Public report of Kotlin/kotlinx.serialization, published 24 October 2026. It has the same score, grades and number of findings as the full report. The details of security findings (where they are in the code, which known vulnerabilities and which passwords or keys were found) are left out, so nobody can use them against the project.
Public
Executive report Measured under the Code Assurance Index, an open standard for code quality, using its published scoring rules (rubric version 2026.10.5). Watchdog signed this survey and filed it in the standard's public register, where anyone can look it up by its survey ID. Check this survey → Signed and filed in the standard's public register, 24 October 2026, 20:14 UTC · Survey ID cd_90961c6e3fe24d828ec52ceddf4870d3

Kotlin/kotlinx.serialization

Measured 24 October 2026, 20:07 UTC, at code version 6f6a2e6

No regression since the last survey

A regression is a drop of 0.5 points or more in the score, or of 2.5 or more out of 10 in a dimension, since the last survey.

CAI score 56out of 100 Adequate
CriticalWeakAdequateStrongExemplary
Up 1 since the last survey

The score is built from these lenses. Each lens grades one area of the code, such as how easy it is to change or how well it is protected. The weakest lens counts most, so one weak area pulls the score down instead of being averaged away.

Architecture 96 Exemplary Performance 86 Strong Code Health 82 Strong Security and Compliance 80 Adequate Maturity 51 Adequate Production Readiness 43 Weak

A medium codebase: 26,112 lines of product code in 15 projects, tests not counted · Estimated rebuild effort: about 0.4 person-years · Weakest lens: Production Readiness, 43

Findings by how serious they are

12 critical 57 serious 24 minor

12 dimensions are left out of the score. For each one, Watchdog either couldn't measure it in this code, or found no evidence of the safeguard it looks for, such as a tested backup restore. They count neither for nor against the score, and Limitations lists each one with its reason.

This survey was produced by

Watchdog
Producer
Canine Development
Analyzer
Watchdog engine 1.0.0
Measured
24 October 2026, 20:07 UTC

A measurement, not a certificate. The Code Assurance Index records a number together with the evidence it was worked out from, so anyone can recalculate it, but it doesn't certify or guarantee the code. The standard was written by Canine Development, which also builds Watchdog. It is open to any tool that implements it, and today Watchdog is the only one that does.

The score is deterministic, which means the same code always gets the same score. Watchdog works it out with tools that follow published rules, and an AI model never decides it, so anyone who applies the same rules to the same code gets the same number. How it is done is explained under Methodology ▸

53of 57 dimensions measured by tools. The other 4 are advisory notes from an AI model, which explain the code but don't count towards the score.
81of 93 findings point to an exact file and line, so you can open each one in the code. The other 12 concern the repository as a whole, such as missing documentation.
57dimensions across 6 lenses, read from 26,112 lines of product code in 15 projects.
Chapters

Executive summary

Kotlin/kotlinx.serialization scores 56 out of 100 and is rated Adequate, while four of its six lenses score higher still: Architecture at 96, rated Exemplary, Performance at 86 and Code Health at 82, both rated Strong, and Security and Compliance at 80, rated Adequate.

The score is lower than those four because the weakest lens counts most, and here that is Production Readiness, which scores 43 and is rated Weak. Its CI/CD gates dimension scores 0 out of 10, and until that reaches 4, Production Readiness can't be rated higher than Adequate. The first actions are to add a CI workflow that builds and runs the test suite on every push/PR and to record your significant design decisions, and if Production Readiness rose to 70, the score would rise from 56 to about 65.

12 findings are critical: seven in Secrets (history) and five in Dependency Vulnerabilities.

Watchdog couldn't measure 10 dimensions in this code, among them Code Coverage, Test Reliability and Dependency Hygiene, so they are left out of the score. The product code is 26,112 lines, which would take an estimated 0.4 person-years, around €56,000, to rebuild.

Code Health 82 Strong Architecture 96 ★ Exemplary Maturity 51 Adequate, capped by Architecture documentation Production Readiness 43 Weak, capped by CI/CD gates and Security & performance tooling Security and Compliance 80 Adequate, capped by Secrets (history) Performance 86 Strong

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.
Production Readiness 43 · counts for 46%Maturity 51 · counts for 25%Security and Compliance 80 · counts for 14%Code Health 82 · counts for 8%Performance 86 · counts for 4%Architecture 96 · counts for 2%

If Production Readiness rose from 43 to 70, the lowest score rated Strong, the score would rise from 56 to about 65.

Code composition: what the lines of code are
Product code 48%Tests 52%
Fixed since the last survey: 1 finding

This critical or serious finding was in the previous survey, on 10 October 2026, and is gone from this one.

  • License Compliance · Banned license: org.openjdk.jmh:jmh-core
Rebuild cost: about €56,000 · Estimate
Cost to rebuild€18,000 to €93,000, for 308 to 976 hours of work, about 0.4 person-years for one engineer
Difficulty of the problemStandard, judged from the kind of software and how it is built. Code that solves a harder problem, such as payments or medical bookings, costs more per line to write.
Quality factor×0.8 at a score of 56. 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.
SizeMedium: 26,112 lines of product code

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

Top priorities

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

1
Add a CI workflow that builds and runs the test suite on every push/PR.
Raises the score by about 8 points · Medium effort · CI/CD gates
2
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.
Raises the score by about 8 points · Medium effort · Architecture documentation
3
Add a build/run (quick start) section to the root README — the first thing a newcomer needs.
Raises the score by about 3 points · Medium effort · Documentation (README)

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 €56,000 to build again, about 0.4 person-years of work. Its weakest lens is Production Readiness, at 43 (Weak). Production Readiness is about whether the product is ready to run in production and to change without breaking. Because the weakest lens counts most in the score, work on Production Readiness also moves the score most.
Based on: the rebuild estimate · the Production Readiness grade · how much each lens counts
What to do: Start with the Production Readiness actions in Top priorities.
If you do one thing first · First action
Add a CI workflow that builds and runs the test suite on every push/PR. Of all the actions in this report, it raises the score most for the work it takes: about 8 points for medium effort. The next survey will show the change in the score.
Based on: the ranked actions in Top priorities, by score gain and effort

Architecture: 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.

217 modules, with 275 dependencies between them. 3 loops run through 9 of the modules, marked above the diagonal.

The table shows the 40 modules with the most connections; 177 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 kotlinx.benchmarks.protobuf2 kotlinx.serialization.modules3 kotlinx.serialization.encoding4 kotlinx.serialization.internal5 kotlinx.serialization.descriptors6 kotlinx.serialization7 example.exampleFormats128 example.exampleFormats139 example.exampleFormats1410 example.exampleFormats1511 example.exampleFormats1612 example.exampleFormats1713 example.exampleFormats1814 example.exampleJson1715 example.exampleJson3116 example.exampleSerializer0717 example.exampleSerializer0818 example.exampleSerializer0919 example.exampleSerializer1020 example.exampleSerializer1121 example.exampleSerializer1222 example.exampleSerializer1323 example.exampleSerializer1424 example.exampleSerializer1525 example.exampleSerializer1626 kotlinx.benchmarks.json.ContextualOverheadBenchmark27 kotlinx.benchmarks.json.UseSerializerOverheadBenchmark28 kotlinx.serialization.cbor29 kotlinx.serialization.hocon30 kotlinx.serialization.json.internal31 kotlinx.serialization.properties.Properties32 kotlinx.serialization.protobuf33 kotlinx.serialization.cbor.internal34 kotlinx.serialization.hocon.Hocon35 kotlinx.serialization.json36 kotlinx.serialization.protobuf.internal37 example.exampleJson3238 example.examplePoly2139 example.exampleSerializer2240 kotlinx.benchmarks.json
1 kotlinx.benchmarks.protobuf
2 kotlinx.serialization.modules17
3 kotlinx.serialization.encoding487
4 kotlinx.serialization.internal3886371
5 kotlinx.serialization.descriptors1
6 kotlinx.serialization3826
7 example.exampleFormats12111
8 example.exampleFormats132312
9 example.exampleFormats142312
10 example.exampleFormats152422
11 example.exampleFormats162422
12 example.exampleFormats172422
13 example.exampleFormats182425
14 example.exampleJson17211
15 example.exampleJson31211
16 example.exampleSerializer07211
17 example.exampleSerializer08211
18 example.exampleSerializer09211
19 example.exampleSerializer10211
20 example.exampleSerializer11211
21 example.exampleSerializer12211
22 example.exampleSerializer13211
23 example.exampleSerializer14211
24 example.exampleSerializer15211
25 example.exampleSerializer16211
26 kotlinx.benchmarks.json.ContextualOverheadBenchmark211
27 kotlinx.benchmarks.json.UseSerializerOverheadBenchmark422
28 kotlinx.serialization.cbor323
29 kotlinx.serialization.hocon31135
30 kotlinx.serialization.json.internal10174252285
31 kotlinx.serialization.properties.Properties21242
32 kotlinx.serialization.protobuf33
33 kotlinx.serialization.cbor.internal26738
34 kotlinx.serialization.hocon.Hocon141532
35 kotlinx.serialization.json32212173
36 kotlinx.serialization.protobuf.internal314118620
37 example.exampleJson322111
38 example.examplePoly2112221
39 example.exampleSerializer2212111
40 kotlinx.benchmarks.json34129
Uses a module listed above itPart of a loopThe module itself
1 kotlinx.benchmarks.protobuf2 kotlinx.serialization.modules3 kotlinx.serialization.encoding4 kotlinx.serialization.internal5 kotlinx.serialization.descriptors6 kotlinx.serialization7 example.exampleFormats128 example.exampleFormats139 example.exampleFormats1410 example.exampleFormats1511 example.exampleFormats1612 example.exampleFormats1713 example.exampleFormats1814 example.exampleJson1715 example.exampleJson3116 example.exampleSerializer0717 example.exampleSerializer0818 example.exampleSerializer0919 example.exampleSerializer1020 example.exampleSerializer1121 example.exampleSerializer1222 example.exampleSerializer1323 example.exampleSerializer1424 example.exampleSerializer1525 example.exampleSerializer1626 kotlinx.benchmarks.json.ContextualOverheadBenchmark27 kotlinx.benchmarks.json.UseSerializerOverheadBenchmark28 kotlinx.serialization.cbor29 kotlinx.serialization.hocon30 kotlinx.serialization.json.internal31 kotlinx.serialization.properties.Properties32 kotlinx.serialization.protobuf33 kotlinx.serialization.cbor.internal34 kotlinx.serialization.hocon.Hocon35 kotlinx.serialization.json36 kotlinx.serialization.protobuf.internal37 example.exampleJson3238 example.examplePoly2139 example.exampleSerializer2240 kotlinx.benchmarks.jsonkotlinx.benchmarks.protobuf1kotlinx.serialization.modules2kotlinx.serialization.encoding3kotlinx.serialization.internal4kotlinx.serialization.descriptors5kotlinx.serialization6example.exampleFormats127example.exampleFormats138example.exampleFormats149example.exampleFormats1510example.exampleFormats1611example.exampleFormats1712example.exampleFormats1813example.exampleJson1714example.exampleJson3115example.exampleSerializer0716example.exampleSerializer0817example.exampleSerializer0918example.exampleSerializer1019example.exampleSerializer1120example.exampleSerializer1221example.exampleSerializer1322example.exampleSerializer1423example.exampleSerializer1524example.exampleSerializer1625kotlinx.benchmarks.json.ContextualOverheadBenchmark26kotlinx.benchmarks.json.UseSerializerOverheadBenchmark27kotlinx.serialization.cbor28kotlinx.serialization.hocon29kotlinx.serialization.json.internal30kotlinx.serialization.properties.Properties31kotlinx.serialization.protobuf32kotlinx.serialization.cbor.internal33kotlinx.serialization.hocon.Hocon34kotlinx.serialization.json35kotlinx.serialization.protobuf.internal36example.exampleJson3237example.examplePoly2138example.exampleSerializer2239kotlinx.benchmarks.json40174873886371138261112312231224222422242224252112112112112112112112112112112112112114223233113510174252285212423326738141532322121733141186202111122211211134129+177 more modules (most-connected shown)

At a glance — Code Health · 82% · Strong ·

The Good
D1 · Kotlin Cyclomatic Complexity 9.0 D2 · Kotlin Cognitive Complexity 7.7 D3 · Kotlin God Classes 8.9 D4 · Kotlin Code Duplication 9.9 D17 · Kotlin Explicit Debt 9.8 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 X30 · Repo Support guard that admits what it rejects 10.0 X5 · Repo Nullable reference types 9.9
The Bad
X3 · Repo Exception handling 5.4

At a glance — Architecture · 96% · Exemplary ·

The Good
D5 · Kotlin Coupling 10.0 D6 · Kotlin Cohesion (LCOM4) 9.9 D22 · Kotlin Internal API Consistency 9.0 D35 · Kotlin Change Coupling 10.0 AX10 · Repo Code composition 9.9 AX3 · Repo Project dependency cycles 10.0 AX4 · Repo Dependency direction 10.0
The Bad
D26 · Kotlin Project Cohesion 7.0

At a glance — Maturity · 51% · Adequate · gated by M2 ·

The Good
D15 · Kotlin Churn × Complexity Hotspots 10.0 D16 · Kotlin Bus Factor 8.4 D19 · Kotlin Documentation Quality 9.0 D21 · Kotlin Naming Consistency 10.0 D34 · Kotlin Knowledge Freshness 9.6 M3 · Repo Folder & project structure 10.0 M4 · Repo Documentation accuracy 10.0
The Bad
M1 · Repo Documentation (README) 6.1
The Ugly
M2 · Repo Architecture documentation 0.0

At a glance — Readiness · 43% · Weak · gated by P1, P3 ·

The Good
D13 · Kotlin REDACTED Scanning 10.0 P10 · Repo Library API & versioning 10.0 P6 · Repo Release Hygiene 10.0
The Ugly
P1 · Repo CI/CD gates 0.0 P3 · Repo Security & performance tooling 0.0

At a glance — Security · 80% · Adequate · gated by D28 ·

The Good
D29 · Kotlin Static Analysis (SAST) 10.0 D43 · Kotlin Malicious Dependencies 10.0 D44 · Kotlin Platform End-of-Life 10.0 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
D30 · Kotlin Dependency Vulnerabilities 6.8
The Ugly
D28 · Kotlin Secrets (history) 3.0

At a glance — Performance · 86% · Strong ·

The Good
PF1 · Repo Benchmark discipline 8.5 PF2 · Repo Allocation hygiene 8.0 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 categoryFindingsSeverity
A07:2025 — Authentication Failures8High / Critical
A03:2025 — Software Supply Chain Failures6High / Critical

Roadmap

First, establish a CI workflow to automatically build and test every change, and immediately remediate the seven secrets found in the repository history. Next, document key architectural decisions in a dedicated folder to preserve design context and add a quick-start section to the README to help new contributors get started. Finally, address the two off-boarding risks to ensure knowledge is not siloed with specific individuals.

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

Do thisHelpsEffortDimension
Add a CI workflow that builds and runs the test suite on every push/PR.+8.1 ptsMediumCI/CD gates
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.+7.7 ptsMediumArchitecture documentation
Add a build/run (quick start) section to the root README — the first thing a newcomer needs.+2.6 ptsMediumDocumentation (README)
Resolve the 7 REDACTED finding(s) in Secrets (history) — start with REDACTED (7).+0.9 ptsLowSecrets (history)
Resolve the 2 Off-boarding risk finding(s) in Bus Factor.+0.9 ptsLowBus Factor
Resolve the 4 High CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with REDACTED (4).+0.5 ptsLowDependency Vulnerabilities
Resolve the 1 Further sole-owners (lower concentration) finding(s) in Bus Factor.+0.4 ptsLowBus Factor
Resolve the 1 High vulnerability finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with REDACTED.+0.4 ptsLowDependency Vulnerabilities

File quality

Per-file score 0–10 — a quality signature. Of 41 files carrying findings, judged against the Production bar: 2% slop · 44% mixed · 54% near-clean.

FileScoreBandWorst signal
REDACTED3.9SlopDependency Vulnerabilities: High CVE: REDACTED
formats/json/commonMain/src/kotlinx/serialization/json/internal/lexer/AbstractJsonLexer.kt6.0MixedExplicit Debt: TodoComment
core/commonMain/src/kotlinx/serialization/internal/Tagged.kt6.0MixedExplicit Debt: TodoComment
formats/cbor/commonTest/src/kotlinx/serialization/cbor/CborParserTest.kt6.9MixedExplicit Debt: TodoComment
REDACTED7.2MixedSecrets (history): REDACTED: REDACTED
REDACTED7.2MixedSecrets (history): REDACTED: REDACTED
REDACTED7.2MixedSecrets (history): REDACTED: REDACTED
REDACTED7.2MixedSecrets (history): REDACTED: REDACTED
REDACTED7.2MixedSecrets (history): REDACTED: REDACTED
REDACTED7.2MixedSecrets (history): REDACTED: REDACTED
REDACTED7.2MixedSecrets (history): REDACTED: REDACTED
core/commonMain/src/kotlinx/serialization/internal/CollectionSerializers.kt7.3MixedExplicit Debt: TodoComment
formats/json/jsMain/src/kotlinx/serialization/json/internal/DynamicEncoders.kt7.3MixedExplicit Debt: TodoComment
formats/protobuf/commonMain/src/kotlinx/serialization/protobuf/internal/ProtobufReader.kt7.3MixedExplicit Debt: TodoComment
formats/json/commonMain/src/kotlinx/serialization/json/internal/lexer/CommentLexers.kt7.4MixedCognitive Complexity: StringJsonLexerWithComments.skipWhitespaces (cognitive 20)
core/jsMain/src/kotlinx/serialization/internal/Platform.kt7.4MixedCode Duplication: Duplicated block (32 lines × 3)
formats/json-io/commonMain/src/kotlinx/serialization/json/io/internal/IoJsonStreams.kt7.8MixedCognitive Complexity: KxIoReader.read (cognitive 20)
formats/cbor/commonMain/src/kotlinx/serialization/cbor/internal/Decoder.kt7.8MixedCognitive Complexity: CborParser.skipElement (cognitive 19)
formats/protobuf/commonMain/src/kotlinx/serialization/protobuf/internal/ProtobufDecoding.kt7.8MixedCognitive Complexity: ProtobufDecoder.decodeSerializableValue (cognitive 17)
core/commonTest/src/kotlinx/serialization/SerializersLookupInterfaceTest.kt8.2Near-cleanExplicit Debt: TodoComment

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 — 12

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 — 57

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 — 24

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

Could not be resolved — 12

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. 53 of 57 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); 4 documentation/naming judgement(s) are LLM-assisted and labelled advisory. Overall confidence is 0.9 — the weighted average across measured dimensions; it falls as more of the score leans on LLM-assisted judgement and rises when it's fully tool-backed.

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

What we checked — 57 dimensions across the health lenses
D1D2D3D4D5D6D13D15D16D17D19D21D22D26D28D29D30D34D35D43D44AX10AX3AX4M1M2M3M4P1P10P3P6PF1PF2PF3X1X12X13X14X15X16X17X18X19X20X21X22X23X24X25X26X27X28X29X3X30X5

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
  1. 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, 81 of 93 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.)
  2. 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.
  3. 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.

MethodBacksVersionEvaluator
Roslyn static analysisComplexity, cohesion, coupling, dead code, API surface, layering5.3.0✓ deterministic
Native secret scannerHardcoded secrets / credentials1.0.0✓ deterministic
Watchdog duplication detector (in-process)Code duplication1.0.0✓ deterministic
Coverage (coverlet / dotnet-coverage)Line & branch coverage10.0.400✓ deterministic
NuGet / dotnetOutdated, vulnerable & deprecated dependencies10.0.400✓ deterministic
git / LibGit2SharpChurn hotspots, knowledge concentration, history2.43.0 · 0.31.0✓ deterministic
gitleaks · semgrep · trivySecrets in history, SAST, CVEs, IaC & container, PII / GDPR1.86.0 · 0.69.3✓ deterministic
LLM (sampled · advisory)Documentation quality, ADR conformance, naming — sampled over a bounded sample; advisory, never a deterministic measurementLocal LLM◐ LLM · sampled · advisory

Every finding is locatable in findings.md. Run 01a16f86-9b72-7b11-a03c-edc0736c8d59.

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

Run transparency — what happened this run

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

  • D8 Code Coverage — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Coverage NOT MEASURED: test source is present (.kt) but the built-in coverage collector has no runner for this repository's ecosystem — so this suite was never executed by it. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a defect in the repo. To have real coverage read, produce a coverage report in a standard format (JaCoCo XML — the Gradle `jacocoTestReport` task) and commit it — a hosted scan measures a clone of the repository, so a report that exists only in a working tree, a CI runner's or your own, never reaches it; the artefact is commonly gitignored, so `git add -f` that one file (or un-ignore its path) and commit it alongside the code it measures. You can widen what we reach: optional: produce a coverage report in a standard format (JaCoCo XML — the Gradle `jacocoTestReport` task) and commit it — a hosted scan measures a clone of the repository, so a report that exists only in a working tree, a CI runner's or your own, never reaches it; the artefact is commonly gitignored, so `git add -f` that one file (or un-ignore its path) and commit it alongside the code it measures — then the real number is read on the next scan.
  • D11 Test Reliability — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Test source is present (.kt) and this repository declares a JVM test suite (repository root, Gradle), but it was not re-run: the analyzer environment could not run it. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
  • D12 Dependency Hygiene — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Not scored — 19 Maven/Gradle manifest(s) were read, stating a version for 30 dependency(ies) and leaving 7 to a parent or an imported BOM, but no build resolved the dependency graph, so the outdated signal was not established. NOT a finding that these dependencies are current or healthy.
  • D27 Navigability — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Navigability is taken over call sites whose callee resolved. For C# that population includes calls into referenced assemblies; for this language only calls declared inside the repository count, so the abstention threshold reads the repository's use of its standard library as a resolution failure. That is a limit of this analyzer, not a build problem in this repository.
  • 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. `buildSrc/src/main/kotlin/animalsniffer-conventions.gradle.kts`, `core/commonMain/src/kotlinx/serialization/internal/Platform.common.kt`, `formats/cbor/commonMain/src/kotlinx/serialization/cbor/internal/Decoder.kt`, `formats/cbor/commonMain/src/kotlinx/serialization/cbor/internal/Encoder.kt`, `formats/cbor/commonMain/src/kotlinx/serialization/cbor/internal/Encoding.kt`, … (+7 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.
  • AX6 Interface segregation — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is computed over the public interfaces this run's compilations declare, and none was loaded, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • C2 Access Controls — 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. These authorization controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks authorization controls.
  • GD1 Unfinished & placeholder code — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, F#, JavaScript/TypeScript, Dart, Ruby and Scala source only, and no C#, F#, JavaScript/TypeScript, Dart, Ruby or Scala was found, and this repository's Java, Kotlin is not read yet, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • IC1 Incompleteness & stubs — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Dart, Ruby and Scala source only, and this repository's Kotlin is most of its product and is not read yet, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
  • 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.
  • S1 Web-Security Posture — 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. These web-security controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks web-security controls.

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

Limitations & what we did not check

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

Per-dimension blind spots

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

  • D1 Cyclomatic Complexity: Cyclomatic complexity counts branches statically — it cannot tell an essential decision tree from accidental tangle, nor see complexity that lives in data or configuration (large switch-case token tables, DSL lexers/parsers, data-as-code rule tables) rather than control flow: a tokenizer's many single-character cases read as high complexity though each branch is trivial.
  • D2 Cognitive Complexity: Cognitive-complexity heuristics approximate how hard code is to follow; genuine domain difficulty and well-named intent that eases reading are not captured.
  • D3 God Classes: "God class" is sized by members and responsibilities visible in the type — a deliberately broad facade over a coherent subsystem can read the same as an accidental grab-bag. For front-end JS the file-length check is cohesion-aware (a single-responsibility module — one class/IIFE — earns a 3× threshold), but cohesion is approximated from top-level declarations, not true dependency structure.
  • D4 Code Duplication: Duplication is token-similarity — an in-process token-stream comparison over sliding windows, with type-aware normalization — so it finds copy-paste, not semantic duplication expressed differently. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, protobuf/OpenAPI stubs, model snapshots) is EXCLUDED — its repetition is the tool's, not the team's — so the score reflects hand-written duplication only.
  • D5 Coupling: Coupling is measured between projects/assemblies — runtime coupling through DI, reflection, messaging or shared databases is invisible to a static reference graph.
  • D6 Cohesion (LCOM4): LCOM4 cohesion is syntactic — it infers connectivity from which methods touch which fields/methods by name, not from real runtime behaviour or intent.
  • D13 REDACTED Scanning: REDACTED detection is signature- and entropy-based on the current tree — a secret that does not match a known pattern, or one already rotated, will not be flagged (a clean scan is "nothing matched", not "no secrets exist").
  • D15 Churn × Complexity Hotspots: Churn hotspots come from git history — a freshly imported or squashed repository has no churn signal, and recent rewrites can mask a historically risky file.
  • D16 Bus Factor: Bus-factor is a time-decayed model of commit attribution (who has recently, repeatedly worked a file), not comprehension — pairing, review and reading-without-committing spread knowledge it can't see; bot commits and shared accounts still distort it.
  • D17 Explicit Debt: Acknowledged-debt signals (TODO/FIXME, suppressions, dead code) are textual — undocumented debt that nobody marked, and debt that lives in design rather than annotations, is invisible. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, generated stubs) is excluded — it is never the team's dead code to delete.
  • D19 Documentation Quality: Documentation quality is judged by an LLM over a bounded sample of docs — it reads what is written, not whether the docs match the running system, and it is advisory, not a measurement. Its critique rows are drawn from a closed category vocabulary and each row means the same thing in every run, so two scans can be compared row by row; the SET that fires is still a sample, and does not repeat exactly. Measured on one frozen input, six scans at one engine SHA: 2-5 critique rows per scan, 8 distinct rows across the six, 3 of those 8 seen in only one scan. So a D19 row is evidence about the documentation, but a COUNT of D19 rows is not a quantity — never read a change in it as an improvement or a regression.
  • D21 Naming Consistency: Naming quality is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it assesses clarity/consistency of the names it sees, not domain-correctness, and is advisory.
  • D22 Internal API Consistency: API-surface coherence is an LLM judgement over a sample of the public surface — consistency of intent across the whole API is approximated, not exhaustively verified.
  • D26 Project Cohesion: Project focus is sized from members/namespaces per project — a project that is broad by deliberate design reads the same as one that has sprawled.
  • D28 Secrets (history): Secret-history scanning sweeps the git log for known patterns — a secret that predates the available history, or never matched a signature, is not found (clean means "nothing matched in the history we can see").
  • D29 Static Analysis (SAST): SAST findings are pattern-based (semgrep) — it finds classes of bug it has rules for; logic flaws, auth/authorization gaps and issues needing runtime context are out of reach (and clean means "no rule matched").
  • D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities: CVE matching depends on accurate package/version metadata and on the advisory databases — a vulnerability with no published advisory, or in code not declared as a dependency, is not seen. Coverage needs a RESOLVED graph: an unpinned requirements.txt, or a pom without a resolved build, yields partial coverage rather than a clean verdict. An ecosystem the analyzer cannot scan is reported as unmeasured, never as clean.
  • D34 Knowledge Freshness: Freshness is decayed commit RECENCY, not comprehension — code read often but rarely committed reads as orphaned, and stable code that genuinely needs no changes is penalised the same as forgotten code; bot/squash commits distort it like the bus factor.
  • D35 Change Coupling: Change coupling is co-change in COMMITS — files split across separate commits, or coupled only through a shared config/build step, read as uncoupled, and a sweeping commit (rename/format) is excluded so it doesn't couple everything. It shows that files change together, not WHY: a high coupling can be a healthy cohesive pair as readily as a hidden leak.
  • D43 Malicious Dependencies: Only packages some vulnerability database has already NAMED as malicious are seen — a compromise published in the last hours, or never reported at all, is invisible here, and this dimension reading 10 is not evidence that a dependency is trustworthy. There is no typosquat or dependency-confusion analysis: a package nobody has reported is simply absent from the feeds. Coverage is the dependency scan's: an ecosystem that could not be scanned is disclosed as unmeasured, never as clean.
  • D44 Platform End-of-Life: The support table is FROZEN, so it goes out of date by losing RECALL: a release that ended support after the table was written is missed until the table is refreshed, and this dimension reading 10 is not evidence that a platform is current. Only platforms the repository DECLARES in a place this pass reads are seen — a runtime named only in a Dockerfile (D31's subject), in a CI workflow (D29's), or in a file this pass does not parse (go.mod, a Gemfile ruby directive) is invisible here, which is why a repository declaring none of them abstains rather than scoring. Only frameworks with a PUBLISHED support policy are tracked: React, Flask and Express publish none, so their age cannot be judged and their absence from a report is not a statement that they are supported.
  • AX10 Code composition: Role is inferred from namespace/folder convention, not semantics — a domain concept living in a folder named "Services" reads as application, and the split is lines-of-code, not business value. The business-logic-share score is a SOFT, FLOORED signal: it contributes to the Architecture lens but is floored at the Critical gate, so an infrastructure-heavy design (a gateway, an ETL, a driver) is legitimately low without being nuked to zero.
  • 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 (4): D19, D21, D22, M4 (model: Local LLM). For these, a model reads a bounded sample and sets the numeric score; each names its own sample and method on its card. They are sampled and advisory by design: they vary at the margins between runs and are never a deterministic measurement. Every other score in this report is tool-computed at confidence 1.0.

Dimensions

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity9.0 / 10Stronggated by 1 serious finding✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 9.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

1 method(s) exceeded the cyclomatic complexity threshold of 15; the worst was AbstractJsonLexer.consumeNumericLiteral at 36. A further 2 method(s) were over the threshold but excluded as flat dispatchers (a long switch/match over independent cases: many branches, almost no nesting), the largest being ProtoBufSchemaGenerator.scalarTypeName at 19 — they are counted neither in the figure above nor in this dimension's score. 2 files carry no cyclomatic complexity row at all for this reason — every one of their over-threshold methods was excluded, so the exclusion is disclosed nowhere in the file itself: formats/protobuf/commonMain/src/kotlinx/serialization/protobuf/schema/ProtoBufSchemaGenerator.kt (ProtoBufSchemaGenerator.scalarTypeName at 19), core/commonMain/src/kotlinx/serialization/Serializers.kt (SerializersKt.builtinParametrizedSerializer at 17). They are named here because the per-file figures other dimensions report are taken BEFORE this exclusion, so such a file can show a high maximum complexity elsewhere in this report and nothing here, with nothing to reconcile the two.

AbstractJsonLexer.consumeNumericLiteral (cyclomatic 36)formats/json/commonMain/src/kotlinx/serialization/json/internal/lexer/AbstractJsonLexer.kt:586

What to do

  1. Bring the 1 body over 15 down to 15 or less in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with AbstractJsonLexer.consumeNumericLiteral (cyclomatic 36). — Refactoring it lifts Cyclomatic Complexity from 9.0 to about 10.0/10.
  2. Stand up a CI pipeline, then gate Cyclomatic Complexity in it to reach Verified (currently Documented). — This repository has no CI pipeline, so there is nothing to add a gate to yet — the pipeline comes first. Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

D2 · Cognitive Complexity7.7 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 7.7 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

12 method(s) exceeded the cognitive complexity threshold of 15; the worst was AbstractJsonLexer.consumeNumericLiteral at 56.

AbstractJsonLexer.consumeNumericLiteral (cognitive 56)formats/json/commonMain/src/kotlinx/serialization/json/internal/lexer/AbstractJsonLexer.kt:586
ProtoBufSchemaGenerator.generateMessageField (cognitive 25)formats/protobuf/commonMain/src/kotlinx/serialization/protobuf/schema/ProtoBufSchemaGenerator.kt:176
CharsetReader.doRead (cognitive 23)formats/json/jvmMain/src/kotlinx/serialization/json/internal/CharsetReader.kt:54
OutputStreamJsonWriter.writeUtf8 (cognitive 21)formats/json/jvmMain/src/kotlinx/serialization/json/internal/JvmJsonStreams.kt:139
StringJsonLexerWithComments.skipWhitespaces (cognitive 20)formats/json/commonMain/src/kotlinx/serialization/json/internal/lexer/CommentLexers.kt:60

+ 7 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

What to do

  1. Bring the 1 body over 30 down to 30 or less in Cognitive Complexity — start with AbstractJsonLexer.consumeNumericLiteral (cognitive 56). — Refactoring it lifts Cognitive Complexity from 7.7 to about 8.3/10.
  2. Stand up a CI pipeline, then gate Cognitive Complexity in it to reach Verified (currently Documented). — This repository has no CI pipeline, so there is nothing to add a gate to yet — the pipeline comes first. Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

Detailed fixes: d2_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

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

7 god class(es) detected.

TooManyMethods: AbstractJsonLexer · ×7formats/json/commonMain/src/kotlinx/serialization/json/internal/lexer/AbstractJsonLexer.kt:149

What to do

  1. Resolve the 7 TooManyMethods finding(s) in God Classes — start with Tagged.kt (2), AbstractJsonLexer.kt, ProtobufTaggedDecoder.kt. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (7 warning-level).
  2. Stand up a CI pipeline, then gate God Classes in it to reach Verified (currently Documented). — This repository has no CI pipeline, so there is nothing to add a gate to yet — the pipeline comes first. 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.

D4 · Code Duplication9.9 / 10Stronggated by 7 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 9.9 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

7 duplicated block group(s) detected.

Duplicated block (7 lines × 3) · ×2core/jsMain/src/kotlinx/serialization/internal/Platform.kt:31
Duplicated block (32 lines × 3)core/jsMain/src/kotlinx/serialization/internal/Platform.kt:87
Duplicated block (13 lines × 2)formats/json-io/commonMain/src/kotlinx/serialization/json/io/internal/IoJsonStreams.kt:82
Duplicated block (11–12 lines × 2)formats/json/commonMain/src/kotlinx/serialization/json/internal/lexer/CommentLexers.kt:39
Duplicated block (8 lines × 3)formats/protobuf/jsMain/src/kotlinx/serialization/protobuf/internal/Bytes.kt:7

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

What to do

  1. Resolve the 2 Duplicated block (7 lines × 3) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with Platform.kt (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
  2. Resolve the 1 Duplicated block (32 lines × 3) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with Platform.kt. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
  3. Resolve the 1 Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with IoJsonStreams.kt. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
  4. Stand up a CI pipeline, then gate Code Duplication in it to reach Verified (currently Documented). — This repository has no CI pipeline, so there is nothing to add a gate to yet — the pipeline comes first. 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.

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

15 production modules (Gradle), 0 dependency cycle(s), 0 unstable depended-on module(s). Read from the build's own module declarations; edges a convention plugin adds from buildSrc or build-logic are not visible there; 0 module(s) off the main sequence, with abstractness counted on 11 of the 15 (the rest declare no modelled class or interface, export only macros, declare types in source no model reads, or have no source directory of their own).

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d5_recommendation.md.

D6 · Cohesion (LCOM4)9.9 / 10Stronggated by 1 serious finding✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

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

1 of 84 classes have LCOM4 above 3.

Low cohesion: R8Tests (LCOM4 4)rules/rules-integration-tests/src/shared/kotlinx/serialization/r8/R8Tests.kt:12

What to do

  1. Resolve the 1 Low cohesion finding(s) in Cohesion (LCOM4) — start with R8Tests.kt. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
  2. Stand up a CI pipeline, then gate Cohesion (LCOM4) in it to reach Verified (currently Documented). — This repository has no CI pipeline, so there is nothing to add a gate to yet — the pipeline comes first. Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.

Detailed fixes: d6_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D13 · REDACTED Scanning10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

REDACTED scan ran and found no leaked secrets.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d13_recommendation.md.

D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

No churn × complexity hotspots in the window.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d15_recommendation.md.

D16 · Bus Factor8.4 / 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 8.4 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

21 source file(s) have their living knowledge concentrated in one author (≥90% of recent, decayed contribution). The largest is formats/cbor/commonMain/src/kotlinx/serialization/cbor/internal/Decoder.kt. Counted over 134 of the 276 production source files in this repository: 141 are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over, and the remaining 1 have no attributable history left to measure.

Off-boarding risk: anonymized user #1 · ×2
Further sole-owners (lower concentration)

What to do

  1. Resolve the 2 Off-boarding risk finding(s) in Bus Factor. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 recommendation-level).
  2. 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.

D17 · Explicit Debt9.8 / 10Stronggated by 23 serious findings✓ 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 9.8 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

23 deducted task-comment markers across 26112 LoC (0.1/KLoC) → score 9.8. Task comments only: this repository's language is read without a compiler, so D17's suppression, dead-code and commented-out-code arms did not run and this score counts fewer marker kinds than a .NET repository's would.

TodoComment · ×20core/commonMain/src/kotlinx/serialization/internal/Tagged.kt:215
FixmeComment · ×3formats/json-tests/commonTest/src/kotlinx/serialization/features/LocalClassesTest.kt:77

What to do

  1. Resolve the 20 TodoComment finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with CborParserTest.kt (3), CollectionSerializers.kt (2), DynamicEncoders.kt (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (20 warning-level).
  2. Resolve the 3 FixmeComment finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with LocalClassesTest.kt, JsonDecodingErrorMessagesTest.kt, GenerationTest.kt. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 warning-level).
  3. Stand up a CI pipeline, then gate Explicit Debt in it to reach Verified (currently Documented). — This repository has no CI pipeline, so there is nothing to add a gate to yet — the pipeline comes first. 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.

D19 · Documentation QualityExemplary◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

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

The repository's root README is a comprehensive multi-format serialization guide covering installation, usage examples, the project overview, and migration from version 0.20.0 to 1.0.0; it also documents the formats/README (serialization formats with versions, notes on experimental support, and compatibility policy) and several other subdirectories' READMEs that are internal documentation for the serialization website.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d19_recommendation.md.

D21 · Naming ConsistencyExemplary◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

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

0 naming inconsistencies across 0 sampled symbols.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d21_recommendation.md.

D22 · Internal API ConsistencyStronggated by 2 serious findings◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

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

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

Redundant Interface Definition: `BinaryFormat` defines the exact same method signatures as `ProtoBuf` and `Cbor` directly. Since `ProtoBuf` and `Cbor` are concrete implementations that do not explicitly inherit from `BinaryFormat` in this surface (or if they do, the interface is redundant if it adds no new behavior), it creates a potential for confusion about whether these classes implement `BinaryFormat`. More critically, if they do not, the API surface is inconsistent in how it exposes binary serialization capabilities.
Ambiguous Overloading in Extension Functions: `SerialFormatKt` provides both explicit serializer-based hex methods and generic `value`-only hex methods. While the generic ones likely use context receivers or implicit serializers, having both `encodeToHexString(serializer, value)` and `encodeToHexString(value)` in the same scope can be confusing regarding which one is invoked in different contexts, especially if the generic ones rely on implicit resolution that might not be obvious to users.

What to do

  1. Resolve the 1 Redundant Interface Definition finding(s) in Internal API Consistency. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
  2. Resolve the 1 Ambiguous Overloading in Extension Functions finding(s) in Internal API Consistency. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).

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

D26 · Project Cohesion7.0 / 10Adequate✓ 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 7.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

2 of 10 build units (Gradle) flagged as possibly oversized/incoherent.

Projects may be oversized for their cohesion

What to do

  1. Resolve the 1 Projects may be oversized for their cohesion finding(s) in Project Cohesion. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

Detailed fixes: d26_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D28 · Secrets (history)3.0 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 3.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

7 finding(s): 0 critical, 7 high, 0 medium, 0 low. Remediation for historically-committed secrets is credential rotation — they remain in history regardless of later deletion.

REDACTED
REDACTED

What to do

  1. Resolve the 7 REDACTED finding(s) in Secrets (history) — start with REDACTED (7). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (7 issue-level).
  2. Resolve the 1 Rotate the exposed credentials finding(s) in Secrets (history). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

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

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

semgrep found no security issues. semgrep hit a parse error in 94 file(s) — `formats/json-tests/jvmTest/resources/spec_cases/n_array_1_true_without_comma.json`, `formats/json-tests/jvmTest/resources/spec_cases/n_array_a_invalid_utf8.json`, `formats/json-tests/jvmTest/resources/spec_cases/n_array_colon_instead_of_comma.json`, `formats/json-tests/jvmTest/resources/spec_cases/n_array_comma_after_close.json`, `formats/json-tests/jvmTest/resources/spec_cases/n_array_double_extra_comma.json`, … (+89 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.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d29_recommendation.md.

D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities6.8 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

6 finding(s): 0 critical, 5 high, 0 medium, 1 low.

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

What to do

  1. Resolve the 4 High CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with REDACTED (4). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 issue-level).
  2. Resolve the 1 High vulnerability finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).
  3. Resolve the 1 Low CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

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

D34 · Knowledge Freshness9.6 / 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 9.6 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

5 of 135 significant source file(s) are orphaned — their living knowledge has decayed to nothing, so no one currently understands them. The largest is formats/cbor/commonMain/src/kotlinx/serialization/cbor/CborConfiguration.kt. Counted over 135 of the 276 production source files in this repository: the rest are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over.

Orphaned file · ×5formats/cbor/commonMain/src/kotlinx/serialization/cbor/CborConfiguration.kt: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.

D35 · Change Coupling10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ 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 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

No strong hidden change-coupling between production files.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d35_recommendation.md.

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

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

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

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

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

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d43_recommendation.md.

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

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

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

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

0 end-of-life runtime(s) and 0 end-of-life framework(s), read from 6 platform declaration(s) and 33 dependency declaration(s). This dimension reads what the repository says about ITSELF — a pinned target framework, a version file, a capped requires-python, a Rust toolchain pin, a framework major a constraint cannot move off. A FLOOR is deliberately never charged: `requires-python = ">=3.8"` states what the package SUPPORTS, not what it runs on, and a well-maintained library declares exactly that while running its own CI on a current release. The end-of-life facts are FROZEN and dated, so this dimension needs no network and answers identically inside a closed scan fence; as the table ages it loses recall and never precision, because a statement about support that ended in the past cannot become false. The OS layer of a container image is D31's question and the toolchain a CI workflow installs is D29's; this row is neither.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d44_recommendation.md.

Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions

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

AX10 · Code composition9.9 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

What to do

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

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

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

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

M1 · Documentation (README)6.1 / 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.

What to do

  • Add a build/run (quick start) section to the root README — the first thing a newcomer needs.
  • 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 16 of 17 project(s) that lack one — worth up to 1.9 pts.
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.
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.

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

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

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

P1 · CI/CD gates0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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.

  • No CI workflow found (.github/workflows, azure-pipelines.yml, .gitlab-ci.yml, …) — changes aren't gated by an automated build/test.

What to do

  • Add a CI workflow that builds and runs the test suite on every push/PR.
P10 · Library API & versioning10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Readiness · Readiness — For a library: a deliberate (small) public API surface and explicit semantic versioning so consumers can depend on it safely.

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

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 spotbugs with find-sec-bugs (or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language) — this repository has no CI pipeline yet, so run it locally to clear the existing findings, then make it a step of the first workflow you add so a regression fails the build. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: the 0 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

  • Run what this repository's stack ships: spotbugs with find-sec-bugs — or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language — locally for now, since there is no CI pipeline here yet, and as a step of the first workflow you add 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.
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.

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

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

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

  • A JMH/Jetpack Benchmark suite exists but nothing turns on its allocation measurement — allocations (the main way hot code pressures a garbage collector or allocator) aren't being measured. — benchmark/src/jmh/kotlin/kotlinx/benchmarks/cbor/CborUnsignedBenchmark.kt

What to do

  • Run JMH with the GC profiler (`-prof gc`, or addProfiler(GCProfiler.class)) so allocation rate regressions are visible, not just time.
PF2 · Allocation hygiene8.0 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

Readiness · Performance — Whether the code is written to minimise allocations so it doesn't pressure its host's memory manager — buffer/slice views over copies, object pooling, stack or value-type allocation, and buffer writers. Reward-only: credited where present, never penalised where a simpler style is fine.

Method: Production-source scan: density (per 1k LoC) of allocation-aware APIs — in .NET Span/Memory, ArrayPool/ObjectPool, stackalloc, ValueTask, value-type structs, IBufferWriter, string.Create, SkipLocalsInit; off .NET, with comments and strings blanked, Go's sync.Pool, preallocated slices/maps, Grow, strconv.Append* and buf[:0] reuse; the JVM's NIO buffer views, MemorySegment, primitive collections, pools and literal presizes (plus Kotlin primitive arrays and value classes, Scala AnyVal and @specialized); Swift's reserveCapacity, ContiguousArray, withUnsafe* access and ~Copyable. Activated off .NET on the same floor (400 lines, and benchmarks or 8 uses); Rust and garbage-collected scripting languages are not applicable. Reward-only. Deterministic, syntax/text detection.

What to do

  • Raise allocation-aware density on the hot paths — currently 99 use(s) across 25,132 production line(s) (~3.9/1k). More of the idioms below on the allocation-heavy paths climbs this toward 10.
  • Java: on hot paths, work through buffer views (ByteBuffer/LongBuffer slices, MemorySegment) instead of copies, avoid boxing with primitive collections (fastutil, Eclipse Collections, HPPC, Trove), presize collections and StringBuilders, and pool expensive buffers (Netty's pooled allocator, commons-pool).
  • Kotlin: on hot paths, use primitive arrays (IntArray, LongArray …) and @JvmInline value classes instead of boxed values, primitive collections (androidx.collection, fastutil) instead of boxed ones, and presize collections and StringBuilders.
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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 `NullPointerException` (Java, Kotlin, Scala), `ArgumentError.notNull` (Dart) or `ArgumentNullException` (F#'s `nullArg`) 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Other · Code Health — Whether an enhanced `for` leaves the collection it is walking alone — a body that adds to or removes from the very collection the loop is iterating invalidates the fail-fast iterator it is holding, so the next `next()` throws `ConcurrentModificationException` and the remaining elements are never seen. Whether a `for (x in c)` or `c.forEach { … }` leaves the collection it is walking alone — a `mutableListOf`/`ArrayList`, `mutableMapOf`/`HashMap` or `mutableSetOf`/`HashSet` is a `java.util` collection on the JVM and is walked by its own fail-fast iterator, so a body that adds to or removes from the very collection the loop is walking makes the next step throw `ConcurrentModificationException` and the remaining elements are never seen.

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

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.

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.

X3 · Exception handling5.4 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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.

  • `catch (e: Throwable)` takes every exception and records none of it — the body neither logs it, rethrows it, nor even names it, so the failure is discarded as completely as by an empty catch and only the substituted value survives. Log it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, narrow the catch to the exception this call can actually raise, or say in a comment on the catch why the failure genuinely cannot matter. (×2) — core/jvmMain/src/kotlinx/serialization/internal/Platform.kt:92, core/jvmMain/src/kotlinx/serialization/internal/Platform.kt:144
  • `catch (_: Throwable)` takes every exception and records none of it — the body neither logs it, rethrows it, nor even names it, so the failure is discarded as completely as by an empty catch and only the substituted value survives. Log it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, narrow the catch to the exception this call can actually raise, or say in a comment on the catch why the failure genuinely cannot matter. — core/jvmMain/src/kotlinx/serialization/internal/Caching.kt:23

What to do

  • Swallowed exception (caught, then discarded)
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.

X5 · Nullable reference types9.9 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Code Health — Whether Kotlin's null safety is not undermined by not-null assertions — `String` cannot hold null and `String?` must be checked before use in every Kotlin module, and each `!!` is a run-time `NullPointerException` the author has told the compiler cannot happen.

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

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.

LensScoreRatingImpact
Code Health82%StrongSolid.
Architecture96%ExemplaryStrongest area.
Maturity51%Adequate — gated by M2Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Readiness43%Weak — gated by P1, P3Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Security80%Adequate — gated by D28Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Performance86%StrongSolid.
Unscored — 1 check(s) recorded observations but carry no score

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

  • X10 Duplicated predicate — 8 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 — 60 check(s) not relevant to this codebase

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

  • AC1 Text alternatives — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AC2 Forms & labels — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AC3 Page structure — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AC4 Keyboard semantics — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AC5 ARIA correctness — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AC6 Visual & motion safety — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AC7 A11y enforcement — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AX1 Captive dependencies — Not applicable: this repository's Java imports no dependency-injection container and defines no container of its own — nothing that both registers and resolves bindings, and nothing that names two lifetimes — so nothing holds one lifetime's instance while handing out another's; this repository's Kotlin imports no dependency-injection container and defines no container of its own — nothing that both registers and resolves bindings, and nothing that names two lifetimes — so nothing holds one lifetime's instance while handing out another's.
  • AX2 Stateful singletons — No container singleton was found, so there is no shared instance for concurrent requests to race on. No class in this Kotlin code is a Spring, JSR-330 or CDI singleton bean.
  • AX5 Architecture & structure — not assessed — architecture style/structure is computed from a project graph (projects, types, module namespaces) that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
  • AX6 Interface segregation — not assessed — interface segregation is computed over a type surface that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
  • AX7 Slice cohesion — not applicable — not a vertical-slice architecture
  • AX8 Test isolation — no test/production split to check
  • AX9 CQS / query purity — no CQRS query handlers detected — query purity is not applicable to this codebase
  • AXB1 Runtime evidence locked — no reproducible boot — This repository has nothing the runtime tiers could boot or serve — no markup, no UI framework or web-server dependency, no UI component source, no native UI project and no API definition — nothing here is a surface to boot — so runtime a11y/egress/header evidence has no subject here. Not applicable: this is neither a gap in the scan nor a finding about your code.
  • 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 a persisted data model — no PII-named field (email, firstName, dateOfBirth, phoneNumber, …) or stored credential on a Room, JPA or MongoDB entity, an Exposed or Ktorm table, or in a SQL CREATE TABLE or ALTER TABLE — and no database or data-store client (Room, Exposed, SQLDelight, Realm, JPA, JDBC, MongoDB, Firebase, …) imported either, so this repository keeps no data at rest for these controls to protect.
  • C2 Access Controls — Not assessed: these authorization controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks authorization controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
  • C3 Audit Trail — No personal data detected in a persisted data model — no PII-named column (email, first_name, date_of_birth, phone_number, …) or stored credential on a Room, JPA or MongoDB entity, an Exposed or Ktorm table, or a SQL CREATE TABLE or ALTER TABLE — and no database or data-store client (Room, Exposed, SQLDelight, Realm, JPA, JDBC, MongoDB, Firebase, …) imported either, so this repository keeps no sensitive data whose changes an audit trail would record. If it does (through a store configured outside this repository, for instance), the trail belongs to wherever that data is stored.
  • C4 Data Retention — No personal data detected in a persisted data model — no PII-named field (email, firstName, dateOfBirth, phoneNumber, …) or stored credential on a Room, JPA or MongoDB entity, an Exposed or Ktorm table, or in a SQL CREATE TABLE or ALTER TABLE — and no database or data-store client (Room, Exposed, SQLDelight, Realm, JPA, JDBC, MongoDB, Firebase, …) imported either, so this repository keeps no personal data whose lifetime a retention limit would bound.
  • C5 Data-Subject Rights — No personal data detected in a persisted data model — no PII-named field (email, firstName, dateOfBirth, phoneNumber, …) or stored credential on a Room, JPA or MongoDB entity, an Exposed or Ktorm table, or in a SQL CREATE TABLE or ALTER TABLE — and no database or data-store client (Room, Exposed, SQLDelight, Realm, JPA, JDBC, MongoDB, Firebase, …) imported either, so this repository keeps no personal data for a data subject to erase, export or consent over.
  • D10 Test Quality — ~28680 lines of test source are present (.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 included — the .kt suite was found but not re-run
  • D12 Dependency Hygiene — Not scored — 19 Maven/Gradle manifest(s) were read, stating a version for 30 dependency(ies) and leaving 7 to a parent or an imported BOM, but no build resolved the dependency graph, so the outdated signal was not established. NOT a finding that these dependencies are current or healthy.
  • D14 License Compliance — Not scored — this repository's 30 declared JVM dependency coordinate(s) were read from its 19 Maven/Gradle manifest(s), but Maven Central could not be asked for the licence of 30 of them (HTTP 429 Too Many Requests from https://repo1.maven.org/maven2/com/google/dagger/dagger/2.13/dagger-2.13.pom), and a licence verdict over part of a dependency graph is not a licence verdict. Nothing is asserted about this repository's licensing in either direction.
  • D18 Solution Shape — D18 scores the shape of a .NET solution; this repository has no .NET solution or project files, so the dimension does not apply.
  • D20 ADR Quality — N/A — ADRs are expected on deployable products with a user-facing host, not consumed libraries; no ADR log is required here.
  • D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — No bounded-context organisation was detected either — neither a context-shaped layout, nor 2+ sibling source directories each declaring an aggregate root, nor 2+ projects each declaring an entity of their own. Declaring this codebase's bounded contexts (≥2) would let cross-boundary type coupling be assessed. Declare them in `.codehealth/config.yaml` at the repository root (create it if absent), mapping each context name to the module-path or namespace prefixes that belong to it — e.g. `architecture:` → `contexts:` → `Billing: ["src/billing", "Acme.Billing"]`, `Catalog: ["src/catalog", "Acme.Catalog"]`.
  • D24 Comment Value — No inline comments to assess — comment value is not applicable here.
  • D25 ADR Conformance — no ADRs to check
  • D27 Navigability — D27 counts a call into the standard library or a dependency as unresolved for this repository's language (.kt), so too few call sites counted as resolved to assess navigability. Not scored: this is a gap in the analyzer, not a verdict about this repository.
  • 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) — 12 file(s) were not parsed by semgrep — the PII/GDPR ruleset never ran over them
  • D36 Supply-chain Provenance & Signing — No CI/build pipeline found (.github/.forgejo/.gitea workflows, .circleci, .buildkite, .woodpecker, .teamcity, .gitlab-ci.yml, .travis.yml, bitbucket-pipelines.yml, .drone.yml, .cirrus.yml, .woodpecker.yml, appveyor.yml, azure-pipelines*.yml, .pipelines/, .vsts-ci/, .azuredevops/, Jenkinsfile); there is no build to attest provenance for.
  • D37 Vulnerability-disclosure Policy — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.
  • D39 IL Efficiency — D39 measures the IL emitted by a .NET build; this repository has no .NET solution or project files, so the dimension does not apply.
  • D40 Network Egress Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.
  • D41 Kernel & Syscall Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.
  • D42 Runtime Threat Enforcement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.
  • D7 Architectural Integrity — no checkable ADRs, and no project-reference graph for the cycle pass to read — so this dimension makes no claim about dependency cycles in either direction (where this repository's language has an import-cycle lens, cycles are reported there). Architectural integrity not assessed
  • D8 Code Coverage — Coverage not included — suite not readable by the collector
  • D9 Test Distribution — Test source is present (.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 its unit/integration/BDD/E2E split couldn't be counted. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository.
  • DM1 Domain Modelling — not scored — this repository shows only 1 of the 3 signals this lens looks for (159 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
  • GD1 Unfinished & placeholder code — no source files were read — this check reads C#, F#, JavaScript/TypeScript, Dart, Ruby and Scala, and none was read for this repository's product. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
  • IC1 Incompleteness & stubs — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
  • P12 CI test-gate honesty — no CI workflow found
  • P2 Observability — This repository's JVM source (12 module(s), 222 file(s) read) declares no entry point and bootstraps no server, and nothing here deploys a service — it is a library, run inside whatever hosts it, so production observability (structured logging, tracing/metrics, health checks) is N/A. If it grows a binary or a service, the dimension reactivates.
  • P7 Outbound HTTP resilience — not applicable — no HTTP server, API framework or worker entry point was found in the JVM source, so there is no service whose uptime a failing dependency could take down
  • P8 Schema migrations — no ORM, schema-migration tool or schema auto-create was found in this repository's dependency manifests or source, so there is no database schema for this check to judge
  • P9 Domain vs controller coverage — no coverage report found on disk — produce a coverage report in a standard format (JaCoCo XML — the Gradle `jacocoTestReport` task) 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
  • S1 Web-Security Posture — Not assessed: these web-security controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks web-security controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
  • X2 Cancellation propagation — no C# was loaded; this repository's Java and Kotlin were read, and no request in it can be cancelled by a caller (Ktor, OkHttp's newCall or a URL stream, from a suspend function) — a Java request off Android takes no token: it is cancelled through the handle it returns (Future.cancel, Call.cancel, a Disposable), ambiently (io.grpc.Context) or by interrupting its thread, not through a parameter; a Kotlin request outside a suspend function has no caller's cancellation to honour
  • X32 Type resolved by simple name across every loaded assembly — This check is about how a .NET program searches the assemblies loaded into its process for a type, and this repository contains no .NET source, so there is nothing here for it to assess. Not a gap in the analyzer and not a finding about your code.
  • X4 Structured logging — This check asks whether log calls keep a message's values apart from its text, which needs a logger that can carry them as fields. This repository's Kotlin was read, and it logs through none that an assembled message defeats: Android's `Log` and Timber, java.util.logging and log4j-api-kotlin take one finished message (as log4net does in C#), or it makes no call through a named logger at all. Calls made through SLF4J, log4j 2 or kotlin-logging (`LoggerFactory.getLogger`, `KotlinLogging.logger {}`) would be judged.
  • 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 — 12 finding(s)
D28 · Secrets (history) · REDACTED · ×7
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities · High CVE · ×4
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities · High vulnerability · ×1
  • REDACTED
Serious — 57 finding(s)
D17 · Explicit Debt · TodoComment · ×20
  • TodoComment core/commonMain/src/kotlinx/serialization/internal/Tagged.kt:215 — // TODO this method should be overridden by any sane format that supports top-level nulls — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment core/commonMain/src/kotlinx/serialization/internal/CollectionSerializers.kt:84 — // TODO tech debt: it's used in ProtoBuf — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment core/commonMain/src/kotlinx/serialization/internal/CollectionSerializers.kt:185 — // todo: can be more efficient when array size is know in advance, this one always uses temporary ArrayList as builder — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment core/commonTest/src/kotlinx/serialization/SerializersLookupInterfaceTest.kt:21 — // TODO: not working because (see #1207, plugin does not produce companion object for interfaces)
  • TodoComment core/jvmTest/src/kotlinx/serialization/features/SerializerJvmSpecificTest.kt:53 — // TODO discuss on serializers equality — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment formats/cbor/commonTest/src/kotlinx/serialization/cbor/CborParserTest.kt:44 — // TODO: how do we handle undefined values? — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment formats/cbor/commonTest/src/kotlinx/serialization/cbor/CborParserTest.kt:253 — // TODO: should it be an error? — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment formats/cbor/commonTest/src/kotlinx/serialization/cbor/CborParserTest.kt:324 — // TODO: what should it be? — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment formats/json-tests/commonTest/src/kotlinx/serialization/PolymorphismTestData.kt:31 — // TODO sandwwraith moving this class to the corresponding tests breaks runtime in unexpected ways — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment formats/json-tests/commonTest/src/kotlinx/serialization/InstantSerializationTest.kt:85 — // iso8601Serialization(serializer()) TODO: uncomment when the compiler adds KT-75759
  • TodoComment formats/json-tests/commonTest/src/kotlinx/serialization/json/JsonEncoderDecoderRecursiveTest.kt:181 — // TODO in builder is not suitable for recursive descriptors — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment formats/json-tests/jvmTest/src/kotlinx/serialization/features/ContextualSerializationOnFileTest.kt:5 — // TODO: Move to common tests after https://youtrack.jetbrains.com/issue/KT-28927 is fixed
  • TodoComment formats/json/commonMain/src/kotlinx/serialization/json/internal/TreeJsonDecoder.kt:104 — // TODO: pass e as cause? (may conflict with #2590)
  • TodoComment formats/json/commonMain/src/kotlinx/serialization/json/internal/StreamingJsonDecoder.kt:220 — // TODO: consider merging comma consumption and this check — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment formats/json/commonMain/src/kotlinx/serialization/json/internal/lexer/AbstractJsonLexer.kt:204 — // TODO consider replacing usages of this method in JsonParser with char overload — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment formats/json/jsMain/src/kotlinx/serialization/json/internal/DynamicEncoders.kt:123 — // todo: shall it be driven by isLenient or another configuration key? — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment formats/json/jsMain/src/kotlinx/serialization/json/internal/DynamicEncoders.kt:263 — // todo: shall it be driven by isLenient or another configuration key? — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment formats/protobuf/commonMain/src/kotlinx/serialization/protobuf/internal/ProtobufReader.kt:136 — // TODO this could be optimized by extracting method to the IS — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment formats/protobuf/commonMain/src/kotlinx/serialization/protobuf/internal/ProtobufReader.kt:146 — // TODO this could be optimized by extracting method to the IS — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment formats/protobuf/commonMain/src/kotlinx/serialization/protobuf/internal/ProtobufEncoding.kt:191 — // TODO this is exactly the lookahead scenario — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
D3 · God Classes · TooManyMethods · ×7
  • TooManyMethods: AbstractJsonLexer formats/json/commonMain/src/kotlinx/serialization/json/internal/lexer/AbstractJsonLexer.kt:149 — TooManyMethods — 50 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 20 over it, 1.67× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
  • TooManyMethods: TaggedDecoder core/commonMain/src/kotlinx/serialization/internal/Tagged.kt:180 — TooManyMethods — 47 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 17 over it, 1.57× the bar. This type is on a published API surface — the Kotlin binary-compatibility validator (build.gradle.kts) declares its compatibility contractual — so moving members onto a smaller type is a breaking change for every consumer, not a local refactor. To reduce it, treat the split as an API migration: move each cohesive group onto its own published type and keep the old members as deprecated forwards for a deprecation period, removing them at the next compatibility break. Where the surface has to stay as it is, that is a decision to record rather than a change to make.
  • TooManyMethods: TaggedEncoder core/commonMain/src/kotlinx/serialization/internal/Tagged.kt:18 — TooManyMethods — 46 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 16 over it, 1.53× the bar. This type is on a published API surface — the Kotlin binary-compatibility validator (build.gradle.kts) declares its compatibility contractual — so moving members onto a smaller type is a breaking change for every consumer, not a local refactor. To reduce it, treat the split as an API migration: move each cohesive group onto its own published type and keep the old members as deprecated forwards for a deprecation period, removing them at the next compatibility break. Where the surface has to stay as it is, that is a decision to record rather than a change to make.
  • TooManyMethods: ProtobufTaggedDecoder formats/protobuf/commonMain/src/kotlinx/serialization/protobuf/internal/ProtobufTaggedDecoder.kt:12 — TooManyMethods — 40 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 10 over it, 1.33× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
  • TooManyMethods: ProtobufTaggedEncoder formats/protobuf/commonMain/src/kotlinx/serialization/protobuf/internal/ProtobufTaggedEncoder.kt:12 — TooManyMethods — 39 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 9 over it, 1.30× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
  • TooManyMethods: CborParser formats/cbor/commonMain/src/kotlinx/serialization/cbor/internal/Decoder.kt:167 — TooManyMethods — 38 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 8 over it, 1.27× 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: ProtobufDecoder formats/protobuf/commonMain/src/kotlinx/serialization/protobuf/internal/ProtobufDecoding.kt:19 — 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.
D17 · Explicit Debt · FixmeComment · ×3
  • FixmeComment formats/json-tests/commonTest/src/kotlinx/serialization/features/LocalClassesTest.kt:77 — // FIXME change to `noLegacyJs` when lookup of `ClassCustomSerializer` will work on Native and JS/IR — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • FixmeComment formats/json-tests/commonTest/src/kotlinx/serialization/json/JsonDecodingErrorMessagesTest.kt:172 — // FIXME? When we are reading Json in 'raw tree' (parseToJsonElement) mode, lexer does not provide path information on syntax errors because there are no descriptors. — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • FixmeComment formats/protobuf/jvmTest/src/kotlinx/serialization/protobuf/schema/GenerationTest.kt:233 — // fixme when compiled on windows, the file contains line \r\n breaks — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
X3 · Exception handling · Swallowed exception (caught, then discarded) · ×3
  • Swallowed exception (caught, then discarded) core/jvmMain/src/kotlinx/serialization/internal/Platform.kt:92 — `catch (e: Throwable)` takes every exception and records none of it — the body neither logs it, rethrows it, nor even names it, so the failure is discarded as completely as by an empty catch and only the substituted value survives. Log it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, narrow the catch to the exception this call can actually raise, or say in a comment on the catch why the failure genuinely cannot matter.
  • Swallowed exception (caught, then discarded) core/jvmMain/src/kotlinx/serialization/internal/Platform.kt:144 — `catch (e: Throwable)` takes every exception and records none of it — the body neither logs it, rethrows it, nor even names it, so the failure is discarded as completely as by an empty catch and only the substituted value survives. Log it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, narrow the catch to the exception this call can actually raise, or say in a comment on the catch why the failure genuinely cannot matter.
  • Swallowed exception (caught, then discarded) core/jvmMain/src/kotlinx/serialization/internal/Caching.kt:23 — `catch (_: Throwable)` takes every exception and records none of it — the body neither logs it, rethrows it, nor even names it, so the failure is discarded as completely as by an empty catch and only the substituted value survives. Log it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, narrow the catch to the exception this call can actually raise, or say in a comment on the catch why the failure genuinely cannot matter.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (7 lines × 3) · ×2
  • Duplicated block (7 lines × 3) core/jsMain/src/kotlinx/serialization/internal/Platform.kt:31 — core/jsMain/src/kotlinx/serialization/internal/Platform.kt:31-37 | core/nativeMain/src/kotlinx/serialization/internal/Platform.kt:49-55 | core/wasmMain/src/kotlinx/serialization/internal/Platform.kt:48-54 — before extracting anything, compare `core/jsMain/src/kotlinx/serialization/internal/Platform.kt` and `core/nativeMain/src/kotlinx/serialization/internal/Platform.kt` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 46 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. 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.
  • Duplicated block (7 lines × 3) core/jsMain/src/kotlinx/serialization/internal/Platform.kt:39 — core/jsMain/src/kotlinx/serialization/internal/Platform.kt:39-45 | core/nativeMain/src/kotlinx/serialization/internal/Platform.kt:57-63 | core/wasmMain/src/kotlinx/serialization/internal/Platform.kt:56-62 — before extracting anything, compare `core/jsMain/src/kotlinx/serialization/internal/Platform.kt` and `core/nativeMain/src/kotlinx/serialization/internal/Platform.kt` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 46 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. 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.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · AbstractJsonLexer.consumeNumericLiteral (cyclomatic 36) · ×1
  • AbstractJsonLexer.consumeNumericLiteral (cyclomatic 36) formats/json/commonMain/src/kotlinx/serialization/json/internal/lexer/AbstractJsonLexer.kt:586 — AbstractJsonLexer.consumeNumericLiteral has cyclomatic complexity 36 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · AbstractJsonLexer.consumeNumericLiteral (cognitive 56) · ×1
  • AbstractJsonLexer.consumeNumericLiteral (cognitive 56) formats/json/commonMain/src/kotlinx/serialization/json/internal/lexer/AbstractJsonLexer.kt:586 — AbstractJsonLexer.consumeNumericLiteral has cognitive complexity 56 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 24 (45 pts), boolean chains 8, match/switch 2, loops 1 (nesting depth added 21). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body. This file is where this pass's cognitive complexity CONCENTRATES: formats/json/commonMain/src/kotlinx/serialization/json/internal/lexer/AbstractJsonLexer.kt holds 2 of the 12 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 45 of the 95 points over it (47%), 4.5× the next-largest file (formats/protobuf/commonMain/src/kotlinx/serialization/protobuf/schema/ProtoBufSchemaGenerator.kt at 10). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · ProtoBufSchemaGenerator.generateMessageField (cognitive 25) · ×1
  • ProtoBufSchemaGenerator.generateMessageField (cognitive 25) formats/protobuf/commonMain/src/kotlinx/serialization/protobuf/schema/ProtoBufSchemaGenerator.kt:176 — ProtoBufSchemaGenerator.generateMessageField has cognitive complexity 25 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (16 pts), match/switch 2 (6 pts), boolean chains 2, loops 1 (nesting depth added 11). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · CharsetReader.doRead (cognitive 23) · ×1
  • CharsetReader.doRead (cognitive 23) formats/json/jvmMain/src/kotlinx/serialization/json/internal/CharsetReader.kt:54 — CharsetReader.doRead has cognitive complexity 23 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (21 pts), boolean chains 1, loops 1 (nesting depth added 11). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · OutputStreamJsonWriter.writeUtf8 (cognitive 21) · ×1
  • OutputStreamJsonWriter.writeUtf8 (cognitive 21) formats/json/jvmMain/src/kotlinx/serialization/json/internal/JvmJsonStreams.kt:139 — OutputStreamJsonWriter.writeUtf8 has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 6 (13 pts), loops 2 (4 pts), boolean chains 2, match/switch 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 10). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · StringJsonLexerWithComments.skipWhitespaces (cognitive 20) · ×1
  • StringJsonLexerWithComments.skipWhitespaces (cognitive 20) formats/json/commonMain/src/kotlinx/serialization/json/internal/lexer/CommentLexers.kt:60 — StringJsonLexerWithComments.skipWhitespaces has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (15 pts), match/switch 1 (3 pts), boolean chains 1, loops 1 (nesting depth added 10). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · OkioReader.read (cognitive 20) · ×1
  • OkioReader.read (cognitive 20) formats/json-okio/commonMain/src/kotlinx/serialization/json/okio/internal/OkioJsonStreams.kt:47 — OkioReader.read has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (17 pts), loops 2 (3 pts) (nesting depth added 8). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · KxIoReader.read (cognitive 20) · ×1
  • KxIoReader.read (cognitive 20) formats/json-io/commonMain/src/kotlinx/serialization/json/io/internal/IoJsonStreams.kt:49 — KxIoReader.read has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (17 pts), loops 2 (3 pts) (nesting depth added 8). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · AbstractJsonLexer.skipElement (cognitive 19) · ×1
  • AbstractJsonLexer.skipElement (cognitive 19) formats/json/commonMain/src/kotlinx/serialization/json/internal/lexer/AbstractJsonLexer.kt:533 — AbstractJsonLexer.skipElement has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (15 pts), match/switch 1 (2 pts), boolean chains 1, loops 1 (nesting depth added 9). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body. This file is where this pass's cognitive complexity CONCENTRATES: formats/json/commonMain/src/kotlinx/serialization/json/internal/lexer/AbstractJsonLexer.kt holds 2 of the 12 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 45 of the 95 points over it (47%), 4.5× the next-largest file (formats/protobuf/commonMain/src/kotlinx/serialization/protobuf/schema/ProtoBufSchemaGenerator.kt at 10). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · CborParser.skipElement (cognitive 19) · ×1
  • CborParser.skipElement (cognitive 19) formats/cbor/commonMain/src/kotlinx/serialization/cbor/internal/Decoder.kt:501 — CborParser.skipElement has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (17 pts), boolean chains 1, loops 1 (nesting depth added 8). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · BufferedJsonLexerWithComments.handleComment (cognitive 18) · ×1
  • BufferedJsonLexerWithComments.handleComment (cognitive 18) formats/json/commonMain/src/kotlinx/serialization/json/internal/lexer/CommentLexers.kt:141 — BufferedJsonLexerWithComments.handleComment has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 6 (13 pts), loops 2 (4 pts), match/switch 1 (nesting depth added 9). The drivers above price the dispatch low by construction — a dispatch is charged once however many cases it lists, while each branch inside an arm is charged in full — so most of this count is what the case bodies hold, and the arms are where it can be reduced. To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · ProtobufDecoder.decodeSerializableValue (cognitive 17) · ×1
  • ProtobufDecoder.decodeSerializableValue (cognitive 17) formats/protobuf/commonMain/src/kotlinx/serialization/protobuf/internal/ProtobufDecoding.kt:263 — ProtobufDecoder.decodeSerializableValue has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (14 pts), boolean chains 1, error handling 1, match/switch 1 (nesting depth added 6). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · StreamingJsonEncoder.encodeElement (cognitive 17) · ×1
  • StreamingJsonEncoder.encodeElement (cognitive 17) formats/json/commonMain/src/kotlinx/serialization/json/internal/StreamingJsonEncoder.kt:112 — StreamingJsonEncoder.encodeElement has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (16 pts), match/switch 1 (nesting depth added 7). The drivers above price the dispatch low by construction — a dispatch is charged once however many cases it lists, while each branch inside an arm is charged in full — so most of this count is what the case bodies hold, and the arms are where it can be reduced. To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.
D22 · Internal API Consistency · Redundant Interface Definition · ×1
  • Redundant Interface Definition: `BinaryFormat` defines the exact same method signatures as `ProtoBuf` and `Cbor` directly. Since `ProtoBuf` and `Cbor` are concrete implementations that do not explicitly inherit from `BinaryFormat` in this surface (or if they do, the interface is redundant if it adds no new behavior), it creates a potential for confusion about whether these classes implement `BinaryFormat`. More critically, if they do not, the API surface is inconsistent in how it exposes binary serialization capabilities. — Ensure `ProtoBuf` and `Cbor` explicitly implement `BinaryFormat`. If they do, the interface is consistent. If they don't, consider if `BinaryFormat` is necessary or if the methods should be removed from the interface to avoid implying a contract that isn't enforced. (signatures: ProtoBuf.encodeToByteArray(serializer: SerializationStrategy<T>, value: T): ByteArray | Cbor.encodeToByteArray(serializer: SerializationStrategy<T>, value: T): ByteArray | BinaryFormat.encodeToByteArray(serializer: SerializationStrategy<T>, value: T): ByteArray)
D22 · Internal API Consistency · Ambiguous Overloading in Extension Functions · ×1
  • Ambiguous Overloading in Extension Functions: `SerialFormatKt` provides both explicit serializer-based hex methods and generic `value`-only hex methods. While the generic ones likely use context receivers or implicit serializers, having both `encodeToHexString(serializer, value)` and `encodeToHexString(value)` in the same scope can be confusing regarding which one is invoked in different contexts, especially if the generic ones rely on implicit resolution that might not be obvious to users. — Clarify documentation or ensure the generic versions are clearly marked as requiring an implicit serializer context, or remove the explicit serializer versions if the generic ones are sufficient and preferred. (signatures: SerialFormatKt.encodeToHexString(serializer: SerializationStrategy<T>, value: T): String | SerialFormatKt.decodeFromHexString(deserializer: DeserializationStrategy<T>, hex: String): T | SerialFormatKt.encodeToHexString(value: T): String | SerialFormatKt.decodeFromHexString(hex: String): T)
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (32 lines × 3) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (32 lines × 3) core/jsMain/src/kotlinx/serialization/internal/Platform.kt:87 — core/jsMain/src/kotlinx/serialization/internal/Platform.kt:87-118 | core/nativeMain/src/kotlinx/serialization/internal/Platform.kt:79-110 | core/wasmMain/src/kotlinx/serialization/internal/Platform.kt:69-100 — before extracting anything, compare `core/jsMain/src/kotlinx/serialization/internal/Platform.kt` and `core/nativeMain/src/kotlinx/serialization/internal/Platform.kt` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 46 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. 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 (13 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) formats/json-io/commonMain/src/kotlinx/serialization/json/io/internal/IoJsonStreams.kt:82 — formats/json-io/commonMain/src/kotlinx/serialization/json/io/internal/IoJsonStreams.kt:82-94 | formats/json-okio/commonMain/src/kotlinx/serialization/json/okio/internal/OkioJsonStreams.kt:83-95 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `formats/json-io/commonMain/src/kotlinx/serialization/json/io/internal/IoJsonStreams.kt:82` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The `return` at the foot of the matched lines is the enclosing body's own terminal exit, not an early one: it moves with them unchanged, and each site calls the extracted unit from the position that `return` occupied — no decision has to be handed back and re-acted on.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (11–12 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (11–12 lines × 2) formats/json/commonMain/src/kotlinx/serialization/json/internal/lexer/CommentLexers.kt:39 — formats/json/commonMain/src/kotlinx/serialization/json/internal/lexer/CommentLexers.kt:39-49 | formats/json/commonMain/src/kotlinx/serialization/json/internal/lexer/CommentLexers.kt:101-112 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `formats/json/commonMain/src/kotlinx/serialization/json/internal/lexer/CommentLexers.kt:101` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (8 lines × 3) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (8 lines × 3) formats/protobuf/jsMain/src/kotlinx/serialization/protobuf/internal/Bytes.kt:7 — formats/protobuf/jsMain/src/kotlinx/serialization/protobuf/internal/Bytes.kt:7-14 | formats/protobuf/nativeMain/src/kotlinx/serialization/protobuf/internal/Bytes.kt:7-14 | formats/protobuf/wasmMain/src/kotlinx/serialization/protobuf/internal/Bytes.kt:7-14 — before extracting anything, compare `formats/protobuf/jsMain/src/kotlinx/serialization/protobuf/internal/Bytes.kt` and `formats/protobuf/nativeMain/src/kotlinx/serialization/protobuf/internal/Bytes.kt` 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 (8 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) formats/cbor/commonMain/src/kotlinx/serialization/cbor/internal/Streams.kt:45 — formats/cbor/commonMain/src/kotlinx/serialization/cbor/internal/Streams.kt:45-52 | formats/protobuf/commonMain/src/kotlinx/serialization/protobuf/internal/Streams.kt:161-168 — 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.
D6 · Cohesion (LCOM4) · Low cohesion · ×1
  • Low cohesion: R8Tests (LCOM4 4) rules/rules-integration-tests/src/shared/kotlinx/serialization/r8/R8Tests.kt:12 — R8Tests's methods fall into 4 groups that share no field and call none of each other, against a bar of more than 3 for this run (LCOM4, configurable — your repository's bar is the one quoted here). Each group is a set of methods reachable from one another through shared fields or direct calls, so 4 groups means the type has that many internally-connected clusters with nothing tying them together. Types whose shape makes a high count expected — and which would otherwise dominate this list — are excluded before this row is raised, so this is a genuine split candidate rather than a metric reading. It is still a shape, not a defect: confirm the groups match responsibilities you can name before splitting.
P1 · CI/CD gates · No CI pipeline · ×1
  • No CI pipeline — No CI workflow found (.github/workflows, azure-pipelines.yml, .gitlab-ci.yml, …) — changes aren't gated by an automated build/test.
Minor — 24 finding(s)
X10 · Duplicated predicate · Duplicated predicate · ×8
  • Duplicated predicate formats/json/commonMain/src/kotlinx/serialization/json/internal/StreamingJsonEncoder.kt:210 — `!configuration.allowSpecialFloatingPointValues && !value.isFinite()` appears character-identically in 2 files — formats/json/commonMain/src/kotlinx/serialization/json/internal/StreamingJsonEncoder.kt, formats/json/commonMain/src/kotlinx/serialization/json/internal/TreeJsonEncoder.kt. 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 formats/json/commonMain/src/kotlinx/serialization/json/internal/JsonStreams.kt:23 — `c < ESCAPE_STRINGS.size && ESCAPE_STRINGS[c] != null` appears character-identically in 2 files — formats/json/commonMain/src/kotlinx/serialization/json/internal/JsonStreams.kt, formats/json/commonMain/src/kotlinx/serialization/json/internal/StringOps.kt. 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 formats/json/commonMain/src/kotlinx/serialization/json/internal/lexer/AbstractJsonLexer.kt:176 — `current >= source.length || current == -1` appears character-identically in 2 files — formats/json/commonMain/src/kotlinx/serialization/json/internal/lexer/AbstractJsonLexer.kt, formats/json/commonMain/src/kotlinx/serialization/json/internal/lexer/CommentLexers.kt. 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 formats/json/commonMain/src/kotlinx/serialization/json/internal/lexer/BufferedJsonLexer.kt:102 — `currentPosition != 0 || source.isEmpty()` appears character-identically in 2 files — formats/json/commonMain/src/kotlinx/serialization/json/internal/lexer/BufferedJsonLexer.kt, formats/json/commonMain/src/kotlinx/serialization/json/internal/lexer/CommentLexers.kt. 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 core/commonMain/src/kotlinx/serialization/internal/NullableSerializer.kt:35 — `other == null || this::class != other::class` appears character-identically in 3 files — core/commonMain/src/kotlinx/serialization/internal/NullableSerializer.kt, formats/json/commonMain/src/kotlinx/serialization/json/JsonElement.kt, formats/protobuf/commonMain/src/kotlinx/serialization/protobuf/ProtoUnknownFieldHolder.kt. 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 formats/json/commonMain/src/kotlinx/serialization/json/internal/StreamingJsonEncoder.kt:58 — `polymorphicDiscriminator != null && element !is JsonObject` appears character-identically in 3 files — formats/json/commonMain/src/kotlinx/serialization/json/internal/StreamingJsonEncoder.kt, formats/json/commonMain/src/kotlinx/serialization/json/internal/TreeJsonEncoder.kt, formats/json/jsMain/src/kotlinx/serialization/json/internal/DynamicEncoders.kt. 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 formats/protobuf/commonMain/src/kotlinx/serialization/protobuf/internal/ProtobufDecoding.kt:148 — `this.descriptor.kind == StructureKind.LIST && tag != MISSING_TAG && this.descriptor != descriptor` appears character-identically in 2 files — formats/protobuf/commonMain/src/kotlinx/serialization/protobuf/internal/ProtobufDecoding.kt, formats/protobuf/commonMain/src/kotlinx/serialization/protobuf/internal/ProtobufEncoding.kt. 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 formats/json/commonMain/src/kotlinx/serialization/json/internal/StreamingJsonEncoder.kt:162 — `value != null || configuration.explicitNulls` appears character-identically in 2 files — formats/json/commonMain/src/kotlinx/serialization/json/internal/StreamingJsonEncoder.kt, formats/json/commonMain/src/kotlinx/serialization/json/internal/TreeJsonEncoder.kt. 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.
D34 · Knowledge Freshness · Orphaned file · ×5
  • Orphaned file formats/cbor/commonMain/src/kotlinx/serialization/cbor/CborConfiguration.kt: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 formats/hocon/src/main/kotlin/kotlinx/serialization/hocon/HoconEncoders.kt: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 formats/cbor/commonMain/src/kotlinx/serialization/cbor/Tags.kt: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 core/commonTest/src/kotlinx/serialization/internal/DummySequentialDecoder.kt: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 formats/hocon/src/main/kotlin/kotlinx/serialization/hocon/serializers/ConfigMemorySizeSerializer.kt: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.
D16 · Bus Factor · Off-boarding risk · ×2
  • Off-boarding risk: anonymized user #1 — If anonymized user #1 becomes unavailable, 12 significant file(s) lose their only recent owner: core/commonMain/src/kotlinx/serialization/descriptors/SerialDescriptor.kt, core/commonMain/src/kotlinx/serialization/Annotations.kt, core/commonMain/src/kotlinx/serialization/descriptors/SerialDescriptors.kt, formats/json/commonMain/src/kotlinx/serialization/json/JsonElement.kt, formats/json/commonMain/src/kotlinx/serialization/json/internal/JsonNamesMap.kt, formats/json/commonMain/src/kotlinx/serialization/json/JsonConfiguration.kt, formats/json/commonMain/src/kotlinx/serialization/json/internal/JsonExceptions.kt, formats/json/commonMain/src/kotlinx/serialization/json/internal/JsonPolymorphicHelpers.kt (+4 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: formats/json/jvmMain/src/kotlinx/serialization/json/JvmStreams.kt, formats/json-okio/commonMain/src/kotlinx/serialization/json/okio/OkioStreams.kt, formats/json-io/commonMain/src/kotlinx/serialization/json/io/IoStreams.kt, formats/json/jvmMain/src/kotlinx/serialization/json/internal/StringJsonWriter.kt, formats/json/commonMain/src/kotlinx/serialization/json/internal/JsonIterator.kt, benchmark/src/jmh/kotlin/kotlinx/benchmarks/json/moshi/MoshiBaseline.kt, formats/json/commonMain/src/kotlinx/serialization/json/internal/JsonStreams.kt. Pair on, review, or document these before any departure.
D16 · Bus Factor · Further sole-owners (lower concentration) · ×1
  • Further sole-owners (lower concentration) — 2 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 (21 single-owned of 134 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; 134 of the 276 production source files in this repository met that bar). They are anonymized user #3 (1 file(s)), anonymized user #4 (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: formats/cbor/commonMain/src/kotlinx/serialization/cbor/internal/Decoder.kt, formats/protobuf/commonMain/src/kotlinx/serialization/protobuf/schema/ProtoBufSchemaGenerator.kt.
D26 · Project Cohesion · Projects may be oversized for their cohesion · ×1
  • Projects may be oversized for their cohesion — 2 of 10 project(s) overshoot their size bounds, lowering Project Cohesion to 7.0/10. The most over is `core` (8677 LoC, 203 module-visible types across 14 directories). Review these for cohesion — draw the boundary inside the module first (group each responsibility into its own package or directory and keep the cross-boundary members non-public), since splitting a published package moves types between packages and breaks consumers.
D28 · Secrets (history) · Rotate the exposed credentials · ×1
  • REDACTED
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities · Low CVE · ×1
  • REDACTED
D34 · Knowledge Freshness · Orphaned files with no living knowledge · ×1
  • Orphaned files with no living knowledge — 5 of 135 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; 135 of the 276 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: formats/cbor/commonMain/src/kotlinx/serialization/cbor/CborConfiguration.kt, formats/hocon/src/main/kotlin/kotlinx/serialization/hocon/HoconEncoders.kt, formats/cbor/commonMain/src/kotlinx/serialization/cbor/Tags.kt, core/commonTest/src/kotlinx/serialization/internal/DummySequentialDecoder.kt, formats/hocon/src/main/kotlin/kotlinx/serialization/hocon/serializers/ConfigMemorySizeSerializer.kt. 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.
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.
P3 · Security & performance tooling · No SAST · ×1
  • No SAST — No static application security testing detected. For this repository's stack, add spotbugs with find-sec-bugs (or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language) — this repository has no CI pipeline yet, so run it locally to clear the existing findings, then make it a step of the first workflow you add so a regression fails the build. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: the 0 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.
PF1 · Benchmark discipline · Benchmarks don't track allocations · ×1
  • Benchmarks don't track allocations benchmark/src/jmh/kotlin/kotlinx/benchmarks/cbor/CborUnsignedBenchmark.kt — A JMH/Jetpack Benchmark suite exists but nothing turns on its allocation measurement — allocations (the main way hot code pressures a garbage collector or allocator) aren't being measured.

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.

DimensionToolVersionCommandFindingsRaw output
D28 · Secrets (history)gitleaks—gitleaks detect --no-banner --config /opt/gitleaks-rules/watchdog-gitleaks.toml --report-format json --report-path /tmp/watchdog-gitleaks-e4b9d6e9665c473fa35fee388caf48e0/history.json --exit-code 0 --source .7artifacts/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-e4b9d6e9665c473fa35fee388caf48e0/tree.json --exit-code 0 --source .0artifacts/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 .0artifacts/raw/semgrep.json
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilitiestrivy—trivy fs --scanners vuln --format json --quiet --severity CRITICAL,HIGH,MEDIUM,LOW --skip-dirs **/bin/** --skip-dirs **/obj/** . --skip-db-update6artifacts/raw/trivy-fs.json
D31 · IaC & Container Securitytrivy—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 12 file(s) — `buildSrc/src/main/kotlin/animalsniffer-conventions.gradle.kts`, `core/commonMain/src/kotlinx/serialization/internal/Platform.common.kt`, `formats/cbor/commonMain/src/kotlinx/serialization/cbor/internal/Decoder.kt`, `formats/cbor/commonMain/src/kotlinx/serialization/cbor/internal/Encoder.kt`, `formats/cbor/commonMain/src/kotlinx/serialization/cbor/internal/Encoding.kt`, … (+7 more) — so the PII/GDPR sweep did not cover the unparsed regions of them; rows reported elsewhere in those files are real.0—
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signingprovenance—provenance: not applicable — No CI/build pipeline found (.github/.forgejo/.gitea workflows, .circleci, .buildkite, .woodpecker, .teamcity, .gitlab-ci.yml, .travis.yml, bitbucket-pipelines.yml, .drone.yml, .cirrus.yml, .woodpecker.yml, appveyor.yml, azure-pipelines*.yml, .pipelines/, .vsts-ci/, .azuredevops/, Jenkinsfile); there is no build to attest provenance for.0—
D37 · Vulnerability-disclosure Policydisclosure—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 Confinementruntime-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 Confinementruntime-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 Enforcementruntime-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 Dependenciestrivy—trivy fs --scanners vuln --format json --quiet --severity CRITICAL,HIGH,MEDIUM,LOW --skip-dirs **/bin/** --skip-dirs **/obj/** . --skip-db-update0artifacts/raw/trivy-fs.json

Run 01a16f86-9b72-7b11-a03c-edc0736c8d59 · every finding is also locatable in findings.md, and the complete scoring record (with exit codes + durations) in sidecar.json.

Issues: 12 · Warnings: 57 · Recommendations: 24 — Appendix A · all findings · full markdown report.
Generated by Watchdog — deterministic code-health analysis. 24-10-2026 @ 20:07 UTC.

Downloadable artifacts

Machine-readable and reproducible from this commit + frozen rubric — drop them straight into a contract appendix, a CRA dossier, or a downstream SCA / VEX tool.

⬇ Findings, MITRE CWE-tagged .sarif⬇ Health changelog .md