rules/GenerateLambdaRule.fs:1 — ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/CodeCompletion/Rules/GenerateLambdaRule.fs:1-144 | ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/CodeCompletion/Rules/ImportModuleMemberRule.fs:1-165 | ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/CodeCompletion/Rules/ImportTypeElementRule.fs:1-250 | ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/CodeCompletion/Rules/NameSuggestionRule.fs:1-171 — 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) ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/CodeCompletion/Rules/NameSuggestionRule.fs:1 — ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/CodeCompletion/Rules/NameSuggestionRule.fs:1-171 | ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/CodeCompletion/Rules/NamedUnionCaseFieldsPatRule.fs:1-111 | ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/CodeCompletion/Rules/RecordFieldRule.fs:1-180 | ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/CodeCompletion/Rules/UnionCaseFieldsRule.fs:1-169 — 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) ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Intentions/src/QuickFixes/ImportMemberFix.fs:1 — ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Intentions/src/QuickFixes/ImportMemberFix.fs:1-281 | ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Services/src/Refactorings/IntroduceVariable.fs:1-770 | ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Services/src/Util/Deconstruction.fs:1-429 | ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Services/src/Util/MatchTree.fs:1-1357 — These 4 members share a duplicated core: a run of at least 50 identical tokens appears in every one of them. That run is NOT broken out as duplicated-block rows below — it is what admitted this row, and the blocks below cover only the part of it that clears the block floor, so they understate the correspondence. Read the members as one construct written 4 times. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 4 times.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) · ×3

Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/CodeCompletion/Rules/GenerateMatchExprPatternsRule.fs:76 — ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/CodeCompletion/Rules/GenerateMatchExprPatternsRule.fs:76-86 | ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/CodeCompletion/Rules/UnionCaseFieldsRule.fs: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 both call sites, so a change lands once.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/Parsing/FSharpImplTreeBuilder.fs:639 — ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/Parsing/FSharpImplTreeBuilder.fs:639-649 | ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/Parsing/FSharpImplTreeBuilder.fs:718-728 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/PostfixTemplates/ForPostfixTemplate.fs:144 — ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/PostfixTemplates/ForPostfixTemplate.fs:144-154 | ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/PostfixTemplates/MatchPostfixTemplate.fs:43-53 — 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 both call sites, so a change lands once.

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

Duplicated block (6 lines × 3) ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Intentions/src/Intentions/ElifToIfAction.fs:6 — ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Intentions/src/Intentions/ElifToIfAction.fs:6-11 | ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Intentions/src/Intentions/IfToElifAction.fs:6-11 | ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Intentions/src/QuickFixes/ConvertTupleToArrayOrListElementsFix.fs:7-12 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere all 3 call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made 3 times.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 3) ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Intentions/src/QuickFixes/ChangeTypeFix.fs:14 — ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Intentions/src/QuickFixes/ChangeTypeFix.fs:14-19 | ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Intentions/src/QuickFixes/FSharpQuickFixBase.fs:15-20 | ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Intentions/src/QuickFixes/SpecifyParameterBaseTypeFix.fs:10-15 — 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 (6 lines × 3) ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/CodeCompletion/Rules/ImportExtensionMemberRule.fs:9 — ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/CodeCompletion/Rules/ImportExtensionMemberRule.fs:9-14 | ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/CodeCompletion/Rules/ImportStaticMemberRule.fs:9-14 | ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/CodeCompletion/Rules/NamedUnionCaseFieldsPatRule.fs:8-13 — 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.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (5 lines × 4) · ×3

Duplicated block (5 lines × 4) ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Daemon/src/Analyzers/AppExpressionAnalyzer.fs:1 — ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Daemon/src/Analyzers/AppExpressionAnalyzer.fs:1-5 | ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Daemon/src/Analyzers/ExtensionAttributeAnalyzer.fs:1-5 | ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Daemon/src/Analyzers/RedundantBackticksAnalyzer.fs:1-5 | ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Daemon/src/Analyzers/RequireQualifiedAccessAttributeAnalyzer.fs:1-5 — 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 (5 lines × 4) ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/CodeCompletion/Rules/ImportExtensionMemberRule.fs:4 — ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/CodeCompletion/Rules/ImportExtensionMemberRule.fs:4-8 | ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/CodeCompletion/Rules/ImportModuleMemberRule.fs:5-9 | ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/CodeCompletion/Rules/ImportStaticMemberRule.fs:4-8 | ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/CodeCompletion/Rules/ImportTypeElementRule.fs:7-11 — 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 (5 lines × 4) ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Intentions/src/QuickFixes/ImportMemberFix.fs:25 — ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Intentions/src/QuickFixes/ImportMemberFix.fs:25-29 | ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Services/src/Refactorings/IntroduceVariable.fs:24-28 | ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Services/src/Util/Deconstruction.fs:16-20 | ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Services/src/Util/MatchTree.fs:13-17 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere all 4 call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made 4 times.

D44 · Platform End-of-Life · End-of-life runtime · ×3

End-of-life runtime: .NET net5.0 rider-fsharp/src/test/testData/solutions/SplitNestedWithFile/ClassLibrary1/ClassLibrary1.fsproj:3 — rider-fsharp/src/test/testData/solutions/SplitNestedWithFile/ClassLibrary1/ClassLibrary1.fsproj declares .NET net5.0 as this project's target framework, and .NET 5, support ended 2022-05-10. An unsupported runtime receives no security patches, so every vulnerability disclosed in it since 2022-05-10 is present and unfixable without moving off it. This is a migration rather than an upgrade: there is no newer release of a runtime that has ended.
End-of-life runtime: .NET net6.0 rider-fsharp/src/test/testData/solutions/SwaggerProviderCSharp/CSharpLibrary/CSharpLibrary.csproj:4 — rider-fsharp/src/test/testData/solutions/SwaggerProviderCSharp/CSharpLibrary/CSharpLibrary.csproj declares .NET net6.0 as this project's target framework, and .NET 6 LTS, support ended 2024-11-12. An unsupported runtime receives no security patches, so every vulnerability disclosed in it since 2024-11-12 is present and unfixable without moving off it. This is a migration rather than an upgrade: there is no newer release of a runtime that has ended.
End-of-life runtime: .NET netcoreapp3.1 ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp.TypeProviders.Host/FSharp.TypeProviders.Host.NetCore/FSharp.TypeProviders.Host.NetCore.csproj:18 — ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp.TypeProviders.Host/FSharp.TypeProviders.Host.NetCore/FSharp.TypeProviders.Host.NetCore.csproj declares .NET netcoreapp3.1 as this project's target framework, and .NET Core 3.1 LTS, support ended 2022-12-13. An unsupported runtime receives no security patches, so every vulnerability disclosed in it since 2022-12-13 is present and unfixable without moving off it. This is a migration rather than an upgrade: there is no newer release of a runtime that has ended.

D3 · God Classes · ClassTooLong · ×2

ClassTooLong: FSharpEnterHandlerDelegate rider-fsharp/src/main/java/com/jetbrains/rider/plugins/fsharp/editorActions/FSharpEnterHandlerDelegate.kt:33 — ClassTooLong — 494 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 30 methods. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 94 over it, 1.24× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
ClassTooLong: FSharpTokenType rider-fsharp/src/main/java/com/jetbrains/rider/ideaInterop/fileTypes/fsharp/lexer/FSharpTokenType.java:13 — ClassTooLong — 466 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 3 methods. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 66 over it, 1.17× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (12–13 lines × 2) · ×2

Duplicated block (12–13 lines × 2) ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/CodeCompletion/Rules/ImportModuleMemberRule.fs:72 — ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/CodeCompletion/Rules/ImportModuleMemberRule.fs:72-83 | ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/CodeCompletion/Rules/ImportTypeElementRule.fs:154-166 — 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 (12–13 lines × 2) ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Intentions/src/QuickFixes/ChangeTypeFix.fs:84 — ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Intentions/src/QuickFixes/ChangeTypeFix.fs:84-96 | ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Services/src/Util/FSharpChangeTypeHelper.fs:69-80 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (4–5 lines × 4) · ×2

Duplicated block (4–5 lines × 4) ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/CodeCompletion/Rules/NameSuggestionRule.fs:1 — ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/CodeCompletion/Rules/NameSuggestionRule.fs:1-5 | ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/CodeCompletion/Rules/NamedUnionCaseFieldsPatRule.fs:1-5 | ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/CodeCompletion/Rules/RecordFieldRule.fs:5-8 | ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/CodeCompletion/Rules/UnionCaseFieldsRule.fs:1-5 — 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 (4–5 lines × 4) ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/CodeCompletion/Rules/GenerateLambdaRule.fs:14 — ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/CodeCompletion/Rules/GenerateLambdaRule.fs:14-18 | ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/CodeCompletion/Rules/ImportModuleMemberRule.fs:13-17 | ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/CodeCompletion/Rules/ImportTypeElementRule.fs:20-23 | ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/CodeCompletion/Rules/NameSuggestionRule.fs:11-14 — 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.

D17 · Explicit Debt · FixmeComment · ×1

FixmeComment ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp.RiderPlugin/src/Install/ExemptFromZoningValidation.cs:13 — // FIXME(k15tfu): Temporarily ignore zone validation errors for JetBrains.ReSharper.Plugins.FSharp.*. See https://youtrack.jetbrains.com/issue/RIDER-99672.

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

REDACTED

D35 · Change Coupling · Change coupling clique · ×1

Change coupling clique: FSharpVcsCodeVisionRangesProviderStage.fs, FsiHost.fs, SandboxDocumentLanguageSupportFSharpScript.fs ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Daemon/src/Stages/FSharpVcsCodeVisionRangesProviderStage.fs — 3 files — `ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Daemon/src/Stages/FSharpVcsCodeVisionRangesProviderStage.fs`, `ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/Fsi/FsiHost.fs`, `ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/LanguageService/SandboxDocumentLanguageSupportFSharpScript.fs` — all change together with no explicit dependency: a fully-connected co-change clique, not 3 separate couplings. They share one concern (thin parallel siblings over a common abstraction), so extract the shared part into ONE unit and the whole clique's coupling clears at once — you do not need to break each pair individually.

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

REDACTED

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

Members sharing a duplicated core (10 members, 50+ identical tokens) ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Intentions/src/QuickFixes/AddExtensionAttributeFix.fs:1 — ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Intentions/src/QuickFixes/AddExtensionAttributeFix.fs:1-51 | ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Intentions/src/QuickFixes/ConvertTupleToArrayOrListElementsFix.fs:1-38 | ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Intentions/src/QuickFixes/RemoveIndexerDotFix.fs:1-25 | ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Intentions/src/QuickFixes/RemoveRedundantAsPatFix.fs:1-29 | ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Intentions/src/QuickFixes/RemoveRedundantQualifierFix.fs:1-40 | ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Intentions/src/QuickFixes/RemoveYieldFix.fs:1-27 | ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Intentions/src/QuickFixes/ReplaceLambdaWithBuiltinFunctionFix.fs:1-36 | ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Intentions/src/QuickFixes/SimplifyLambdaFix.fs:1-35 | ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Intentions/src/QuickFixes/ToAbstractFix.fs:1-30 | ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Intentions/src/QuickFixes/ToObjectExpressionFix.fs:1-34 — These 10 members share a duplicated core: a run of at least 50 identical tokens appears in every one of them. That run is NOT broken out as duplicated-block rows below — it is what admitted this row, and the blocks below cover only the part of it that clears the block floor, so they understate the correspondence. Read the members as one construct written 10 times. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 10 times.

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

Members sharing a duplicated core (5 members, 50+ identical tokens) ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Intentions/src/QuickFixes/AddParensToTypedLikeExprFix.fs:1 — ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Intentions/src/QuickFixes/AddParensToTypedLikeExprFix.fs:1-38 | ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Intentions/src/QuickFixes/RemoveNeverMatchingRuleFix.fs:1-33 | ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Intentions/src/QuickFixes/RemoveRedundantNewFix.fs:1-28 | ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Intentions/src/QuickFixes/RemoveUnexpectedArgumentsFix.fs:1-36 | ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Intentions/src/QuickFixes/RemoveUnusedNamedAsPatFix.fs:1-27 — These 5 members share a duplicated core: a run of at least 50 identical tokens appears in every one of them. That run is NOT broken out as duplicated-block rows below — it is what admitted this row, and the blocks below cover only the part of it that clears the block floor, so they understate the correspondence. Read the members as one construct written 5 times. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 5 times.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (19–20 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (19–20 lines × 2) ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/Parsing/FSharpImplTreeBuilder.fs:138 — ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/Parsing/FSharpImplTreeBuilder.fs:138-156 | ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/Parsing/FSharpSigTreeBuilder.fs:97-116 — 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 both call sites, so a change lands once.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (9–10 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (9–10 lines × 2) ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Daemon/src/Stages/PatternTypeHintsStage.fs:1 — ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Daemon/src/Stages/PatternTypeHintsStage.fs:1-9 | ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Daemon/src/Stages/PipeChainTypeHintStage.fs:1-10 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (2–7 lines × 10) · ×1

Duplicated block (2–7 lines × 10) ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/CodeCompletion/FSharpScriptReferenceCompletionProvider.fs:11 — ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/CodeCompletion/FSharpScriptReferenceCompletionProvider.fs:11-12 | ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/CodeCompletion/Rules/GenerateLambdaRule.fs:8-9 | ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/CodeCompletion/Rules/GenerateMatchExprPatternsRule.fs:6-7 | ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/CodeCompletion/Rules/ImportModuleMemberRule.fs:4-10 | ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/CodeCompletion/Rules/ImportTypeElementRule.fs:6-12 | ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/CodeCompletion/Rules/NameSuggestionRule.fs:6-7 | ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/CodeCompletion/Rules/NamedUnionCaseFieldsPatRule.fs:6-7 | ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/CodeCompletion/Rules/OverrideMemberRule.fs:6-7 | ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/CodeCompletion/Rules/ToRecursiveFunctionRule.fs:7-8 | ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/CodeCompletion/Rules/UnionCaseFieldsRule.fs:6-7 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere all 10 call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made 10 times.

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

Duplicated block (5 lines × 10) ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Intentions/src/QuickFixes/AddExtensionAttributeFix.fs:1 — ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Intentions/src/QuickFixes/AddExtensionAttributeFix.fs:1-5 | ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Intentions/src/QuickFixes/ConvertTupleToArrayOrListElementsFix.fs:1-5 | ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Intentions/src/QuickFixes/RemoveIndexerDotFix.fs:1-5 | ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Intentions/src/QuickFixes/RemoveRedundantAsPatFix.fs:1-5 | ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Intentions/src/QuickFixes/RemoveRedundantQualifierFix.fs:1-5 | ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Intentions/src/QuickFixes/RemoveYieldFix.fs:1-5 | ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Intentions/src/QuickFixes/ReplaceLambdaWithBuiltinFunctionFix.fs:1-5 | ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Intentions/src/QuickFixes/SimplifyLambdaFix.fs:1-5 | ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Intentions/src/QuickFixes/ToAbstractFix.fs:1-5 | ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Intentions/src/QuickFixes/ToObjectExpressionFix.fs:1-5 — 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 10 call sites, so a change lands once.

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

Duplicated block (5 lines × 5) ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Intentions/src/QuickFixes/AddParensToTypedLikeExprFix.fs:1 — ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Intentions/src/QuickFixes/AddParensToTypedLikeExprFix.fs:1-5 | ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Intentions/src/QuickFixes/RemoveNeverMatchingRuleFix.fs:1-5 | ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Intentions/src/QuickFixes/RemoveRedundantNewFix.fs:1-5 | ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Intentions/src/QuickFixes/RemoveUnexpectedArgumentsFix.fs:1-5 | ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Intentions/src/QuickFixes/RemoveUnusedNamedAsPatFix.fs:1-5 — 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.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (4–5 lines × 3) · ×1

Duplicated block (4–5 lines × 3) ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/CodeCompletion/Rules/ImportModuleMemberRule.fs:18 — ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/CodeCompletion/Rules/ImportModuleMemberRule.fs:18-21 | ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/CodeCompletion/Rules/ImportStaticMemberRule.fs:17-21 | ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/CodeCompletion/Rules/RecordFieldRule.fs:15-19 — 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. 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.

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

Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/ZoneMarker.fs:1 — ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/ZoneMarker.fs:1-8 | ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Intentions/src/ZoneMarker.fs:1-8 — before extracting anything, compare `ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/ZoneMarker.fs` and `ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Intentions/src/ZoneMarker.fs` as WHOLE FILES: 100% 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. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (27 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (27 lines × 2) rider-fsharp/projectTemplates/FSharpClassLibraryTemplate/AssemblyInfo.fs:15 — rider-fsharp/projectTemplates/FSharpClassLibraryTemplate/AssemblyInfo.fs:15-41 | rider-fsharp/projectTemplates/FSharpConsoleApplicationTemplate/AssemblyInfo.fs:15-41 — `rider-fsharp/projectTemplates/FSharpClassLibraryTemplate/AssemblyInfo.fs` and `rider-fsharp/projectTemplates/FSharpConsoleApplicationTemplate/AssemblyInfo.fs` are one unit implemented once per sibling directory, so they are most likely parallel implementations of one contract rather than a copy of each other — this scan matched 1 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 27 lines. If both are selected at run time, neither can be retired in favour of the other, and the lines that DIFFER between them are the reason both exist. The move that pays here is to hoist the identical part into a shared location the whole family can reach and give what differs a parameter or a seam, so a change lands once instead of once per sibling; extracting one helper per block leaves every sibling to drift on its own.

D8 · Code Coverage · Coverage not measured · ×1

Coverage not measured — no coverage collector is wired up — Coverage NOT MEASURED: `--collect:"XPlat Code Coverage"` names a data collector that ships in the `coverlet.collector` package, and this repository wires up none — no test project references it and no runsettings declares one. The absence of coverage here is therefore not evidence about the suite or about our analyzer environment: without a collector, `--collect` produces nothing even from a suite that builds and passes. Add a `coverlet.collector` PackageReference to the test project(s) (or commit the Cobertura/OpenCover/lcov report your CI produces) and real coverage will be measured. It is excluded from the score rather than counted as a near-zero defect.

D9 · Test Distribution · Tests outside the analyzed solution · ×1

Tests outside the analyzed solution — 7 .NET test project(s) exist on disk but aren't in the .NET solution that was analyzed (e.g. ProtectedMembers.csproj), so they aren't built or gated with the production code and can't be assessed here. If this .NET code is part of the product, add those projects to the solution or point Watchdog at a solution that includes them; if it is a client/compatibility harness beside a product written in another language, nothing is wrong here and this row can be ignored.

M1 · Documentation (README) · README may be stale · ×1

README may be stale — 291 code files changed in the last 6 months but the README was not touched — it may no longer reflect the system.

SC1 · Supply-chain hygiene · NuGet dependencies are not locked · ×1

NuGet dependencies are not locked — No packages.lock.json and no central package management — restores aren't reproducible or pinned (SSDF PW.4.4). Enable <RestorePackagesWithLockFile>true</RestorePackagesWithLockFile> (commit the lockfile) or adopt Directory.Packages.props. Advisory — never scored.

Minor — 27 finding(s)

D34 · Knowledge Freshness · Orphaned file · ×9

Orphaned file ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi/src/Parsing/FSharpPreprocessedLexer.cs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Services/src/Util/FSharpStringLexer.fs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/Injected/FSharpRegexNodeProvider.fs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi/src/Parsing/FSharpPreprocessor.cs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Intentions/src/Intentions/UseNamedAccessAction.fs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Intentions/src/QuickFixes/UpdateParameterNameInSignatureFix.fs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/Injected/FSharpLiteralInjectionTarget.fs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Intentions/src/QuickFixes/ReplaceWithTripleQuotedInterpolatedStringFix.fs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/Injected/FSharpRegexProviders.fs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.

X10 · Duplicated predicate · Duplicated predicate · ×5

Duplicated predicate ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/CodeCompletion/Rules/ImportModuleMemberRule.fs:76 — `FSharpSymbolReference && context.BasicContext.Solution.GetComponent<IFcsAssemblyReaderShim>().IsEnabled` appears character-identically in 2 files — ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/CodeCompletion/Rules/ImportModuleMemberRule.fs, ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/CodeCompletion/Rules/ImportTypeElementRule.fs. 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 ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/CodeCompletion/Rules/ImportModuleMemberRule.fs:73 — `context.EnableImportCompletion && not context.IsQualified && context.ReparsedContext.Reference` appears character-identically in 2 files — ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/CodeCompletion/Rules/ImportModuleMemberRule.fs, ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/CodeCompletion/Rules/ImportTypeElementRule.fs. 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 ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/CodeCompletion/Rules/FilterFcsItemsRules.fs:52 — `context.IsBasicOrSmartCompletion && not context.IsQualified` appears character-identically in 3 files — ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/CodeCompletion/Rules/FilterFcsItemsRules.fs, ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/CodeCompletion/Rules/GenerateLambdaRule.fs, ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/CodeCompletion/Rules/ToRecursiveFunctionRule.fs. 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 ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/CodeCompletion/FcsLookupItemsProvider.fs:91 — `tokenBeforeType.IsComment || FSharpTokenType.Strings[tokenBeforeType] || tokenBeforeType.IsConstantLiteral` appears character-identically in 2 files — ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/CodeCompletion/FcsLookupItemsProvider.fs, ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/CodeCompletion/Rules/FSharpKeywordsRule.fs. 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 ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/CodeCompletion/Rules/ImportStaticMemberRule.fs:64 — `typeMember.IsStatic && AccessUtil.IsSymbolAccessible(typeMember, accessContext)` appears character-identically in 2 files — ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/CodeCompletion/Rules/ImportStaticMemberRule.fs, ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/LanguageService/FSharpImportTypeHelper.fs. 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.

D16 · Bus Factor · Off-boarding risk · ×3

Off-boarding risk: anonymized user #1 — If anonymized user #1 becomes unavailable, 26 significant file(s) lose their only recent owner: ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Common/src/Shim/AssemblyReader/ProjectFcsModuleReader.fs, ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi/src/Metadata/FSharpMetadataReader.cs, ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Services/src/Refactorings/IntroduceVariable.fs, ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Services/src/Util/OpensUtil.fs, ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi/src/Util/FcsTypeMappingUtil.cs, ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/Debugger/FSharpSourceCallableExpressionsProvider.fs, ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi/src/Impl/Cache2/FSharpDeclarationProcessor.cs, ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Intentions/src/QuickFixes/ChangeTypeFix.fs (+18 more). Pair on, review, or document these before any departure.
Off-boarding risk: anonymized user #2 — If anonymized user #2 becomes unavailable, 7 significant file(s) lose their only recent owner: ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.TypeProviders.Protocol/src/Models/ProxyProvidedType.cs, ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Intentions/src/Intentions/DisableWarningActions.fs, ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.TypeProviders.Protocol/src/Models/ProxyProvidedTypeWithContext.cs, ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/Injected/FSharpInjectionTargetsFinderFactory.fs, ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Services/src/Util/TypeAnnotationsUtil.fs, ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Common/src/Checker/FSharpCheckerExtensions.fs, ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp.Fantomas.Host/src/FantomasAssemblyResolver.cs. Pair on, review, or document these before any departure.
Off-boarding risk: anonymized user #3 — If anonymized user #3 becomes unavailable, 4 significant file(s) lose their only recent owner: ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi/src/Impl/Cache2/GenerativeMembersConverter.cs, ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi/src/Impl/Cache2/FSharpGenerativeProvidedNestedClass.cs, ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi/src/Impl/DeclaredElement/CompilerGenerated/FSharpUnionTagsClass.cs, ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi/src/Impl/Cache2/FSharpGenerativeProvidedMember.cs. Pair on, review, or document these before any departure.

D16 · Bus Factor · Further sole-owners (lower concentration) · ×1

Further sole-owners (lower concentration) — 4 other contributor(s) are each the sole owner of a small amount of code below the off-boarding threshold — folded into the bus-factor score and metrics (42 single-owned of 326 analysed files in total, counted over production source files of roughly 2,400 bytes or more, excluding vendored, generated and example/demo trees and test files identified by path convention, largest first; 326 of the 1009 production source files in this repository met that bar). They are anonymized user #4 (2 file(s)), anonymized user #5 (1 file(s)), anonymized user #6 (1 file(s)), anonymized user #7 (1 file(s)) — spread or document their files in the same way, at lower priority than the named off-boarding risks above. The files folded here: ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/CodeCompletion/Rules/UnionCaseFieldsRule.fs, ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/CodeCompletion/Rules/GenerateLambdaRule.fs, ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/CodeStyle/FantomasPage.fs, ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/Util/FSharpVisualElementFactory.fs, ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/Debugger/FSharpBreakpointVariantsProvider.fs.

D20 · ADR Quality · No ADRs found · ×1

No ADRs found — No ADRs found. No recognised ADR directory (`docs/adr/`, `docs/decisions/`, `adr/`, `docs/rfcs/`, an `ADR0001/` folder, or their siblings) exists anywhere in this tree. What was searched, so you can tell an empty log from a search that missed one: every directory under the tree (build output, dependencies and VCS metadata excepted), for a document that is either any non-index page inside a recognised ADR directory, whatever its name and however deeply nested (`docs/adr/use-postgres.md`, `docs/adr/2024/0001-x.md`); or a file anywhere whose name is ADR-shaped (`0001-use-postgres.md`, `adr-012-caching.md`); or, when neither turned anything up, a document carrying the decision-record signature (an "Architecture Decision Record" heading, or Status / Context / Decision / Consequences as section headings). A decision log that clears none of these — unnumbered files outside any recognised directory, without those headings — is not seen by this check and this row is then wrong. If that is your case, say so rather than renaming anything; otherwise, consider recording architectural decisions in `docs/adr/`.

D34 · Knowledge Freshness · Orphaned files with no living knowledge · ×1

Orphaned files with no living knowledge — 9 of 330 analysed file(s) have no living knowledge left — their last meaningful change has decayed away, so if one breaks, no one currently understands it (counted over production source files of roughly 2,400 bytes or more, excluding vendored, generated and example/demo trees and test files identified by path convention, largest first; 330 of the 1009 production source files in this repository met that bar). None is large enough to earn a read-through of its own, so this row stands in for the per-file rows rather than raising one each — most significant first: ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi/src/Parsing/FSharpPreprocessedLexer.cs, ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Services/src/Util/FSharpStringLexer.fs, ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/Injected/FSharpRegexNodeProvider.fs, ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi/src/Parsing/FSharpPreprocessor.cs, ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Intentions/src/Intentions/UseNamedAccessAction.fs, ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Intentions/src/QuickFixes/UpdateParameterNameInSignatureFix.fs, ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Features/src/Injected/FSharpLiteralInjectionTarget.fs, ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.Psi.Intentions/src/QuickFixes/ReplaceWithTripleQuotedInterpolatedStringFix.fs (and 1 more). Attach the read to the next change that touches one of them: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for, so the knowledge comes back at the cost of a change you were making anyway.

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

REDACTED

M2 · Architecture documentation · No ADRs · ×1

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

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.

M4 · Documentation accuracy · README/code drift · ×1

README/code drift README.md:30 — README.md names `rider-fsharp/prepare`, but no file or folder `rider-fsharp/prepare` exists. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong.

P2 · Observability · Logging is not universal · ×1

Logging is not universal — Only 5/6 runnable modules use logging (modules with no entry point or server are excluded — they are libraries a runnable module hosts). Silent: `rider-fsharp/projectTemplates/FSharpConsoleApplicationTemplate`.

P3 · Security & performance tooling · No SAST · ×1

No SAST — No static application security testing detected. For this repository's stack, add `semgrep --config=auto` plus gitleaks for committed secrets (F# is not a CodeQL language and has no language-specific SAST engine) as a CI step. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: the 1998 CI workflow file(s) in this repository, and the scanner and linter configuration checked in beside them. A scan that runs outside CI, one configured in your forge's web UI rather than in a committed file, or a tool whose name is none of those this check carries, is not seen — if that is your case the row is wrong, and saying so is more useful than adding a second scanner.

X5 · Nullable reference types · Nullable reference types not enabled everywhere · ×1

Nullable reference types not enabled everywhere — 0/2 NRT-eligible project(s) enable <Nullable>enable</Nullable> (projects targeting a pre-C#-8 framework are excluded — NRTs aren't available there). NRTs catch a whole class of null-deref bugs at compile time.

Minor — 1 finding(s)

D19 · Documentation Quality · XML-doc coverage · ×1

XML-doc coverage: FSharp.RiderPlugin ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp.RiderPlugin/FSharp.RiderPlugin.csproj — FSharp.RiderPlugin: 4 % XML-doc coverage (1/26).

Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail

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

Dimension	Tool	Version	Command	Findings	Raw output
D28 · Secrets (history)	gitleaks	—	gitleaks detect --no-banner --config /opt/gitleaks-rules/watchdog-gitleaks.toml --report-format json --report-path /tmp/watchdog-gitleaks-20a32a8be13f48d2a8fd0e5de8a62c67/history.json --exit-code 0 --source .	0	artifacts/raw/gitleaks-history.json
D28 · Secrets (history)	gitleaks	—	gitleaks detect --no-git --no-banner --config /opt/gitleaks-rules/watchdog-gitleaks.toml --report-format json --report-path /tmp/watchdog-gitleaks-20a32a8be13f48d2a8fd0e5de8a62c67/tree.json --exit-code 0 --source .	0	artifacts/raw/gitleaks-tree.json
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)	semgrep	—	semgrep --config /opt/semgrep-rules/security-audit.yml --config /opt/semgrep-rules/owasp-top-ten.yml --config /opt/semgrep-rules/watchdog-sast.yml --json --quiet --timeout 10 --timeout-threshold 3 --metrics off .	9	artifacts/raw/semgrep.json
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities	nuget	—	nuget: not applicable — nuget: the solution did not restore on the analyzer's .NET SDK (an SDK/target-framework/restore mismatch, common for an older codebase), so there was no restored dependency graph to scan; nuget packages.config: osv-scanner exited 127 with no findings — dependency CVEs were not measured	0	—
D31 · IaC & Container Security	trivy	—	trivy: not applicable — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Docker Compose, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation, ARM, Bicep, Ansible); nothing to scan.	0	—
D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR)	semgrep	—	semgrep: not applicable — No personal data was found crossing a boundary the PII/GDPR ruleset checks — nothing written to a log or console sink, placed in a URL or query string, or persisted to browser storage. That is a clean result for the LEAK surface only: this ruleset detects personal data escaping, it does not inventory the personal data a repository holds, so it is not evidence that this repository has no personal-data surface. The personal-data map (Appendix C) and the C1-C5 compliance cards are what speak to that. semgrep could not parse 99 file(s) — `ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp.Debugger/src/FSharpAsyncStepper.cs`, `ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp.Debugger/src/FSharpSequencePointInvokedMethodsProvider.cs`, `ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp.Debugger/src/FSharpUnitReturnValueFilter.cs`, `ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.ProjectModelBase/src/FSharpAsyncUtil.cs`, `ReSharper.FSharp/src/FSharp/FSharp.ProjectModelBase/src/FSharpZones.cs`, … (+94 more) — so the PII/GDPR sweep did not cover the unparsed regions of them; rows reported elsewhere in those files are real.	0	—
D37 · Vulnerability-disclosure Policy	disclosure	—	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.	0	—
D40 · Network Egress Confinement	runtime-hardening	—	runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.	0	—
D41 · Kernel & Syscall Confinement	runtime-hardening	—	runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.	0	—
D42 · Runtime Threat Enforcement	runtime-hardening	—	runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.	0	—
D43 · Malicious Dependencies	osv-scanner	—	osv-scanner --format json --recursive --experimental-disable-plugins transitivedependency/requirements --experimental-disable-plugins dotnet/csproj --experimental-disable-plugins dotnet/nugetcpm .	0	artifacts/raw/osv-scanner.json

Run 01a16b3c-1816-7ada-8b8f-5de404f58303 · every finding is also locatable in findings.md, and the complete scoring record (with exit codes + durations) in sidecar.json.

Findings by how serious they are

This survey was produced by

Executive summary

Top priorities

Diagnosis: what the measurements show together

Architecture — bounded-context dependency graph

Architecture: which parts of the code depend on which

At a glance — Code Health · 53% · Adequate · gated by D17, X5 ·

At a glance — Architecture · 100% · Exemplary ·

At a glance — Maturity · 53% · Adequate · gated by M2 ·

At a glance — Readiness · 48% · Weak · gated by D13, P3 ·

At a glance — Security · 42% · Weak · gated by D44 ·

At a glance — Performance · 100% · Exemplary ·

Security & Compliance — OWASP Top-10 mapping

Roadmap

File quality

How the grades work

Methodology & how to trust this report

Tools & methods

Run transparency — what happened this run

Limitations & what we did not check

Per-dimension blind spots

The LLM boundary

Dimensions

Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions

Reference — by lens

Appendix A — Findings (grouped)

Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail

Downloadable artifacts