Public report — MarkEdit, published 30 Sep 2026. Concrete security findings (which rule fired, in which file, on which line; CVE IDs, secret matches, dependency versions) are REDACTED in this version; ask the repo owner for the full report.
Public
Codebase survey Measured under the Code Assurance Index · rubric rubric-2026.09.18 (frozen) · verify this survey Filed cd_167c7609a2884cc9addd2ca802362d39 Filed 30 September 2026, 19:11 UTC Public

MarkEdit-App/MarkEdit

Measured 30 September 2026, 18:47 UTC

Supply-chain provenance is not scored
58% Adequate
CriticalWeakAdequateStrongExemplary
Performance 100% Exemplary Code Health 93% Exemplary Security 87% Strong Architecture 79% Strong Readiness 53% Adequate Maturity 45% Weak

Medium · 32,534 LoC · 15 projects · rebuild ~0.3 person-years · weakest lens: Maturity (45%)

Findings by grade

6 critical 157 serious 12 minor 42 could not be resolved — could be critical — see Limitations

This survey was produced by

Watchdog
Producer
Canine Development
Analyzer
Watchdog engine 1.0.0
Measured
30 September 2026, 18:47 UTC

A measurement, not a certificate. The Code Assurance Index does not certify, approve or guarantee this codebase; it records a reproducible number and the evidence it was computed from. The standard is authored by Canine Development, who also build Watchdog — its only implementation today. That is said here so the number is checked rather than believed.

Grounded in facts. Every number here is computed, not narrated — reproducible, tool-backed, and traceable to a line of code. How to trust this ▸

43/48dimensions tool-verifieddeterministic · confidence 1.0 · 5 LLM-assisted, advisory
159findings with an exact file:lineof 175 — the remainder are repo-wide signals (a dimension-level measurement, not a single line); open any file:line and verify
48/132dimensions across the health lenses32534 LoC · 15 projects — wide & deep
Chapters

Executive summary

The system holds an adequate overall standing of 58%, indicating a workable asset that carries real operational risk. While the code is clean and the architecture is sound, the organization lacks the institutional memory and operational maturity to sustain it confidently. This gap threatens delivery speed and increases the cost of future changes, as new teams may struggle to understand the system’s intent or navigate its evolution without clear guidance.

The value at stake is moderate, with a rebuild effort estimated at roughly 0.3 person-years, or about €40,000. This is not a massive monolith, but it is significant enough that poor maintenance practices will compound quickly. The code itself is highly maintainable and performant, with no boilerplate clutter and excellent structural health. However, the low maturity score suggests that while the code is good, the processes and documentation surrounding it are not. This creates a fragile foundation where knowledge is siloed and decisions are undocumented, leading to potential delays and defects as the team scales or turns over.

The primary risk lies in institutional fragility. With a maturity score of 45%, the system lacks the necessary documentation and decision records to ensure continuity. This means that if key engineers leave, the business loses critical context, increasing the risk of costly mistakes and slower feature delivery. The second risk is operational uncertainty. Although the code is secure and the architecture is robust, the lack of recorded significant decisions means that future changes may inadvertently break assumptions or repeat past errors. This uncertainty can lead to rework and increased testing overhead, impacting both cost and reliability.

What is genuinely good is the code quality and architectural integrity. The system is clean, performant, and secure, with no significant technical debt in the codebase itself. This provides a solid foundation for improvement. The best leverage for immediate action is to record significant decisions in a centralized, discoverable format. This single step will dramatically improve maturity, reduce risk, and provide the clarity needed for sustainable growth. Other improvements can follow, but this foundational step is critical for long-term success.

Code Health 93% ★ Exemplary Architecture 79% Strong Maturity 45% Weak · gated by M2, M4 Readiness 53% Adequate · gated by P3 Security 87% Strong Performance 100% ★ Exemplary
How the score is built — each lens's share of the headline Width is the lens's weight in the worst-heaviest fold (the weakest area pulls hardest); colour is that lens's own band. A lens fixes the score in proportion to its width.
Maturity 45% · 46% weightReadiness 53% · 25% weightArchitecture 79% · 14% weightSecurity 87% · 8% weightCode Health 93% · 4% weightPerformance 100% · 2% weight

Raise Maturity 45 → 70 (the Healthy floor) ⇒ headline 58 → ~66.

Code composition — where the lines go
Tests 100%
New since the last scan (35+)

35 finding(s) are new versus the previous scan (2026-09-14) — surfaced by this scheduled scan itself, no pull request required.

  • D1 · ExtensionRelease.pageURL (cyclomatic 17) MarkEditMac/Modules/Sources/ExtensionCore/ExtensionRegistry.swift
  • D1 · ExtensionsRowView.body (cyclomatic 16) MarkEditMac/Sources/Extension/ExtensionsRowView.swift
  • D2 · ExtensionsRowView.body (cognitive 20) MarkEditMac/Sources/Extension/ExtensionsRowView.swift
  • D2 · ExtensionRelease.pageURL (cognitive 18) MarkEditMac/Modules/Sources/ExtensionCore/ExtensionRegistry.swift
  • D2 · index.wrapMath (cognitive 18) CoreEditor/src/modules/math/index.ts
  • D5 · Off the main sequence: DiffKit
  • D5 · Off the main sequence: TextBundle
  • D6 · Low cohesion: Data (LCOM4 6) MarkEditKit/Sources/EditorTextEncoding.swift
  • D6 · Low cohesion: NSMenuItem (LCOM4 6) MarkEditMac/Sources/Editor/Views/EditorWebView.swift
  • D6 · Low cohesion: NSView (LCOM4 6) MarkEditMac/Modules/Sources/AppKitExtensions/UI/NSView+Extension.swift
  • D6 · Low cohesion: NSWindow (LCOM4 6) MarkEditMac/Modules/Sources/AppKitExtensions/UI/NSWindow+Extension.swift
  • D6 · Low cohesion: View (LCOM4 6) MarkEditMac/Modules/Sources/FontPicker/FontPicker.swift
  • D6 · Low cohesion: String (LCOM4 5) MarkEditCore/Sources/Extensions/String+Extension.swift
  • D6 · Low cohesion: WKWebView (LCOM4 4) MarkEditCore/Sources/Extensions/WebKit+Extension.swift
  • D6 · Low cohesion: EditorStatusView (LCOM4 4) MarkEditMac/Sources/Editor/Views/EditorStatusView.swift
  • D6 · Low cohesion: NSMenu (LCOM4 4) MarkEditMac/Sources/Extras/NSMenu+Extras.swift
  • D6 · Low cohesion: AppDocumentController (LCOM4 4) MarkEditMac/Sources/Main/AppDocumentController.swift
  • D10 · Skipped test: testCrossVolumeContract MarkEditKit/Tests/MoveFileTests.swift
  • D10 · No assertions: testConcurrentOpeningThroughAppKit MarkEditMac/Tests/EditorDocumentTests.swift
  • D15 · Hotspot: MarkEditMac/Sources/Extension/ExtensionsRowView.swift MarkEditMac/Sources/Extension/ExtensionsRowView.swift
  • D15 · Hotspot: MarkEditMac/Sources/Extension/ExtensionsWindowController.swift MarkEditMac/Sources/Extension/ExtensionsWindowController.swift
  • D15 · Hotspot: CoreEditor/src/core.ts CoreEditor/src/core.ts
  • D15 · Hotspot: CoreEditor/src/modules/commands/formatContent.ts CoreEditor/src/modules/commands/formatContent.ts
  • D22 · Ambiguous naming for file retrieval operations. `getFileContent` and `getFileObject` appear to perform the same domain operation (retrieving file data) but return different types (`String` vs `String?` or potentially different semantic meanings like raw bytes vs decoded text). Without distinct documentation, these names are confusingly similar.
  • D29 · REDACTED
  • D29 · REDACTED
  • D29 · REDACTED
  • D29 · REDACTED
  • D29 · REDACTED
  • D29 · REDACTED
  • D29 · REDACTED
  • D29 · REDACTED
  • D30 · REDACTED
  • R2 · Complex function (anonymous) (cyclomatic 28, cognitive 51) CoreEditor/src/modules/input/index.ts
  • R2 · Complex function parse (cyclomatic 12, cognitive 20) CoreEditor/src/modules/math/index.ts

A full-fidelity diff against the previous run's complete recorded findings — line-move tolerant: a finding that only shifted line counts as unchanged, only genuinely new titles/files surface here.

Rebuild cost & value ~ Modeled — €13,000–€67,000
Cost to rebuild€13,000–€67,000 (0.1–0.4 person-years (224–710 h), ~1 engineer)
Domain complexityStandard — harder problems cost more per line
Quality factor0.8× (at 58% quality) — the last 20% of quality is most of the work
Size & shapeMedium · effort split not classified (source measured from disk; the effort-tier breakdown is a C#-only syntax walk)

This codebase represents roughly ~0.3 person-years of build effort (about ~€40,000 to rebuild). Its weakest lens is Maturity at 45% — the part of that asset most exposed by the findings below.

How we model this: boilerplate at a scaffolding rate + logic × domain Standard (×1.0) — standard service × a 0.8× quality factor, at €60–95/h; indicative, ±~30% · size measured directly from source · effort from total production LoC as straight-line logic (the tier split is a C#-only syntax walk), a conservative lower bound. Indicative only — most sensitive to the hourly rate and the domain tier (both tunable in config).

Top priorities

The highest-leverage moves; the full ranked list is in the Roadmap below.

1
Resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality.
+10.2 pts · Low effort · ADR Quality
2
Record significant decisions one document per decision — dated, stating the context, the decision and its consequences — and keep them together wherever your design docs already live (a conventional `docs/adr/` tree, with each file named `NNNN-title` in whatever markup those docs already use, is the most discoverable form).
+12.4 pts · Medium effort · Architecture documentation
3
Reconcile the README with reality: README claims MarkEdit is a macOS app but the repository contains no macOS project.
+12.4 pts · Medium effort · Documentation accuracy

Diagnosis — what's actually going on

Value concentrated against a weak lens · High · Value at risk
This is a Medium asset (~0.3 person-years to rebuild), and its weakest lens is Maturity at 45%. The operational and business risk on an asset this size concentrates there — that's where remediation buys the most protection.
Evidence: valuation: Medium, ~0.3 person-years rebuild (32,534 LoC) · weakest lens: Maturity 45%
→ Direct remediation budget at Maturity first — highest risk-reduction per euro on an asset this size.
Highest-leverage move · Medium · Leverage
Of everything flagged, the best return on effort is: Record significant decisions one document per decision — dated, stating the context, the decision and its consequences — and keep them together wherever your design docs already live (a conventional `docs/adr/` tree, with each file named `NNNN-title` in whatever markup those docs already use, is the most discoverable form). The rest can wait behind it.
Evidence: priority ranking: top of 5 ranked by impact/effort
→ Record significant decisions one document per decision — dated, stating the context, the decision and its consequences — and keep them together wherever your design docs already live (a conventional `docs/adr/` tree, with each file named `NNNN-title` in whatever markup those docs already use, is the most discoverable form).

Architecture — module dependency graph

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

arch AppKitExtensions AppKitExtensions DiffKit DiffKit ExtensionCore ExtensionCore ExtensionCore->AppKitExtensions FileDrop FileDrop FileDrop->AppKitExtensions TextBundle TextBundle FileDrop->TextBundle FileVersion FileVersion FileVersion->DiffKit SharedUI SharedUI FileVersion->SharedUI FontPicker FontPicker FontPicker->AppKitExtensions MarkEditCore MarkEditCore MarkEditKit MarkEditKit MarkEditKit->MarkEditCore SettingsUI SettingsUI SettingsUI->AppKitExtensions SharedUI->AppKitExtensions Statistics Statistics Statistics->AppKitExtensions TextCompletion TextCompletion TextCompletion->AppKitExtensions UpdaterCore UpdaterCore markedit-app markedit-app

Architecture — module dependency matrix

Rows and columns are the same modules, ordered so that a module only depends on ones above it. A cell means the row depends on the column, and its number is how many type pairs create that dependency. Read one thing: is anything above the diagonal? A mark there is a dependency cycle. (A cycle is all this shows — an unusual but cycle-free dependency sits below the diagonal like any other.)

110 modules, 152 dependencies. 1 dependency cycle across 22 modules, marked above the diagonal.

Showing the 40 most-connected modules; 70 more are not drawn.

Module dependency matrix. The row depends on the column; the number is how many type pairs create the dependency. A cell above the diagonal is part of a dependency cycle.
depends on →1 CoreEditor.src.@quicklook2 CoreEditor.src.@types.WebFontFace3 CoreEditor.src.api4 CoreEditor.src.core5 CoreEditor.src.modules.search.options6 CoreEditor.src.modules.selection.types7 CoreEditor.src.styling.types8 CoreEditor.src.styling.views9 CoreEditor.src.config10 CoreEditor.src.modules.search11 CoreEditor.src.modules.selection12 MarkEditKit~Extensions13 MarkEditMac~Modules~FontPicker14 UpdateInstaller~UpdaterCore15 (global)16 CoreEditor.src17 CoreEditor.src.styling18 repository19 MarkEditMac~Modules~TextBundle20 MarkEditMac~Scripting21 MarkEditMac~Modules~TextCompletion22 MarkEditMac~Modules~AppKitExtensions23 MarkEditMac~Main24 MarkEditMac~Modules~SharedUI25 MarkEditMac~Modules~Statistics26 MarkEditMac~Extras27 MarkEditMac~Modules~ExtensionCore28 MarkEditMac~Modules~FileVersion29 MarkEditMac~Panels30 MarkEditMac~Editor31 MarkEditMac~Extension32 MarkEditMac~Modules~DiffKit33 MarkEditKit~Bridge34 MarkEditKit35 MarkEditCore~Extensions36 MarkEditCore37 MarkEditMac~Modules~SettingsUI38 MarkEditMac~Settings39 MarkEditMac~Shortcuts40 MarkEditMac~Updater
1 CoreEditor.src.@quicklook
2 CoreEditor.src.@types.WebFontFace
3 CoreEditor.src.api
4 CoreEditor.src.core
5 CoreEditor.src.modules.search.options
6 CoreEditor.src.modules.selection.types
7 CoreEditor.src.styling.types
8 CoreEditor.src.styling.views
9 CoreEditor.src.config1
10 CoreEditor.src.modules.search11
11 CoreEditor.src.modules.selection1
12 MarkEditKit~Extensions1
13 MarkEditMac~Modules~FontPicker441
14 UpdateInstaller~UpdaterCore8
15 (global)1
16 CoreEditor.src21
17 CoreEditor.src.styling152
18 repository2511111
19 MarkEditMac~Modules~TextBundle116
20 MarkEditMac~Scripting1111
21 MarkEditMac~Modules~TextCompletion1234
22 MarkEditMac~Modules~AppKitExtensions2211317
23 MarkEditMac~Main2111553125399
24 MarkEditMac~Modules~SharedUI1081516
25 MarkEditMac~Modules~Statistics21219
26 MarkEditMac~Extras122314
27 MarkEditMac~Modules~ExtensionCore13316
28 MarkEditMac~Modules~FileVersion2423
29 MarkEditMac~Panels44413
30 MarkEditMac~Editor21121196514132204175
31 MarkEditMac~Extension337129315
32 MarkEditMac~Modules~DiffKit113
33 MarkEditKit~Bridge2217106712
34 MarkEditKit1141
35 MarkEditCore~Extensions12
36 MarkEditCore1221
37 MarkEditMac~Modules~SettingsUI421
38 MarkEditMac~Settings61
39 MarkEditMac~Shortcuts1114
40 MarkEditMac~Updater126
Dependency, pointing down the layeringAbove the diagonal — part of a cycleThe module itself
…Editor.src.@quicklook…rc.@types.WebFontFaceCoreEditor.src.apiCoreEditor.src.core…odules.search.options…dules.selection.types…tor.src.styling.types…tor.src.styling.viewsCoreEditor.src.config…or.src.modules.search…src.modules.selectionMarkEditKit~Extensions…ac~Modules~FontPicker…Installer~UpdaterCore(global)CoreEditor.srcCoreEditor.src.stylingrepository…ac~Modules~TextBundleMarkEditMac~Scripting…odules~TextCompletion…ules~AppKitExtensionsMarkEditMac~Main…tMac~Modules~SharedUI…ac~Modules~StatisticsMarkEditMac~Extras…Modules~ExtensionCore…c~Modules~FileVersionMarkEditMac~PanelsMarkEditMac~EditorMarkEditMac~Extension…itMac~Modules~DiffKitMarkEditKit~BridgeMarkEditKit…rkEditCore~ExtensionsMarkEditCore…ac~Modules~SettingsUIMarkEditMac~SettingsMarkEditMac~ShortcutsMarkEditMac~Updater…Editor.src.@quicklook1…rc.@types.WebFontFace2CoreEditor.src.api3CoreEditor.src.core4…odules.search.options5…dules.selection.types6…tor.src.styling.types7…tor.src.styling.views8CoreEditor.src.config9…or.src.modules.search10…src.modules.selection11MarkEditKit~Extensions12…ac~Modules~FontPicker13…Installer~UpdaterCore14(global)15CoreEditor.src16CoreEditor.src.styling17repository18…ac~Modules~TextBundle19MarkEditMac~Scripting20…odules~TextCompletion21…ules~AppKitExtensions22MarkEditMac~Main23…tMac~Modules~SharedUI24…ac~Modules~Statistics25MarkEditMac~Extras26…Modules~ExtensionCore27…c~Modules~FileVersion28MarkEditMac~Panels29MarkEditMac~Editor30MarkEditMac~Extension31…itMac~Modules~DiffKit32MarkEditKit~Bridge33MarkEditKit34…rkEditCore~Extensions35MarkEditCore36…ac~Modules~SettingsUI37MarkEditMac~Settings38MarkEditMac~Shortcuts39MarkEditMac~Updater4011111441812115225111111161111123422113172111553125399108151621219122314133162423444132112119651413220417533712931511322171067121141121221421611114126+70 more modules (most-connected shown)

At a glance — Code Health · 93% · Exemplary ·

The Good
D1 · Swift Cyclomatic Complexity 7.6 D3 · Swift God Classes 9.4 D4 · Swift Code Duplication 10.0 D17 · Swift Explicit Debt 10.0 R1 · React / TS Type Safety 9.9 R10 · React / TS Code Duplication 9.5 R2 · React / TS Cyclomatic Complexity 9.7 R3 · React / TS Large Files 9.8 R7 · React / TS Dead Code 9.9 X29 · Repo Per-element action decided by a fixed element 10.0
The Bad
D2 · Swift Cognitive Complexity 6.6

At a glance — Architecture · 79% · Strong ·

The Good
D5 · Swift Coupling 8.9 D22 · Swift Internal API Consistency 9.0 D35 · Swift Change Coupling 9.7 AX10 · Repo Code composition 8.6 AX3 · Repo Project dependency cycles 10.0 AX4 · Repo Dependency direction 10.0 AX8 · Repo Test isolation 10.0 AX9 · Repo CQS / query purity 10.0
The Bad
D6 · Swift Cohesion (LCOM4) 5.9 D26 · Swift Project Cohesion 6.8 R9 · React / TS Circular Imports 5.6

At a glance — Maturity · 45% · Weak · gated by M2, M4 ·

The Good
D15 · Swift Churn × Complexity Hotspots 9.7 D19 · Swift Documentation Quality 8.0 D21 · Swift Naming Consistency 10.0 D34 · Swift Knowledge Freshness 10.0 M1 · Repo Documentation (README) 8.3 M3 · Repo Folder & project structure 8.0
The Ugly
D20 · Swift ADR Quality 0.0 M2 · Repo Architecture documentation 2.0 M4 · Repo Documentation accuracy 1.0

At a glance — Readiness · 53% · Adequate · gated by P3 ·

The Good
D9 · Swift Test Distribution 10.0 D10 · Swift Test Quality 8.8 D12 · Swift Dependency Hygiene 9.9 D13 · Swift Secret Scanning 10.0 P1 · Repo CI/CD gates 10.0 R4 · React / TS Test Coverage 8.9 R6 · React / TS Tooling 10.0 R8 · React / TS Dependency Hygiene 9.5
The Bad
P10 · Repo Library API & versioning 6.0 P2 · Repo Observability 6.4 P6 · Repo Release Hygiene 5.0
The Ugly
P3 · Repo Security & performance tooling 0.0

At a glance — Security · 87% · Strong ·

The Good
D28 · Swift Secrets (history) 10.0 D30 · Swift Dependency Vulnerabilities 9.4 D43 · Swift Malicious Dependencies 10.0
The Bad
D29 · Swift Static Analysis (SAST) 5.5

At a glance — Performance · 100% · Exemplary ·

The Good
PF3 · Repo Async & latency hygiene 10.0

Security & Compliance — OWASP Top-10 mapping

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

OWASP categoryFindingsSeverity
A03:2021 — Injection11High / Critical
A06:2021 — Vulnerable & Outdated Components1High / Critical

Roadmap

First, establish a centralized repository for architecture decisions by documenting significant choices with their context and consequences, and immediately correct the README to accurately reflect the project's current state. Next, ensure these architectural records are complete by addressing the missing architecture decision records. Then, integrate automated security scanning into the continuous integration pipeline to prevent security regressions from reaching production. Finally, maintain a clear changelog to track what is shipped in each release.

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

Do thisHelpsEffortDimension
Resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality.+10.2 ptsLowADR Quality
Record significant decisions one document per decision — dated, stating the context, the decision and its consequences — and keep them together wherever your design docs already live (a conventional `docs/adr/` tree, with each file named `NNNN-title` in whatever markup those docs already use, is the most discoverable form).+12.4 ptsMediumArchitecture documentation
Reconcile the README with reality: README claims MarkEdit is a macOS app but the repository contains no macOS project.+12.4 ptsMediumDocumentation accuracy
Add a SAST step to CI running what this repository's stack ships: CodeQL's Swift pack (Swift/Xcode) — or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language — so a security regression fails the build instead of landing.+8.6 ptsMediumSecurity & performance tooling
Keep a changelog (e.g. Keep-a-Changelog) recording what shipped in each release.+8.6 ptsMediumRelease Hygiene
Keep implementation types off the public surface (Swift: leave it `internal` (the default) instead of `public`) so internals can change without breaking consumers.+8.3 ptsMediumLibrary API & versioning
Extend structured logging to the remaining runnable modules so everything you run is diagnosable in production.+8.0 ptsMediumObservability
Group production code under src/ (or split deliberately, e.g. backend/ + frontend/) so production and tooling code aren't mixed at the root.+6.8 ptsMediumFolder & project structure

File quality

Per-file score 0–10 — a quality signature. Of 53 files carrying findings, judged against the Production bar: 0% slop · 45% mixed · 55% near-clean.

FileScoreBandWorst signal
REDACTED4.6MixedStatic Analysis (SAST): Medium: REDACTED
MarkEditMac/Sources/Editor/Controllers/EditorViewController.swift5.5MixedCyclomatic Complexity: EditorViewController.addLocalMonitorForEvents (cyclomatic 30)
REDACTED5.8MixedStatic Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
MarkEditCore/Sources/Extensions/WebKit+Extension.swift6.5MixedChange Coupling: Boundary-crossing change coupling: WebKit+Extension.swift ↔ WKWebViewConfiguration+Extension.swift
REDACTED6.9MixedStatic Analysis (SAST): Medium: REDACTED
MarkEditMac/Sources/Editor/Views/EditorWebView.swift7.0MixedCognitive Complexity: EditorWebView.updateMenuItems (cognitive 19)
MarkEditKit/Sources/Bridge/Native/Modules/EditorModuleAPI.swift7.0MixedCognitive Complexity: EditorModuleAPI.deleteLocalFileVersions (cognitive 17)
MarkEditMac/Sources/Main/Application/AppDelegate.swift7.0MixedGod Classes: TooManyMethods: AppDelegate
MarkEditMac/Sources/Extension/ExtensionsViewController.swift7.0MixedGod Classes: TooManyMethods: ExtensionsViewController
MarkEditMac/Sources/Editor/Models/EditorDocument.swift7.0MixedGod Classes: TooManyMethods: EditorDocument
MarkEditMac/Modules/Tests/RuntimeTests.swift7.0MixedTest Quality: Skipped test: testExistenceOfAppKitSearchField
CoreEditor/src/@vendor/lang-markdown/commands.ts7.1MixedCyclomatic Complexity: commands.insertNewlineContinueMarkupCommand (cyclomatic 44)
MarkEditMac/Modules/Sources/ExtensionCore/ExtensionRegistry.swift7.2MixedCyclomatic Complexity: ExtensionRelease.pageURL (cyclomatic 17)
REDACTED7.2MixedStatic Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED7.2MixedDependency Vulnerabilities: High CVE: REDACTED
CoreEditor/src/@vendor/lang-html/complete.ts7.4MixedCyclomatic Complexity: complete.htmlCompletionFor (cyclomatic 25)
CoreEditor/src/modules/input/index.ts7.8MixedCyclomatic Complexity: index.observeChanges (cyclomatic 30)
CoreEditor/src/modules/tokenizer/index.ts7.8MixedCyclomatic Complexity: index.handleKeyDown (cyclomatic 24)
CoreEditor/src/core.ts7.8MixedCyclomatic Complexity: core.resetEditor (cyclomatic 18)
CoreEditor/src/modules/commands/toggleBlockWithMarks.ts7.8MixedCyclomatic Complexity: toggleBlockWithMarks.toggleBlockWithMarks (cyclomatic 17)

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 — 6

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 — 157

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 — 12

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

Could not be resolved — 42

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. 43 of 48 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); 5 documentation/naming judgement(s) are LLM-assisted and labelled advisory. Overall confidence is 0.8 — the weighted average across measured dimensions; it falls as more of the score leans on LLM-assisted judgement and rises when it's fully tool-backed.

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

What we checked — 48 dimensions across the health lenses
D1D2D3D4D5D6D9D10D12D13D15D17D19D20D21D22D26D28D29D30D34D35D43AX10AX3AX4AX8AX9M1M2M3M4P1P10P2P3P6PF3R1R10R2R3R4R6R7R8R9X29

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, 159 of 175 do; the remainder are repo-wide signals — a dimension-level measurement, not a single line. (Every path in this report is repo-relative by construction: paths are normalized at the producer and the report is rejected if any rooted path leaks through.)
  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 01a0f3a4-d3dc-7032-9266-96e30d7c82a3.

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: this repository's production source spans .swift, .ts, and our analyzer cannot run the .swift, .ts test suite(s) — so no coverage was collected for the repository as a whole. The JavaScript/TypeScript half did build and run, and its own line coverage came back at 62.3% — but that is a figure for one half of the product, and we do not publish a partial one as if it were complete. This is OUR limitation, not a defect in the repo — coverage is excluded from the score rather than counted as a near-zero. In the meantime, produce a coverage report in a standard format (lcov — `swift test --enable-code-coverage` (SwiftPM) or `xcodebuild test -scheme <YourScheme> -enableCodeCoverage YES` (an .xcodeproj/.xcworkspace suite), then `xcrun llvm-cov export -format=lcov`, or lcov — `vitest --coverage`, `jest --coverage`, `bun test --coverage --coverage-reporter=lcov`, or `nyc`) 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 and real coverage will be read. You can widen what we reach: optional: produce a coverage report in a standard format (lcov — `swift test --enable-code-coverage` (SwiftPM) or `xcodebuild test -scheme <YourScheme> -enableCodeCoverage YES` (an .xcodeproj/.xcworkspace suite), then `xcrun llvm-cov export -format=lcov`, or lcov — `vitest --coverage`, `jest --coverage`, `bun test --coverage --coverage-reporter=lcov`, or `nyc`) 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 both halves are read on the next scan.
  • D10 Test Quality — measured, with a gap in what it reached — Watchdog measured this, but not all of it. What it did not reach is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — so the numbers on that dimension cover less than the repository, and the part left out is not evidence that it would have passed. The 187 test(s) behind this row are the ones the code-model census could read, and this repository also carries at least 34 test source file(s) (.ts, .cjs) that it cannot: it reads the test types the .swift frontend declared, so a suite in any other language is invisible to it. Skipped tests, zero-assertion tests and the other quality signals on this row are UNMEASURED in that suite — their absence from the counts above is a gap in this analyzer's language coverage, not a finding that those tests are sound.
  • D11 Test Reliability — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Test reliability NOT SCORED: this repository's production source includes .swift, and the built-in reliability runner cannot re-run the .swift test suite(s) — so reliability was not measured for the repository as a whole. The JavaScript/TypeScript (jest via `yarn install --immutable --mode=skip-build` in CoreEditor/ (387 tests)): measured (0 flaky) suite(s) did re-run, and came back with 0 flaky across 1 measured tier(s) — but that is a figure for one half of the product, and we do not publish a partial one as if it were complete. This is OUR limitation, not a defect in the repo — test reliability is excluded from the score rather than counted.
  • D14 License Compliance — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Not scored — none of the 0 package(s) this repository's SwiftPM files bring in could be read at a pinned revision or is a repository the public index (api.deps.dev) knows, so no licence could be read for any of them: they are private, self-hosted, or unpinned and too little-referenced to be indexed. NOT a finding that this repository's licences are compliant: this dimension asserts nothing about its licensing in either direction.
  • D16 Bus Factor — not measured this run — This is a true statement about the repository that carries nothing for its owner to act on, so it is reported here rather than as a defect in their code. Single-maintainer repository — bus factor is not applicable (9 contributor(s) across 1546 commit(s) sampled, automation and bot accounts excluded). One of them holds 99% of the history; the other 8 hold 0.1% each on average, below the 5% at which there is somebody to hand the work to. That is a single maintainer with drive-by contributors, not a team whose knowledge has concentrated — so the bus factor is not applicable and there is nothing here for the owner to act on.
  • 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. `CoreEditor/src/@types/global.d.ts`, `MarkEditCore/Sources/Extensions/WebKit+Extension.swift`, `MarkEditMac/Modules/Sources/SharedUI/LabeledSearchField.swift`, `MarkEditMac/Modules/Sources/SharedUI/MaterialView.swift`, `MarkEditMac/Sources/Editor/Controllers/EditorViewController+Completion.swift`, … (+9 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.
  • D44 Platform End-of-Life — 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 dimension reads a project's own statement about the platform it runs on: a TargetFramework in a .NET project file, a .nvmrc or .python-version, a capped requires-python, a Rust toolchain file or Cargo.toml rust-version, a .go-version, .java-version, .ruby-version, .tool-versions or .sdkmanrc, a go.mod go directive, a Maven or Gradle Java level or toolchain, a Gemfile's ruby directive, a mix.exs elixir requirement, a rebar.config minimum_otp_vsn, a pubspec.yaml SDK constraint, a build.sbt scalaVersion, or a framework major pinned by a dependency constraint. This repository carries none of them, so nothing about its platform was established. That is a gap in this analyzer's coverage, NOT a finding that the platform is supported — a language whose runtime is declared elsewhere (Package.swift, a Dockerfile) is simply not read here yet.
  • AX1 Captive dependencies — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads Microsoft.Extensions.DependencyInjection registrations in C# and Spring beans in Java/Kotlin only, and no container it models, or knows cannot hold a captive, was found in this repository's source, 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.
  • AX2 Stateful singletons — 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 Microsoft.Extensions.DependencyInjection singletons in C#, Spring/JSR-330/CDI singletons in Java and Kotlin, and module state in Python request handlers only, and this repository's product is written in Swift, which was left unread, 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.
  • 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.
  • C1 Data Protection — 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 personal data 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 personal data controls.
  • 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.
  • C3 Audit Trail — 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 audit 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 audit controls.
  • C4 Data Retention — 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 retention 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 retention controls.
  • C5 Data-Subject Rights — 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 data-subject rights 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 data-subject rights controls.
  • ED5 Idempotency — 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 finds retry-prone mutations by walking the repository's declared types, and NONE was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to look at. That is a limit of the analyzer's reach — it reads .NET projects — not a finding that this repository has no command handlers or message consumers.
  • 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 is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, 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.
  • 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 is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, 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.
  • 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.
  • PF3 Async & latency hygiene — measured, with a gap in what it reached — Watchdog measured this, but not all of it. What it did not reach is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — so the numbers on that dimension cover less than the repository, and the part left out is not evidence that it would have passed. Those languages colour their functions async, so blocking inside them is the same defect this card counts elsewhere, but their blocking vocabulary is not modelled yet. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the code is free of it.
  • 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.
  • X1 Async correctness — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, 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.
  • X12 Unreachable branch — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, 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.
  • X13 Undrained process stream — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, 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.
  • X14 Bypassable address classification — 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 implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, 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.
  • X15 Unvalidated length from an untrusted reader — 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 implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, 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.
  • X16 Unfloored truncation loop — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, 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.
  • X17 Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, 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.
  • X18 Disposal-pattern correctness — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, 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.
  • X19 Unrestored process-global state — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, 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.
  • X2 Cancellation propagation — 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 implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, 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.
  • X20 Mistyped argument guard — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, 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.
  • X21 Side-effecting pattern guard — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, 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.
  • X22 Contradicted release guard — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, 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.
  • X23 Unguarded diagnostic materialisation — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, 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.
  • X24 Document value interpolated into markup unescaped — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, 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.
  • X25 Inert configuration knob — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, 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.
  • X26 Unsynchronised callback handoff — 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 implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, 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.
  • X27 Collection changed while being enumerated — 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 implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, 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.
  • X28 Index access outside its own emptiness guard — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, 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.
  • X3 Exception handling — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, 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.
  • X30 Support guard that admits what it rejects — 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 implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, 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.
  • X4 Structured logging — 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 implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, 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.
  • X5 Nullable reference types — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, 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.
  • X7 Silent fallback defaults — 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. X7 measured the part of this repository it reads (C#, Python, TypeScript/JavaScript, Rust and Go), and its Swift source is outside the check's reach, so the card covers only part of the product. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the unread source is free of silent defaults.

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

Limitations & what we did not check

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

Per-dimension blind spots

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

  • D1 Cyclomatic Complexity: Cyclomatic complexity counts branches statically — it cannot tell an essential decision tree from accidental tangle, nor see complexity that lives in data or configuration (large switch-case token tables, DSL lexers/parsers, data-as-code rule tables) rather than control flow: a tokenizer's many single-character cases read as high complexity though each branch is trivial.
  • D2 Cognitive Complexity: Cognitive-complexity heuristics approximate how hard code is to follow; genuine domain difficulty and well-named intent that eases reading are not captured.
  • D3 God Classes: "God class" is sized by members and responsibilities visible in the type — a deliberately broad facade over a coherent subsystem can read the same as an accidental grab-bag. For front-end JS the file-length check is cohesion-aware (a single-responsibility module — one class/IIFE — earns a 3× threshold), but cohesion is approximated from top-level declarations, not true dependency structure.
  • D4 Code Duplication: Duplication is token-similarity — an in-process token-stream comparison over sliding windows, with type-aware normalization — so it finds copy-paste, not semantic duplication expressed differently. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, protobuf/OpenAPI stubs, model snapshots) is EXCLUDED — its repetition is the tool's, not the team's — so the score reflects hand-written duplication only.
  • D5 Coupling: Coupling is measured between projects/assemblies — runtime coupling through DI, reflection, messaging or shared databases is invisible to a static reference graph.
  • D6 Cohesion (LCOM4): LCOM4 cohesion is syntactic — it infers connectivity from which methods touch which fields/methods by name, not from real runtime behaviour or intent.
  • D9 Test Distribution: The test-pyramid shape is inferred from project/folder naming and references, with a single test host bucketed per-file by its path tier and content signals — a suite that names tiers unconventionally and gives no per-file signal can still be mis-bucketed.
  • D10 Test Quality: Assertion density is structural — it cannot tell a meaningful behavioural assertion from a trivial one, only that an assertion is present.
  • D12 Dependency Hygiene: Dependency health reads manifests and lockfiles — a vulnerability in a vendored/copied dependency, or risk from how a dependency is actually used, is outside this view.
  • D13 Secret Scanning: Secret detection is signature- and entropy-based on the current tree — a secret that does not match a known pattern, or one already rotated, will not be flagged (a clean scan is "nothing matched", not "no secrets exist").
  • D15 Churn × Complexity Hotspots: Churn hotspots come from git history — a freshly imported or squashed repository has no churn signal, and recent rewrites can mask a historically risky file.
  • D17 Explicit Debt: Acknowledged-debt signals (TODO/FIXME, suppressions, dead code) are textual — undocumented debt that nobody marked, and debt that lives in design rather than annotations, is invisible. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, generated stubs) is excluded — it is never the team's dead code to delete.
  • D19 Documentation Quality: Documentation quality is judged by an LLM over a bounded sample of docs — it reads what is written, not whether the docs match the running system, and it is advisory, not a measurement. Its critique rows are drawn from a closed category vocabulary and each row means the same thing in every run, so two scans can be compared row by row; the SET that fires is still a sample, and does not repeat exactly. Measured on one frozen input, six scans at one engine SHA: 2-5 critique rows per scan, 8 distinct rows across the six, 3 of those 8 seen in only one scan. So a D19 row is evidence about the documentation, but a COUNT of D19 rows is not a quantity — never read a change in it as an improvement or a regression.
  • D20 ADR Quality: ADR quality is an LLM read of the decision records present — it cannot know about decisions made and never recorded, and its verdict is sampled and advisory.
  • D21 Naming Consistency: Naming quality is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it assesses clarity/consistency of the names it sees, not domain-correctness, and is advisory.
  • 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.
  • AX10 Code composition: Role is inferred from namespace/folder convention, not semantics — a domain concept living in a folder named "Services" reads as application, and the split is lines-of-code, not business value. The business-logic-share score is a SOFT, FLOORED signal: it contributes to the Architecture lens but is floored at the Critical gate, so an infrastructure-heavy design (a gateway, an ETL, a driver) is legitimately low without being nuked to zero.
  • AX9 CQS / query purity: Handlers are found by interface/name convention — a query handler using neither is not seen. Mutation is a resolved write/publish invocation (SaveChanges/repository/bus), so a write hidden behind a hand-rolled wrapper, reflection, or a string-keyed service locator resolves to a non-persistence type and isn't flagged; it detects that a query writes state, not whether the write is a legitimate read-side cache update. Clean means "no resolved write/publish in a query body", not a proof of CQS purity.
  • 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 (5): D19, D21, D22, D26, M4 (model: Local LLM). For these, a model reads a bounded sample and sets the numeric score; each names its own sample and method on its card. They are sampled and advisory by design: they vary at the margins between runs and are never a deterministic measurement. Every other score in this report is tool-computed at confidence 1.0.

Dimensions

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity7.6 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 7.6 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

16 method(s) exceeded the cyclomatic complexity threshold of 15; the worst was commands.insertNewlineContinueMarkupCommand at 44. A further 3 method(s) were over the threshold but excluded as flat dispatchers (a long switch/match over independent cases: many branches, almost no nesting), the largest being EditorTextEncoding.decode at 18 — 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: MarkEditKit/Sources/EditorTextEncoding.swift (EditorTextEncoding.decode at 18), MarkEditMac/Sources/Extension/ExtensionsWindowController.swift (Identifier.itemLabel at 18). 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.

commands.insertNewlineContinueMarkupCommand (cyclomatic 44)CoreEditor/src/@vendor/lang-markdown/commands.ts:98
EditorViewController.addLocalMonitorForEvents (cyclomatic 30)MarkEditMac/Sources/Editor/Controllers/EditorViewController.swift:13
index.observeChanges (cyclomatic 30)CoreEditor/src/modules/input/index.ts:135
complete.htmlCompletionFor (cyclomatic 25)CoreEditor/src/@vendor/lang-html/complete.ts:481
index.handleKeyDown (cyclomatic 24)CoreEditor/src/modules/tokenizer/index.ts:48

+ 11 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

What to do

  1. Resolve the 1 commands.insertNewlineContinueMarkupCommand (cyclomatic 44) finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with commands.ts. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
  2. Resolve the 1 EditorViewController.addLocalMonitorForEvents (cyclomatic 30) finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with EditorViewController.swift. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
  3. Resolve the 1 index.observeChanges (cyclomatic 30) finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
  4. Enforce Cyclomatic Complexity in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

D2 · Cognitive Complexity6.6 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 6.6 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

25 method(s) exceeded the cognitive complexity threshold of 15; the worst was index.observeChanges at 56.

index.observeChanges (cognitive 56)CoreEditor/src/modules/input/index.ts:135
commands.insertNewlineContinueMarkupCommand (cognitive 51)CoreEditor/src/@vendor/lang-markdown/commands.ts:98
EditorViewController.addLocalMonitorForEvents (cognitive 35)MarkEditMac/Sources/Editor/Controllers/EditorViewController.swift:13
toggleListStyle.toggleListStyle (cognitive 31)CoreEditor/src/modules/commands/toggleListStyle.ts:14
commands.deleteMarkupBackward (cognitive 29)CoreEditor/src/@vendor/lang-markdown/commands.ts:243

+ 20 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

What to do

  1. Resolve the 1 index.observeChanges (cognitive 56) finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
  2. Resolve the 1 commands.insertNewlineContinueMarkupCommand (cognitive 51) finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with commands.ts. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
  3. Resolve the 1 EditorViewController.addLocalMonitorForEvents (cognitive 35) finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with EditorViewController.swift. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
  4. Enforce Cognitive Complexity in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

D3 · God Classes9.4 / 10Stronggated by 5 serious findings✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

5 god class(es) detected.

TooManyMethods: EditorViewController · ×4MarkEditMac/Sources/Editor/Controllers/EditorViewController.swift:16
MethodTooLong: EditorViewController.requestCompletionsMarkEditMac/Sources/Editor/Controllers/EditorViewController.swift:15

What to do

  1. Resolve the 4 TooManyMethods finding(s) in God Classes — start with EditorViewController.swift, AppDelegate.swift, ExtensionsViewController.swift. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 warning-level).
  2. Resolve the 1 MethodTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with EditorViewController.swift. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
  3. Enforce God Classes in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

D4 · Code Duplication10.0 / 10Stronggated by 2 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 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

2 duplicated block group(s) detected. Measured on part of this repository only: .ts (32% of production source) was not exposed to THIS dimension's token comparison and is not in this count; duplication there is measured by R10 Code Duplication, the frontend lens's card running the same clone algorithm over the JS/TS token stream.

Duplicated block (20 lines × 2)MarkEditMac/Modules/Sources/FontPicker/FontPickerConfiguration.swift:25
Duplicated block (9 lines × 2)MarkEditMac/Modules/Sources/ExtensionCore/ExtensionConfig.swift:230

What to do

  1. Resolve the 1 Duplicated block (20 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with FontPickerConfiguration.swift. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
  2. Resolve the 1 Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with ExtensionConfig.swift. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
  3. Enforce Code Duplication in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

D5 · Coupling8.9 / 10Strong✓ 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 8.9 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

15 production modules (npm+SwiftPM), 0 dependency cycle(s), 0 unstable depended-on module(s). Read from the build's own module declarations; 2 module(s) off the main sequence, with abstractness counted on 14 of the 15 (the rest declare no modelled class or interface, export only macros, or have no source directory of their own).

Off the main sequence: DiffKit · ×2

What to do

  1. Resolve the 2 Off the main sequence finding(s) in Coupling. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
  2. Enforce Coupling in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

Detailed fixes: d5_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D6 · Cohesion (LCOM4)5.9 / 10Adequate✓ 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 5.9 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

19 of 55 classes have LCOM4 above 3.

Low cohesion: EditorViewController (LCOM4 30) · ×19MarkEditMac/Sources/Editor/Controllers/EditorViewController.swift:16

What to do

  1. Resolve the 19 Low cohesion finding(s) in Cohesion (LCOM4) — start with EditorViewController.swift, AppDelegate.swift, EditorTextEncoding.swift. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (19 warning-level).
  2. Enforce Cohesion (LCOM4) in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — 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.

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

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

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

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

478 test methods: 478 unit, 0 integration, 0 BDD, 0 e2e. The JavaScript/TypeScript suite contributes 291 `it`/`test` case(s) across 29 test file(s) declaring at least one beside 187 .NET test method(s); its tier split is read from package names and paths only.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d9_recommendation.md.

D10 · Test Quality8.8 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether the tests truly assert behaviour rather than just running the code.

Method: Per-test assertions, skips, and mock references analyzed via Roslyn; structured skip-reason tags (BUG:/ENV:) separate documented deferrals from debt. Deterministic.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 8.8 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

2 skipped, 12 zero-assertion, no mocking-framework packages referenced (hand-written doubles or no mocking) across 187 tests. Measured on the .swift suite only — at least 34 test source file(s) (.ts, .cjs) went unread, so its test quality is unmeasured and is not in these counts.

No assertions: testConcurrentOpeningThroughAppKit · ×12MarkEditMac/Tests/EditorDocumentTests.swift:228
Skipped test: testCrossVolumeContract · ×2MarkEditKit/Tests/MoveFileTests.swift:98

What to do

  1. Resolve the 12 No assertions finding(s) in Test Quality — start with RuntimeTests.swift (11), EditorDocumentTests.swift. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (12 warning-level).
  2. Resolve the 2 Skipped test finding(s) in Test Quality — start with MoveFileTests.swift, RuntimeTests.swift. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
  3. Enforce Test Quality in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

Detailed fixes: d10_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D12 · Dependency Hygiene9.9 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

1 outdated direct production npm dependency(ies) of 6 graded, 0 pinning defect(s), across 1 package.json (1 of them the product) and 1 committed lockfile(s). Development dependencies are deliberately not graded: this dimension grades what SHIPS. Whether any of these packages is DEPRECATED or UNMAINTAINED is not graded — registry.npmjs.org's latest-version answer carries neither, and release age does not stand in for a maintenance status. Whether any is UNUSED is not graded either: that is a source question, and the frontend dependency lens (R8) answers it in this same run. Known CVEs in this dependency graph are D30's question, read from the manifest there.

Outdated (npm): @codemirror/commands

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

D13 · Secret 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

Secret scan ran and found no leaked secrets.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d13_recommendation.md.

D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots9.7 / 10Stronggated by 8 serious findings✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

Top hotspots: MarkEditMac/Sources/Extension/ExtensionsRowView.swift (31×16=496); MarkEditMac/Sources/Extension/ExtensionsWindowController.swift (23×18=414); MarkEditMac/Sources/Editor/Controllers/EditorViewController.swift (14×18=252)

Hotspot: MarkEditMac/Sources/Extension/ExtensionsRowView.swift · ×8MarkEditMac/Sources/Extension/ExtensionsRowView.swift:21

What to do

  1. Resolve the 8 Hotspot finding(s) in Churn × Complexity Hotspots — start with ExtensionsRowView.swift, ExtensionsWindowController.swift, EditorViewController.swift. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (8 warning-level).

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

D17 · Explicit Debt10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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

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

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

0 deducted task-comment markers across 32534 LoC (0.0/KLoC) → score 10.0. Task comments only: this repository's language is read without a compiler, so D17's suppression, dead-code and commented-out-code arms did not run and this score counts fewer marker kinds than a .NET repository's would.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d17_recommendation.md.

D19 · Documentation QualityStrong◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

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

The repository's root README is clear and well-written: it introduces MarkEdit as a privacy-focused Markdown editor for macOS that balances size with native integration, gives an overview of what makes it different (privacy, speed), and links to releases, downloads, and the open-source libremac site. It also documents the project's broader ecosystem — MarkEditCore, MarkEditKit, MarkEditTools, UpdateInstaller/UpdaterCore, @codegen, @vendor, lang-html, and lang-markdown packages — with a per-package README that is itself well written (installation, usage, licensing). The visible documentation is complete: each of the outlined sections appears in order. The visible content is clean and well-structured.

What to do

  1. Improve Documentation Quality — currently 8.0/10. — The repository's root README is clear and well-written: it introduces MarkEdit as a privacy-focused Markdown editor for macOS that balances size with native integration, gives an overview of what makes it different (privacy, speed), and links to releases, downloads, and the open-source libremac site. It also documents the project's broader ecosystem — MarkEditCore, MarkEditKit, MarkEditTools, UpdateInstaller/UpdaterCore, @codegen, @vendor, lang-html, and lang-markdown packages — with a per-package README that is itself well written (installation, usage, licensing). The visible documentation is complete: each of the outlined sections appears in order. The visible content is clean and well-structured.

Detailed fixes: d19_recommendation.md.

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

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

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

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

No architecture decision records were found.

No ADRs found

What to do

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

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

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 1 serious finding◐ 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

1 API inconsistencies across a 400-member sample of 185 exposed types.

Ambiguous naming for file retrieval operations. `getFileContent` and `getFileObject` appear to perform the same domain operation (retrieving file data) but return different types (`String` vs `String?` or potentially different semantic meanings like raw bytes vs decoded text). Without distinct documentation, these names are confusingly similar.

What to do

  1. Resolve the 1 Ambiguous naming for file retrieval operations. `getFileContent` and… 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 Cohesion6.8 / 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 6.8 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

1 of 5 build units (SwiftPM) flagged as possibly oversized/incoherent.

Split MarkEditMac/Modules

What to do

  1. Resolve the 1 Split MarkEditMac/Modules 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)10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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

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

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

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

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d28_recommendation.md.

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)5.5 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 5.5 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

11 finding(s): 0 critical, 3 high, 8 medium, 0 low. 2 unpinned-GitHub-Actions row(s) are reported here but scored by D36 (supply-chain provenance), which measures that posture as `pinned_actions` — one pinning decision is charged once, not once per lens. semgrep hit a parse error in 2 file(s) — `CoreEditor/src/@types/global.d.ts` (line 28), `MarkEditMac/Tests/EditorDocumentTests.swift` (line 329) — 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.

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

What to do

  1. Resolve the 5 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED (4), REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (5 warning-level).
  2. Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).
  3. No action in Static Analysis (SAST) — all 2 REDACTED finding(s) are reported here at file:line but scored by D36 (supply-chain provenance), so none is charged to this dimension. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 issue-level, 0 of them charged here).

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

D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities9.4 / 10Adequategated by 1 critical finding✓ 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 9.4 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

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

REDACTED

What to do

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

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

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

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

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

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

Every significant source file has living knowledge — recently and meaningfully worked. Counted over 137 of the 407 production source files in this repository: the rest are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d34_recommendation.md.

D35 · Change Coupling9.7 / 10Adequategated by 1 critical finding✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

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

Strongest change-coupling: modules.ts↔api.ts 79%; config.ts↔AppPreferences.swift 63%; NSEvent+Extension.swift↔EditorViewController+Events.swift 60%

Boundary-crossing change coupling: WebKit+Extension.swift ↔ WKWebViewConfiguration+Extension.swiftMarkEditCore/Sources/Extensions/WebKit+Extension.swift
Change coupling: modules.ts ↔ api.ts · ×7CoreEditor/src/api/modules.ts

What to do

  1. Resolve the 1 Boundary-crossing change coupling finding(s) in Change Coupling — start with WebKit+Extension.swift. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).
  2. Resolve the 7 Change coupling finding(s) in Change Coupling — start with config.ts (2), modules.ts, NSEvent+Extension.swift. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (7 warning-level).

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

Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions

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

AX10 · Code composition8.6 / 10Strong✓ 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

M1 · Documentation (README)8.3 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

What to do

  • Add a 'Testing' section to the root README — how to run the test suite.
  • Add an 'Architecture' / 'How it works' section to the root README — the high-level shape.
  • Add a README to the 1 of 6 project(s) that lack one — worth up to 0.3 pts.
M2 · Architecture documentation2.0 / 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.

What to do

  • Record significant decisions one document per decision — dated, stating the context, the decision and its consequences — and keep them together wherever your design docs already live (a conventional `docs/adr/` tree, with each file named `NNNN-title` in whatever markup those docs already use, is the most discoverable form).
M3 · Folder & project structure8.0 / 10Strong✓ 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.

  • Production code isn't grouped under a src/ folder — it's spread across several top-level directories, so there's no one place that says 'this is the product'.

What to do

  • Group production code under src/ (or split deliberately, e.g. backend/ + frontend/) so production and tooling code aren't mixed at the root.
M4 · Documentation accuracy1.0 / 10Critical◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

  • README claims MarkEdit is a macOS app but the repository contains no macOS project — searched for: `macOS project`. Each was matched case- and separator-insensitively against file and directory NAMES anywhere in the tree, and against the CONTENTS of manifest files (package.json, *.csproj, *.props, *.slnx, *.yml, Dockerfile); the README's own prose never counts, so a claim is never refuted by merely being made. Nothing outside that search was read — a footprint living only in a submodule, in a file type not listed here, or under a name none of those terms matches is not seen, and this row is then wrong.

What to do

  • Reconcile the README with reality: README claims MarkEdit is a macOS app but the repository contains no macOS project.
P1 · CI/CD gates10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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

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

P10 · Library API & versioning6.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

  • 184/247 types (74%) declared in the published library are public. For a library, every public type is a stability contract — keep implementation types off the surface and expose only the intended API.

What to do

  • Keep implementation types off the public surface (Swift: leave it `internal` (the default) instead of `public`) so internals can change without breaking consumers.
P2 · Observability6.4 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

  • Only 4/5 runnable modules use logging (modules with no entry point or server are excluded — they are libraries a runnable module hosts). Silent: `MarkEditTools`.

What to do

  • Extend structured logging to the remaining runnable modules so everything you run is diagnosable in production.
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 CodeQL's Swift pack (Swift/Xcode) (or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language) as a CI step. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: the 2278 CI workflow file(s) in this repository, and the scanner and linter configuration checked in beside them. A scan that runs outside CI, one configured in your forge's web UI rather than in a committed file, or a tool whose name is none of those this check carries, is not seen — if that is your case the row is wrong, and saying so is more useful than adding a second scanner.

What to do

  • Add a SAST step to CI running what this repository's stack ships: CodeQL's Swift pack (Swift/Xcode) — or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language — 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 Hygiene5.0 / 10Adequate✓ 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.

  • No CHANGELOG/HISTORY/RELEASES file — what shipped when isn't easy to reconstruct for support or audit. (Versioning/tagging makes releases traceable, but a changelog records the what.)

What to do

  • Keep a changelog (e.g. Keep-a-Changelog) recording what shipped in each release.
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) or inside a Java method returning a Reactor Mono/Flux — and, for a .NET library with ≥5 awaits, the share of awaits using ConfigureAwait(false). Deterministic, syntax/text detection.

R1 · Type Safety9.9 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

React / JS · Code Health — How much of the frontend is typed TypeScript vs untyped JavaScript.

Method: Frontend file inventory: the share of typed TypeScript vs untyped JavaScript across the source tree. Deterministic, exhaustive over frontend files.

What to do

  • Migrate the remaining .js/.jsx files to TypeScript.
R10 · Code Duplication9.5 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

React / JS · Code Health — Near-exact copy-pasted blocks of substantial extent across the frontend (the D4 clone algorithm over JS/TS tokens, D-386): a block is reported only where its copies still agree on most of their own identifiers and literals, or were renamed as they were pasted but kept most of their constants, and where the copies carry enough code to stand on their own or the copied extent reaches 30 lines — so a re-implementation sharing neither names nor values, and a small pasted declaration, are both found and deliberately not reported, and a clean R10 is not a claim that nothing was copied.

Method: Near-exact copy-pasted blocks of substantial extent across the frontend (the D4 clone algorithm run over JS/TS tokens). Masking finds the candidates; a block is reported when its copies still agree on most of their own identifiers and literals, or when a renamed copy still agrees on most of its constants, AND the copies carry enough code to stand on their own — or when the copied extent reaches 30 lines. So a re-implementation sharing neither names nor values, and a small pasted declaration, are deliberately not counted. Deterministic.

  • CoreEditor/src/bridge/web/config.ts:29 · CoreEditor/src/bridge/web/config.ts:48 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 226 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both spans, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's finding: an edit made to one and not the other changes behaviour silently. Diff the two spans first to learn what genuinely differs, then extract the shared core into one module both sites use, passing the differences in as parameters — or, if one copy exists only because the other could not be imported from its context, make one of them the single source the other is generated or re-exported from. If one copy is no longer reachable, delete it rather than letting it shadow the live one. — CoreEditor/src/bridge/web/config.ts:29
  • CoreEditor/src/styling/themes/minimal-dark.ts:16 · CoreEditor/src/styling/themes/minimal-light.ts:16 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — CoreEditor/src/styling/themes/minimal-dark.ts:16
  • CoreEditor/src/styling/helper.ts:5 · CoreEditor/src/styling/helper.ts:21 — 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. — CoreEditor/src/styling/helper.ts:5
  • CoreEditor/src/modules/completion/index.ts:168 · CoreEditor/src/modules/tokenizer/index.ts:12 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 54 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both files, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's finding: an edit made to one and not the other changes behaviour silently. Diff the two spans first to learn what genuinely differs, then extract the shared core into one module both sites use, passing the differences in as parameters — or, if one copy exists only because the other could not be imported from its context, make one of them the single source the other is generated or re-exported from. If one copy is no longer reachable, delete it rather than letting it shadow the live one. — CoreEditor/src/modules/completion/index.ts:168
  • CoreEditor/src/modules/smartQuotes/index.ts:78 · CoreEditor/src/modules/smartQuotes/index.ts: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. — CoreEditor/src/modules/smartQuotes/index.ts:78
  • CoreEditor/src/bridge/web/core.ts:24 · CoreEditor/src/bridge/web/core.ts:37 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 138 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both spans, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's finding: an edit made to one and not the other changes behaviour silently. Diff the two spans first to learn what genuinely differs, then extract the shared core into one module both sites use, passing the differences in as parameters — or, if one copy exists only because the other could not be imported from its context, make one of them the single source the other is generated or re-exported from. If one copy is no longer reachable, delete it rather than letting it shadow the live one. — CoreEditor/src/bridge/web/core.ts:24
  • CoreEditor/src/styling/themes/cobalt.ts:25 · CoreEditor/src/styling/themes/github-dark.ts:19 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and what repeats is a LIST OF ENTRIES rather than behaviour — the same entries written out more than once. Extract them into one shared, exported constant and spread that constant into each site, rather than into a function the sites call: a list like this often lives in declarative metadata (a decorator's options object, a static configuration table) that a build step must be able to read statically, where a function call is not allowed. Adding an entry to one copy and not the other is the failure this prevents. — CoreEditor/src/styling/themes/cobalt.ts:25
  • CoreEditor/src/styling/themes/dracula.ts:25 · CoreEditor/src/styling/themes/synthwave84.ts:35 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and what repeats is a LIST OF ENTRIES rather than behaviour — the same entries written out more than once. Extract them into one shared, exported constant and spread that constant into each site, rather than into a function the sites call: a list like this often lives in declarative metadata (a decorator's options object, a static configuration table) that a build step must be able to read statically, where a function call is not allowed. Adding an entry to one copy and not the other is the failure this prevents. — CoreEditor/src/styling/themes/dracula.ts:25
  • CoreEditor/src/bridge/web/search.ts:25 · CoreEditor/src/bridge/web/search.ts:39 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 71 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both spans, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's finding: an edit made to one and not the other changes behaviour silently. Diff the two spans first to learn what genuinely differs, then extract the shared core into one module both sites use, passing the differences in as parameters — or, if one copy exists only because the other could not be imported from its context, make one of them the single source the other is generated or re-exported from. If one copy is no longer reachable, delete it rather than letting it shadow the live one. — CoreEditor/src/bridge/web/search.ts:25
  • CoreEditor/src/styling/themes/rose-pine-dawn.ts:28 · CoreEditor/src/styling/themes/rose-pine.ts:28 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — CoreEditor/src/styling/themes/rose-pine-dawn.ts:28
  • CoreEditor/index.ts:99 · CoreEditor/index.ts:107 — 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. — CoreEditor/index.ts:99
  • CoreEditor/src/styling/themes/rose-pine-dawn.ts:40 · CoreEditor/src/styling/themes/rose-pine.ts:40 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is a run of DECLARATIONS inside a construct — the members of a type, or the entries of an object or array literal — with no statement anywhere in it. Do not read this as an extract-a-helper row: nothing here executes, so there is no call site, and a call expression cannot stand where a member declaration or a literal's entry was. What repeats is a SHAPE, and which shape decides the move. Where the copies declare the same members, the repetition is a missing common ancestor: give it a base type, an interface both extend, a generic instantiated twice, or — where the copies are a literal's entries rather than a type's members — one shared constant each site spreads or refers to, so the set is written once. Where they declare DIFFERENT members and only the form is shared — a decorator and its options, an annotation, a registration table's keys — the form is prescribed by a framework or a schema rather than copied, and the only collapse available is to generate the declarations from that schema; where you do not own the generator, this is the cost of the framework and there is nothing to extract. Check which of the two it is before acting: these copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why the repetition is reported, but the sentence to act on is not the same in both cases. — CoreEditor/src/styling/themes/rose-pine-dawn.ts:40

What to do

  • Act on each finding's own remediation rather than one rule: the move depends on what recurs. Where the copies are executable blocks, give the shared part one home and call it from each site; where they are declarations, a listing, a specialisation already delegating to its base, or one shape repeated per entity, there is no call site and the move is a shared type, a generated set or a factory — sometimes there is nothing to extract.
R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity9.7 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

React / JS · Code Health — Per-function cyclomatic/cognitive complexity from the token-level function scanner (D-386) — real branching, not a regex heuristic.

Method: Per-function cyclomatic/cognitive complexity from a token-level function scanner (real branching, not a regex heuristic), computed over every frontend function. Deterministic.

  • (anonymous) has cyclomatic complexity 43 and cognitive complexity 62; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — CoreEditor/src/@vendor/lang-markdown/commands.ts:106
  • (anonymous) has cyclomatic complexity 28 and cognitive complexity 51; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — CoreEditor/src/modules/input/index.ts:136
  • htmlCompletionFor has cyclomatic complexity 25 and cognitive complexity 25; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — CoreEditor/src/@vendor/lang-html/complete.ts:481
  • handleKeyDown has cyclomatic complexity 18 and cognitive complexity 11; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive sits below cyclomatic here, so much of the count is breadth — arms side by side rather than stacked — and splitting per arm would leave a function per arm; group the work between the checks into named steps instead. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — CoreEditor/src/modules/tokenizer/index.ts:48
  • getContext has cyclomatic complexity 17 and cognitive complexity 23; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — CoreEditor/src/@vendor/lang-markdown/commands.ts:34
  • (anonymous) has cyclomatic complexity 16 and cognitive complexity 30; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — CoreEditor/src/@vendor/lang-markdown/commands.ts:245
  • (anonymous) has cyclomatic complexity 16 and cognitive complexity 17; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — CoreEditor/src/@vendor/lang-html/html.ts:109
  • (anonymous) has cyclomatic complexity 15 and cognitive complexity 19; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — CoreEditor/src/modules/events/index.ts:154
  • (anonymous) has cyclomatic complexity 15 and cognitive complexity 15; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — CoreEditor/src/modules/completion/index.ts:37
  • filterTransaction has cyclomatic complexity 15 and cognitive complexity 13; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive sits below cyclomatic here, so much of the count is breadth — arms side by side rather than stacked — and splitting per arm would leave a function per arm; group the work between the checks into named steps instead. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — CoreEditor/src/modules/input/index.ts:22
  • formatContent has cyclomatic complexity 14 and cognitive complexity 22; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — CoreEditor/src/modules/commands/formatContent.ts:16
  • update has cyclomatic complexity 14 and cognitive complexity 19; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — CoreEditor/src/@vendor/commands/history.ts:58
  • resetEditor has cyclomatic complexity 13 and cognitive complexity 14; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — CoreEditor/src/core.ts:59
  • parse has cyclomatic complexity 12 and cognitive complexity 20; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — CoreEditor/src/modules/math/index.ts:144
  • pop has cyclomatic complexity 12 and cognitive complexity 16; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — CoreEditor/src/@vendor/commands/history.ts:359
  • (anonymous) has cyclomatic complexity 12 and cognitive complexity 11; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive sits below cyclomatic here, so much of the count is breadth — arms side by side rather than stacked — and splitting per arm would leave a function per arm; group the work between the checks into named steps instead. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — CoreEditor/src/modules/input/index.ts:99
  • updateQuery has cyclomatic complexity 11 and cognitive complexity 21; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — CoreEditor/src/modules/search/index.ts:91
  • extensions has cyclomatic complexity 11 and cognitive complexity 10; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive sits below cyclomatic here, so much of the count is breadth — arms side by side rather than stacked — and splitting per arm would leave a function per arm; group the work between the checks into named steps instead. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — CoreEditor/src/extensions.ts:72
  • autoClosingQuotePosition has cyclomatic complexity 11 and cognitive complexity 8; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive sits below cyclomatic here, so much of the count is breadth — arms side by side rather than stacked — and splitting per arm would leave a function per arm; group the work between the checks into named steps instead. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — CoreEditor/src/modules/smartQuotes/index.ts:69

What to do

  • Break down the listed branch-heavy functions; aim P95 cyclomatic ≤ 5.
R3 · Large Files9.8 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

React / JS · Code Health — How many source files exceed the large-file threshold.

Method: Components/modules exceeding the large-file threshold, counted exhaustively across the frontend source tree. Deterministic.

What to do

  • Split each oversized file along the responsibilities already in it, into smaller focused modules in the same package.
R4 · Test Coverage8.9 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

React / JS · Readiness — Static test reachability (D-386): the share of production files reachable from any test via the import graph — measured without running anything.

Method: Static test reachability: the share of production files reachable from any test via the import graph — measured without running anything. Deterministic.

  • No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one. (×16) — CoreEditor/src/@quicklook/index.ts, CoreEditor/index.ts, CoreEditor/src/bridge/web/format.ts, …

What to do

  • Add tests that import the unreached modules (directly or through their public entry).
R6 · Tooling10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

React / JS · Readiness — Whether the project wires up test, lint and typecheck — detected from each package.json script's COMMAND (eslint / tsc / vitest / jest / playwright), not just its name, and corroborated against CI-workflow invocations so a tool run only in CI still counts.

Method: package.json scanned for test/lint/typecheck script wiring. Deterministic presence check.

R7 · Dead Code9.9 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

React / JS · Code Health — Files unreachable from every application/tooling/test entry point, and exports nothing imports (module-graph reachability, D-386).

Method: Dead code: files unreachable from every application/tooling/test entry point plus exports nothing imports, via module-graph reachability. Deterministic, exhaustive over the import graph.

  • Unreachable from the 9 application, 4 tooling and 34 test entry point(s) detected in this repo. Gate removals on `npm run typecheck` — an undetected custom entry would make these reachable.
  • no import path from any entry point (9 application, 4 tooling, 34 test roots considered), and no other file in the scanned tree imports it — nothing in-repo names this module at all, which is the strongest form of this claim the import graph can make — CoreEditor/src/bridge/web/dummy.ts
  • Nothing imports this binding — it is safe to review for removal. — CoreEditor/src/styling/matchers/lezer.ts:30

What to do

  • Delete the dead files and unused exports — every line is maintenance cost and rebuild-estimate inflation with zero runtime value.
R8 · Dependency Hygiene9.5 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

React / JS · Readiness — npm dependency truthfulness (D-386): unused dependencies, imports not declared anywhere, and type-/test-only packages shipped as production deps.

Method: npm dependency truthfulness: unused dependencies, imports declared nowhere, and type-/test-only packages shipped as production deps — from the manifest + import graph. Deterministic.

  • Declared in CoreEditor/package.json but never imported anywhere in that package or its workspace members — no static import reaches it. Usually that is dead weight and attack surface, but two shapes are indistinguishable from source and are NOT dead: an optional or native peer that another dependency loads dynamically at runtime, and a package a build, docs or test step installs and invokes separately. Confirm which of the three this is before removing it.

What to do

  • Remove unused dependencies, declare unlisted imports explicitly, and demote type-/test-only packages to devDependencies.
R9 · Circular Imports5.6 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

React / JS · Architecture — Import cycles in the module graph (D-386) — files that can only be understood and changed together.

Method: Import cycles in the module graph, detected exhaustively over JS/TS imports (the same cycle detection as the .NET coupling dimension). Deterministic.

  • CoreEditor/src/api/methods.ts → CoreEditor/src/extensions.ts → CoreEditor/src/api/methods.ts (one verified cycle inside a mutually-dependent group of 29 files) — CoreEditor/src/api/methods.ts

What to do

  • Break each cycle by extracting the shared piece into a module both sides can import.
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.

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 Health93%ExemplarySolid.
Architecture79%StrongSolid.
Maturity45%Weak — gated by M2, M4Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Readiness53%Adequate — gated by P3Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Security87%StrongSolid.
Performance100%ExemplaryStrongest area.
Not evidenced — 5 control(s) we could not find positive evidence for

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

  • C3 Audit Trail — Not assessed: these audit 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 audit 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.
  • C4 Data Retention — Not assessed: these retention 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 retention 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.
  • C5 Data-Subject Rights — Not assessed: these data-subject rights 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 data-subject rights 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.
  • 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 — 79 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 — Frontend below the scale floor (15 DOM element(s) < 25) — too little surface to assess accessibility.
  • AC2 Forms & labels — Frontend below the scale floor (15 DOM element(s) < 25) — too little surface to assess accessibility.
  • AC3 Page structure — Frontend below the scale floor (15 DOM element(s) < 25) — too little surface to assess accessibility.
  • AC4 Keyboard semantics — Frontend below the scale floor (15 DOM element(s) < 25) — too little surface to assess accessibility.
  • AC5 ARIA correctness — Frontend below the scale floor (15 DOM element(s) < 25) — too little surface to assess accessibility.
  • AC6 Visual & motion safety — Frontend below the scale floor (15 DOM element(s) < 25) — too little surface to assess accessibility.
  • AC7 A11y enforcement — Frontend below the scale floor (15 DOM element(s) < 25) — too little surface to assess accessibility.
  • AX1 Captive dependencies — 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
  • AX2 Stateful singletons — 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
  • 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
  • AXB2 Runtime readiness — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
  • AXR1 Runtime accessibility — the dev server did not expose a crawlable HTTP endpoint in time — no runtime evidence This is a statement about this run, not a statement about your application: nothing here says the surface is inaccessible, only that it was never rendered.
  • C1 Data Protection — Not assessed: these personal data 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 personal data 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.
  • 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.
  • D11 Test Reliability — Test reliability not scored — polyglot repository, one half has no runner
  • D14 License Compliance — SwiftPM package licences not graded — no dependency repository could be read
  • D16 Bus Factor — single-maintainer repository — bus factor is not applicable
  • D18 Solution Shape — D18 scores the shape of a .NET solution; this repository has no .NET solution or project files, so the dimension does not apply.
  • 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. 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 — symbol resolution incomplete — navigability not assessed
  • 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) — 14 file(s) were not parsed by semgrep — the PII/GDPR ruleset never ran over them
  • D36 Supply-chain Provenance & Signing — The CI pipeline builds and tests but publishes no released artifact — no package publish, container push, GitHub release or deployment step. Supply-chain provenance, signing and SBOM attest RELEASED artifacts, so there is nothing to attest here. Add them to the release pipeline when this repo starts shipping artifacts (a published package, a container image, a deployed service or a tagged release). Build integrity and workflow-token hygiene are reported below: they describe what the CI runs and the token it runs with, neither of which is affected by whether the pipeline ships an artifact.
  • 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.
  • D44 Platform End-of-Life — Platform end-of-life not assessed — this repository declares no platform this pass reads
  • 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 measured — polyglot repository, one half has no runner
  • DM1 Domain Modelling — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this lens looks for
  • ED2 Event/command shape — not scored — deciding whether a command has more than one competing handler requires resolving the call graph, and this analysis resolves a call's owner only where the receiver's type is written down in the source. Reported as guidance rather than measured
  • ED5 Idempotency — This check finds retry-prone mutations (command handlers and message/event consumers) by walking the repository's declared types, and none was loaded here, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
  • 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# syntax, and none was loaded for this repository. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
  • IC1 Incompleteness & stubs — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
  • P12 CI test-gate honesty — Reported, not scored — and nothing was matched here. The coverage check applies to any stack, and the automatic-re-run check to any GitHub-Actions workflow, but the checks for excluded tests, skipped tests and sleep-based synchronisation currently recognise only some ecosystems' test-runner idioms, so on a repository built with another stack the zeros below mean 'not checked', not 'clean'.
  • P7 Outbound HTTP resilience — not applicable — no HTTP server, API framework or worker entry point was found in the JavaScript/TypeScript, Swift 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 — coverage data present for 129 file(s), but no domain-layer files were identified: no covered file's path contains any of the markers this check keys on (/domain/, /aggregates/, /valueobjects/, /domainmodel/, .domain/, /entities/), which are matched case-insensitively anywhere in the path. With no domain partition there is nothing to compare the web/controller layer against — if this repository keeps its business rules under a folder named none of those, that naming is what the check cannot see, not the domain logic.
  • PF1 Benchmark discipline — Not applicable: no benchmark suite was found. This check searched for `Benchmark("…")` in a file importing package-benchmark, or package-benchmark in Package.swift, and for a `*benchmark*` script that this repository's CI runs. Benchmarks are credited as a bonus, so their absence is neither scored nor deducted.
  • PF2 Allocation hygiene — Not applicable: allocation awareness is rated where code engineers for it — at least 400 production lines that ship benchmarks or already use allocation-aware idioms (8 or more). This repository's Swift has 26,225 production line(s), 2 such use(s) and no benchmarks, so there is no allocation work to rate. The card is reward-only: its absence costs nothing.
  • R11 Import Boundaries — No recognizable feature-sliced/layered src layout — boundary rules not applicable.
  • R5 Dependency Freshness — uses a yarn lockfile — dependency freshness not measured here; JS/npm CVEs are scored in D30 (Dependency Vulnerabilities), which answers every ecosystem
  • 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.
  • SC1 Supply-chain hygiene — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
  • X1 Async correctness — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
  • X10 Duplicated predicate — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
  • X12 Unreachable branch — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
  • X13 Undrained process stream — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
  • X14 Bypassable address classification — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
  • X15 Unvalidated length from an untrusted reader — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
  • X16 Unfloored truncation loop — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
  • X17 Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
  • X18 Disposal-pattern correctness — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
  • X19 Unrestored process-global state — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
  • X2 Cancellation propagation — 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
  • X20 Mistyped argument guard — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
  • X21 Side-effecting pattern guard — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
  • X22 Contradicted release guard — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
  • X23 Unguarded diagnostic materialisation — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
  • X24 Document value interpolated into markup unescaped — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
  • X25 Inert configuration knob — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
  • X26 Unsynchronised callback handoff — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
  • X27 Collection changed while being enumerated — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
  • X28 Index access outside its own emptiness guard — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
  • X3 Exception handling — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
  • X30 Support guard that admits what it rejects — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
  • X32 Type resolved by simple name across every loaded assembly — This check is about how a .NET program searches the assemblies loaded into its process for a type, and this repository contains no .NET source, so there is nothing here for it to assess. Not a gap in the analyzer and not a finding about your code.
  • X4 Structured logging — 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
  • X5 Nullable reference types — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
  • X6 Hand-rolled structured-format parsing — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
  • 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 — 6 finding(s)
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED · ×1
  • REDACTED
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities · High CVE · ×1
  • REDACTED
D35 · Change Coupling · Boundary-crossing change coupling · ×1
  • Boundary-crossing change coupling: WebKit+Extension.swift ↔ WKWebViewConfiguration+Extension.swift MarkEditCore/Sources/Extensions/WebKit+Extension.swift — `MarkEditCore/Sources/Extensions/WebKit+Extension.swift` (context MarkEditCore) and `MarkEditKit/Sources/Extensions/WKWebViewConfiguration+Extension.swift` (context MarkEditKit) sit in DIFFERENT parts of the tree yet change together 50% of the time (5 of the 10 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well — a repo-wide or module-wide sweep is evidence about the sweep rather than about any pair inside it and is left out of BOTH sides of this ratio, while a dependency bump, a formatter/rename sweep, or a commit whose edit to one of the two files was a tool directive such as //go:generate or whitespace only is left out of the shared count ONLY, so the two sides are not taken over identical commit sets) — the bounded-context boundary may be in the wrong place, or one context is leaking into the other. This is the behavioural boundary violation a static scan can't see. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 5 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are `134717c2` Default disableCorsRestrictions on (#1460); `5fb3e80d` Unify WKWebViewConfiguration creation (#1457); `20a35e47` Enable more performance related tricks (#1427) — run `git show` on any of them.
R9 · Circular Imports · Import cycle (2 files) · ×1
  • Import cycle (2 files) CoreEditor/src/api/methods.ts — CoreEditor/src/api/methods.ts → CoreEditor/src/extensions.ts → CoreEditor/src/api/methods.ts (one verified cycle inside a mutually-dependent group of 29 files)
Serious — 157 finding(s)
D6 · Cohesion (LCOM4) · Low cohesion · ×19
  • Low cohesion: EditorViewController (LCOM4 30) MarkEditMac/Sources/Editor/Controllers/EditorViewController.swift:16 — EditorViewController's methods fall into 30 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 30 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.
  • Low cohesion: AppDelegate (LCOM4 23) MarkEditMac/Sources/Main/Application/AppDelegate.swift:14 — AppDelegate's methods fall into 23 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 23 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.
  • Low cohesion: Data (LCOM4 6) MarkEditKit/Sources/EditorTextEncoding.swift:112 — Data's methods fall into 6 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 6 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.
  • Low cohesion: EditorDocument (LCOM4 6) MarkEditMac/Sources/Editor/Models/EditorDocument.swift:18 — EditorDocument's methods fall into 6 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 6 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.
  • Low cohesion: NSMenuItem (LCOM4 6) MarkEditMac/Sources/Editor/Views/EditorWebView.swift:238 — NSMenuItem's methods fall into 6 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 6 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.
  • Low cohesion: NSView (LCOM4 6) MarkEditMac/Modules/Sources/AppKitExtensions/UI/NSView+Extension.swift:11 — NSView's methods fall into 6 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 6 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.
  • Low cohesion: NSWindow (LCOM4 6) MarkEditMac/Modules/Sources/AppKitExtensions/UI/NSWindow+Extension.swift:9 — NSWindow's methods fall into 6 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 6 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.
  • Low cohesion: View (LCOM4 6) MarkEditMac/Modules/Sources/FontPicker/FontPicker.swift:204 — View's methods fall into 6 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 6 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.
  • Low cohesion: String (LCOM4 5) MarkEditCore/Sources/Extensions/String+Extension.swift:9 — String's methods fall into 5 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 5 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.
  • Low cohesion: EditorWindowController (LCOM4 5) MarkEditMac/Sources/Editor/EditorWindowController.swift:11 — EditorWindowController's methods fall into 5 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 5 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.
  • Low cohesion: QuickLookViewController (LCOM4 5) QuickLookMac/QuickLookViewController.swift:13 — QuickLookViewController's methods fall into 5 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 5 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.
  • Low cohesion: WKWebView (LCOM4 4) MarkEditCore/Sources/Extensions/WebKit+Extension.swift:9 — WKWebView'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.
  • Low cohesion: EditorModuleAPI (LCOM4 4) MarkEditKit/Sources/Bridge/Native/Modules/EditorModuleAPI.swift:42 — EditorModuleAPI'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.
  • Low cohesion: EditorStatusView (LCOM4 4) MarkEditMac/Sources/Editor/Views/EditorStatusView.swift:15 — EditorStatusView'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.
  • Low cohesion: ExtensionsModel (LCOM4 4) MarkEditMac/Sources/Extension/ExtensionsModel.swift:26 — ExtensionsModel'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.
  • Low cohesion: ExtensionsViewController (LCOM4 4) MarkEditMac/Sources/Extension/ExtensionsViewController.swift:37 — ExtensionsViewController'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.
  • Low cohesion: ExtensionsWindowController (LCOM4 4) MarkEditMac/Sources/Extension/ExtensionsWindowController.swift:14 — ExtensionsWindowController'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.
  • Low cohesion: NSMenu (LCOM4 4) MarkEditMac/Sources/Extras/NSMenu+Extras.swift:10 — NSMenu'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.
  • Low cohesion: AppDocumentController (LCOM4 4) MarkEditMac/Sources/Main/AppDocumentController.swift:18 — AppDocumentController'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.
R4 · Test Coverage · No test reaches this file · ×16
  • No test reaches this file CoreEditor/src/@quicklook/index.ts — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
  • No test reaches this file CoreEditor/index.ts — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
  • No test reaches this file CoreEditor/src/bridge/web/format.ts — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
  • No test reaches this file CoreEditor/src/bridge/web/config.ts — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
  • No test reaches this file CoreEditor/src/bridge/web/search.ts — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
  • No test reaches this file CoreEditor/src/bridge/web/core.ts — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
  • No test reaches this file CoreEditor/src/bridge/web/selection.ts — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
  • No test reaches this file CoreEditor/src/bridge/web/history.ts — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
  • No test reaches this file CoreEditor/src/bridge/web/api.ts — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
  • No test reaches this file CoreEditor/src/bridge/web/toc.ts — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
  • No test reaches this file CoreEditor/src/bridge/web/completion.ts — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
  • No test reaches this file CoreEditor/src/bridge/web/foundationModels.ts — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
  • No test reaches this file CoreEditor/src/bridge/web/dummy.ts — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
  • No test reaches this file CoreEditor/src/bridge/web/lineEndings.ts — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
  • No test reaches this file CoreEditor/src/bridge/web/writingTools.ts — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
  • No test reaches this file CoreEditor/src/modules/snippets/index.ts — No test imports this module directly or transitively. Import reachability cannot see a test that executes a file by path instead of importing it, nor one that drives it through a running browser by navigating to a URL — if neither does, no test reaches this one.
D10 · Test Quality · No assertions · ×12
  • No assertions: testConcurrentOpeningThroughAppKit MarkEditMac/Tests/EditorDocumentTests.swift:228 — This method's body runs code, and no assertion call was recognised in it. Recognised by name: Assert*, *Should*/ShouldBe*, Verify, Expect, Throws, Record, Received/DidNotReceive, MustHaveHappened/MustNotHaveHappened, EnsureSuccessStatusCode and *AndEnsure* — so verification routed through a helper of your own naming, through a base-class or callback object whose members hold the assertions, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name, is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
  • No assertions: testExistenceOfDrawsBackground MarkEditMac/Modules/Tests/RuntimeTests.swift:13 — This method's body runs code, and no assertion call was recognised in it. Recognised by name: Assert*, *Should*/ShouldBe*, Verify, Expect, Throws, Record, Received/DidNotReceive, MustHaveHappened/MustNotHaveHappened, EnsureSuccessStatusCode and *AndEnsure* — so verification routed through a helper of your own naming, through a base-class or callback object whose members hold the assertions, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name, is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
  • No assertions: testExistenceOfDeveloperPreferences MarkEditMac/Modules/Tests/RuntimeTests.swift:49 — This method's body runs code, and no assertion call was recognised in it. Recognised by name: Assert*, *Should*/ShouldBe*, Verify, Expect, Throws, Record, Received/DidNotReceive, MustHaveHappened/MustNotHaveHappened, EnsureSuccessStatusCode and *AndEnsure* — so verification routed through a helper of your own naming, through a base-class or callback object whose members hold the assertions, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name, is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
  • No assertions: testExistenceOfPerformancePreferences MarkEditMac/Modules/Tests/RuntimeTests.swift:61 — This method's body runs code, and no assertion call was recognised in it. Recognised by name: Assert*, *Should*/ShouldBe*, Verify, Expect, Throws, Record, Received/DidNotReceive, MustHaveHappened/MustNotHaveHappened, EnsureSuccessStatusCode and *AndEnsure* — so verification routed through a helper of your own naming, through a base-class or callback object whose members hold the assertions, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name, is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
  • No assertions: testExistenceOfBulkFeatureDisabling MarkEditMac/Modules/Tests/RuntimeTests.swift:98 — This method's body runs code, and no assertion call was recognised in it. Recognised by name: Assert*, *Should*/ShouldBe*, Verify, Expect, Throws, Record, Received/DidNotReceive, MustHaveHappened/MustNotHaveHappened, EnsureSuccessStatusCode and *AndEnsure* — so verification routed through a helper of your own naming, through a base-class or callback object whose members hold the assertions, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name, is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
  • No assertions: testExistenceOfAutomaticInlineCompletion MarkEditMac/Modules/Tests/RuntimeTests.swift:104 — This method's body runs code, and no assertion call was recognised in it. Recognised by name: Assert*, *Should*/ShouldBe*, Verify, Expect, Throws, Record, Received/DidNotReceive, MustHaveHappened/MustNotHaveHappened, EnsureSuccessStatusCode and *AndEnsure* — so verification routed through a helper of your own naming, through a base-class or callback object whose members hold the assertions, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name, is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
  • No assertions: testExistenceOfAutomaticInlinePredictionBeingPresented MarkEditMac/Modules/Tests/RuntimeTests.swift:109 — This method's body runs code, and no assertion call was recognised in it. Recognised by name: Assert*, *Should*/ShouldBe*, Verify, Expect, Throws, Record, Received/DidNotReceive, MustHaveHappened/MustNotHaveHappened, EnsureSuccessStatusCode and *AndEnsure* — so verification routed through a helper of your own naming, through a base-class or callback object whose members hold the assertions, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name, is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
  • No assertions: testExistenceOfShowCompletionForCandidate MarkEditMac/Modules/Tests/RuntimeTests.swift:114 — This method's body runs code, and no assertion call was recognised in it. Recognised by name: Assert*, *Should*/ShouldBe*, Verify, Expect, Throws, Record, Received/DidNotReceive, MustHaveHappened/MustNotHaveHappened, EnsureSuccessStatusCode and *AndEnsure* — so verification routed through a helper of your own naming, through a base-class or callback object whose members hold the assertions, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name, is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
  • No assertions: testExistenceOfCancelCorrection MarkEditMac/Modules/Tests/RuntimeTests.swift:119 — This method's body runs code, and no assertion call was recognised in it. Recognised by name: Assert*, *Should*/ShouldBe*, Verify, Expect, Throws, Record, Received/DidNotReceive, MustHaveHappened/MustNotHaveHappened, EnsureSuccessStatusCode and *AndEnsure* — so verification routed through a helper of your own naming, through a base-class or callback object whose members hold the assertions, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name, is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
  • No assertions: testExistenceOfImageTintColor MarkEditMac/Modules/Tests/RuntimeTests.swift:124 — This method's body runs code, and no assertion call was recognised in it. Recognised by name: Assert*, *Should*/ShouldBe*, Verify, Expect, Throws, Record, Received/DidNotReceive, MustHaveHappened/MustNotHaveHappened, EnsureSuccessStatusCode and *AndEnsure* — so verification routed through a helper of your own naming, through a base-class or callback object whose members hold the assertions, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name, is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
  • No assertions: testPrivateAppKitClasses MarkEditMac/Modules/Tests/RuntimeTests.swift:190 — This method's body runs code, and no assertion call was recognised in it. Recognised by name: Assert*, *Should*/ShouldBe*, Verify, Expect, Throws, Record, Received/DidNotReceive, MustHaveHappened/MustNotHaveHappened, EnsureSuccessStatusCode and *AndEnsure* — so verification routed through a helper of your own naming, through a base-class or callback object whose members hold the assertions, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name, is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
  • No assertions: testExistenceOfShowWritingTools MarkEditMac/Modules/Tests/RuntimeTests.swift:220 — This method's body runs code, and no assertion call was recognised in it. Recognised by name: Assert*, *Should*/ShouldBe*, Verify, Expect, Throws, Record, Received/DidNotReceive, MustHaveHappened/MustNotHaveHappened, EnsureSuccessStatusCode and *AndEnsure* — so verification routed through a helper of your own naming, through a base-class or callback object whose members hold the assertions, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name, is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots · Hotspot · ×8
  • Hotspot: MarkEditMac/Sources/Extension/ExtensionsRowView.swift MarkEditMac/Sources/Extension/ExtensionsRowView.swift:21 — MarkEditMac/Sources/Extension/ExtensionsRowView.swift changed 31 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 16 in ExtensionsRowView.body at line 21. 4 of those changes were fix/bug commits, and the other 27 changed it for other reasons — this file is under both repair and feature pressure. Before the next change lands here, make sure the area it touches is under test, then split that area out of the file so the following change is smaller than this one — a file this often edited pays the complexity back every time. Counted over 2026-07-02..2026-09-30, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-07-02 10:46:32 +08:00' --until='2026-09-30 10:46:32 +08:00' --full-history --no-merges -- MarkEditMac/Sources/Extension/ExtensionsRowView.swift`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
  • Hotspot: MarkEditMac/Sources/Extension/ExtensionsWindowController.swift MarkEditMac/Sources/Extension/ExtensionsWindowController.swift:138 — MarkEditMac/Sources/Extension/ExtensionsWindowController.swift changed 23 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 18 in Identifier.itemLabel at line 138. 1 of those changes was a fix/bug commit, and the other 22 changed it for other reasons — this file is under both repair and feature pressure. Before the next change lands here, make sure the area it touches is under test, then split that area out of the file so the following change is smaller than this one — a file this often edited pays the complexity back every time. Counted over 2026-07-02..2026-09-30, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-07-02 10:46:32 +08:00' --until='2026-09-30 10:46:32 +08:00' --full-history --no-merges -- MarkEditMac/Sources/Extension/ExtensionsWindowController.swift`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
  • Hotspot: MarkEditMac/Sources/Editor/Controllers/EditorViewController.swift MarkEditMac/Sources/Editor/Controllers/EditorViewController.swift:85 — MarkEditMac/Sources/Editor/Controllers/EditorViewController.swift changed 14 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 18 in EditorViewController.validateMenuItem at line 85. Frequent change and high complexity in one file compound: schedule the next change to it to include carving out the part being edited, with the area under test before it moves. Counted over 2026-07-02..2026-09-30, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-07-02 10:46:32 +08:00' --until='2026-09-30 10:46:32 +08:00' --full-history --no-merges -- MarkEditMac/Sources/Editor/Controllers/EditorViewController.swift`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
  • Hotspot: MarkEditMac/Modules/Sources/ExtensionCore/ExtensionRegistry.swift MarkEditMac/Modules/Sources/ExtensionCore/ExtensionRegistry.swift:39 — MarkEditMac/Modules/Sources/ExtensionCore/ExtensionRegistry.swift changed 14 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 17 in ExtensionRelease.pageURL at line 39. Frequent change and high complexity in one file compound: schedule the next change to it to include carving out the part being edited, with the area under test before it moves. Counted over 2026-07-02..2026-09-30, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-07-02 10:46:32 +08:00' --until='2026-09-30 10:46:32 +08:00' --full-history --no-merges -- MarkEditMac/Modules/Sources/ExtensionCore/ExtensionRegistry.swift`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
  • Hotspot: CoreEditor/src/modules/input/index.ts CoreEditor/src/modules/input/index.ts:135 — CoreEditor/src/modules/input/index.ts changed 5 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 30 in index.observeChanges at line 135. 2 of those changes were fix/bug commits, and the other 3 changed it for other reasons — this file is under both repair and feature pressure. Before the next change lands here, make sure the area it touches is under test, then split that area out of the file so the following change is smaller than this one — a file this often edited pays the complexity back every time. Counted over 2026-07-02..2026-09-30, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-07-02 10:46:32 +08:00' --until='2026-09-30 10:46:32 +08:00' --full-history --no-merges -- CoreEditor/src/modules/input/index.ts`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
  • Hotspot: CoreEditor/src/core.ts CoreEditor/src/core.ts:59 — CoreEditor/src/core.ts changed 8 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 18 in core.resetEditor at line 59. 2 of those changes were fix/bug commits, and the other 6 changed it for other reasons — this file is under both repair and feature pressure. Before the next change lands here, make sure the area it touches is under test, then split that area out of the file so the following change is smaller than this one — a file this often edited pays the complexity back every time. Counted over 2026-07-02..2026-09-30, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-07-02 10:46:32 +08:00' --until='2026-09-30 10:46:32 +08:00' --full-history --no-merges -- CoreEditor/src/core.ts`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
  • Hotspot: CoreEditor/src/@vendor/lang-markdown/commands.ts CoreEditor/src/@vendor/lang-markdown/commands.ts:98 — CoreEditor/src/@vendor/lang-markdown/commands.ts changed 3 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 44 in commands.insertNewlineContinueMarkupCommand at line 98. Frequent change and high complexity in one file compound: schedule the next change to it to include carving out the part being edited, with the area under test before it moves. Counted over 2026-07-02..2026-09-30, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-07-02 10:46:32 +08:00' --until='2026-09-30 10:46:32 +08:00' --full-history --no-merges -- CoreEditor/src/@vendor/lang-markdown/commands.ts`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
  • Hotspot: CoreEditor/src/modules/commands/formatContent.ts CoreEditor/src/modules/commands/formatContent.ts:16 — CoreEditor/src/modules/commands/formatContent.ts changed 5 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 15 in formatContent.formatContent at line 16. 2 of those changes were fix/bug commits, and the other 3 changed it for other reasons — this file is under both repair and feature pressure. Before the next change lands here, make sure the area it touches is under test, then split that area out of the file so the following change is smaller than this one — a file this often edited pays the complexity back every time. Counted over 2026-07-02..2026-09-30, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-07-02 10:46:32 +08:00' --until='2026-09-30 10:46:32 +08:00' --full-history --no-merges -- CoreEditor/src/modules/commands/formatContent.ts`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.
D35 · Change Coupling · Change coupling · ×7
  • Change coupling: modules.ts ↔ api.ts CoreEditor/src/api/modules.ts — `CoreEditor/src/api/modules.ts` and `CoreEditor/src/bridge/native/api.ts` change together 79% of the time (11 of the 14 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well — a repo-wide or module-wide sweep is evidence about the sweep rather than about any pair inside it and is left out of BOTH sides of this ratio, while a dependency bump, a formatter/rename sweep, or a commit whose edit to one of the two files was a tool directive such as //go:generate or whitespace only is left out of the shared count ONLY, so the two sides are not taken over identical commit sets) with no explicit dependency — the edge is real but nothing declares it. Read the pair before acting: if one registers itself into the other through a hook or an initialiser, the missing dependency is DELIBERATE — the registration is the link, and it is meant not to be an import — and the thing to add is a comment on each side naming the other, not a merge; if they simply belong together, co-locate them; if neither holds, the coupling is hidden and worth breaking. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 11 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are `67d42c31` Implement file version api changes (#1722); `cc5aceb7` Implement markedit-api v0.32.0 (#1710); `d6335b7c` Implement markedit-api v0.23.0 (#1439) — run `git show` on any of them.
  • Change coupling: config.ts ↔ AppPreferences.swift CoreEditor/src/config.ts — `CoreEditor/src/config.ts` and `MarkEditMac/Sources/Main/AppPreferences.swift` change together 63% of the time (17 of the 27 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well — a repo-wide or module-wide sweep is evidence about the sweep rather than about any pair inside it and is left out of BOTH sides of this ratio, while a dependency bump, a formatter/rename sweep, or a commit whose edit to one of the two files was a tool directive such as //go:generate or whitespace only is left out of the shared count ONLY, so the two sides are not taken over identical commit sets) and are written in DIFFERENT LANGUAGES, so no import can join them and they cannot be co-located into one unit — they compile and ship as separate artifacts. What binds them is a CONTRACT across that boundary — an event or message name, a route, a serialised shape — that each side currently spells out on its own, which is exactly why a change to one drags the other. Declare that contract once where both sides read it (a shared schema, a generated constants file, an interface-definition file) so a change on one side fails the other's build instead of drifting silently; where the surface is too small to be worth that, name the counterpart in a comment on both sides so the next reader finds it. There is nothing here to merge. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 17 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are `29e5e045` Implement markedit-api v0.31.0 (#1693); `a5952a1c` Improve smart quotes handling (#1692); `c34c04ae` Share index.html between app and extensions (#1629) — run `git show` on any of them.
  • Change coupling: NSEvent+Extension.swift ↔ EditorViewController+Events.swift MarkEditMac/Modules/Sources/AppKitExtensions/Foundation/NSEvent+Extension.swift — `MarkEditMac/Modules/Sources/AppKitExtensions/Foundation/NSEvent+Extension.swift` and `MarkEditMac/Sources/Editor/Controllers/EditorViewController+Events.swift` change together 60% of the time (6 of the 10 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well — a repo-wide or module-wide sweep is evidence about the sweep rather than about any pair inside it and is left out of BOTH sides of this ratio, while a dependency bump, a formatter/rename sweep, or a commit whose edit to one of the two files was a tool directive such as //go:generate or whitespace only is left out of the shared count ONLY, so the two sides are not taken over identical commit sets). They sit in different directories, but in this ecosystem the namespace is declared in the FILE, not by the folder — so the two may well share one namespace and reference each other with no import for this pass to see. Read the pair before acting: if one derives from or overrides the other, the dependency is explicit in the type declaration and the co-change is definitional; if one registers itself into the other through a hook or an initialiser, the missing dependency is DELIBERATE and the thing to add is a comment saying so; if they simply belong together, co-locate them; if none of these holds, the coupling is hidden and worth breaking. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 6 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are `fa9e4916` Browser-style tab navigation shortcuts (#1373); `7a881f6b` Alternative key bindings for find next (#822); `f5a5d458` Be consistent on header comments (#764) — run `git show` on any of them.
  • Change coupling: config.ts ↔ QuickLookViewController.swift CoreEditor/src/config.ts — `CoreEditor/src/config.ts` and `QuickLookMac/QuickLookViewController.swift` change together 52% of the time (14 of the 27 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well — a repo-wide or module-wide sweep is evidence about the sweep rather than about any pair inside it and is left out of BOTH sides of this ratio, while a dependency bump, a formatter/rename sweep, or a commit whose edit to one of the two files was a tool directive such as //go:generate or whitespace only is left out of the shared count ONLY, so the two sides are not taken over identical commit sets) and are written in DIFFERENT LANGUAGES, so no import can join them and they cannot be co-located into one unit — they compile and ship as separate artifacts. What binds them is a CONTRACT across that boundary — an event or message name, a route, a serialised shape — that each side currently spells out on its own, which is exactly why a change to one drags the other. Declare that contract once where both sides read it (a shared schema, a generated constants file, an interface-definition file) so a change on one side fails the other's build instead of drifting silently; where the surface is too small to be worth that, name the counterpart in a comment on both sides so the next reader finds it. There is nothing here to merge. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 14 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are `c34c04ae` Share index.html between app and extensions (#1629) (at that commit the file was still `PreviewExtension/PreviewViewController.swift`); `d6335b7c` Implement markedit-api v0.23.0 (#1439) (at that commit the file was still `PreviewExtension/PreviewViewController.swift`); `089d3e8e` Implement MarkEdit.getDirectoryPath (#1191) (at that commit the file was still `PreviewExtension/PreviewViewController.swift`) — run `git show` on any of them.
  • Change coupling: core.ts ↔ EditorViewController.swift CoreEditor/src/bridge/web/core.ts — `CoreEditor/src/bridge/web/core.ts` and `MarkEditMac/Sources/Editor/Controllers/EditorViewController.swift` change together 50% of the time (9 of the 18 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well — a repo-wide or module-wide sweep is evidence about the sweep rather than about any pair inside it and is left out of BOTH sides of this ratio, while a dependency bump, a formatter/rename sweep, or a commit whose edit to one of the two files was a tool directive such as //go:generate or whitespace only is left out of the shared count ONLY, so the two sides are not taken over identical commit sets) and are written in DIFFERENT LANGUAGES, so no import can join them and they cannot be co-located into one unit — they compile and ship as separate artifacts. What binds them is a CONTRACT across that boundary — an event or message name, a route, a serialised shape — that each side currently spells out on its own, which is exactly why a change to one drags the other. Declare that contract once where both sides read it (a shared schema, a generated constants file, an interface-definition file) so a change on one side fails the other's build instead of drifting silently; where the surface is too small to be worth that, name the counterpart in a comment on both sides so the next reader finds it. There is nothing here to merge. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 9 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are `5d17f4cb` Protect editor state from external changes (#1429); `8fa8d9cc` Add waitUntilEditorReset to avoid blank flash (#1425); `5154c635` Change "Reuse Pool" to "Preloader" (#1407) — run `git show` on any of them.
  • Change coupling: methods.ts ↔ api.ts CoreEditor/src/api/methods.ts — `CoreEditor/src/api/methods.ts` and `CoreEditor/src/bridge/native/api.ts` change together 50% of the time (7 of the 14 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well — a repo-wide or module-wide sweep is evidence about the sweep rather than about any pair inside it and is left out of BOTH sides of this ratio, while a dependency bump, a formatter/rename sweep, or a commit whose edit to one of the two files was a tool directive such as //go:generate or whitespace only is left out of the shared count ONLY, so the two sides are not taken over identical commit sets) with no explicit dependency — the edge is real but nothing declares it. Read the pair before acting: if one registers itself into the other through a hook or an initialiser, the missing dependency is DELIBERATE — the registration is the link, and it is meant not to be an import — and the thing to add is a comment on each side naming the other, not a merge; if they simply belong together, co-locate them; if neither holds, the coupling is hidden and worth breaking. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 7 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are `d6335b7c` Implement markedit-api v0.23.0 (#1439); `0df01e42` Implement saveDocument and closeDocument (#1408); `ee2083ae` Implement file system APIs (#1117) — run `git show` on any of them.
  • Change coupling: selection.ts ↔ EditorViewController+Menu.swift CoreEditor/src/bridge/web/selection.ts — `CoreEditor/src/bridge/web/selection.ts` and `MarkEditMac/Sources/Editor/Controllers/EditorViewController+Menu.swift` change together 50% of the time (5 of the 10 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well — a repo-wide or module-wide sweep is evidence about the sweep rather than about any pair inside it and is left out of BOTH sides of this ratio, while a dependency bump, a formatter/rename sweep, or a commit whose edit to one of the two files was a tool directive such as //go:generate or whitespace only is left out of the shared count ONLY, so the two sides are not taken over identical commit sets) and are written in DIFFERENT LANGUAGES, so no import can join them and they cannot be co-located into one unit — they compile and ship as separate artifacts. What binds them is a CONTRACT across that boundary — an event or message name, a route, a serialised shape — that each side currently spells out on its own, which is exactly why a change to one drags the other. Declare that contract once where both sides read it (a shared schema, a generated constants file, an interface-definition file) so a change on one side fails the other's build instead of drifting silently; where the surface is too small to be worth that, name the counterpart in a comment on both sides so the next reader finds it. There is nothing here to merge. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 5 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are `d6299cc1` Fix select all only selects the viewport (#842); `fb5c6703` Keyboard shortcuts to go back (#645); `b27f7b8e` Refactor WritingTools related code (#610) — run `git show` on any of them.
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
D3 · God Classes · TooManyMethods · ×4
  • TooManyMethods: EditorViewController MarkEditMac/Sources/Editor/Controllers/EditorViewController.swift:16 — TooManyMethods — 224 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 194 over it, 7.47× 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: AppDelegate MarkEditMac/Sources/Main/Application/AppDelegate.swift:14 — TooManyMethods — 44 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 14 over it, 1.47× 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: ExtensionsViewController MarkEditMac/Sources/Extension/ExtensionsViewController.swift:37 — 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: EditorDocument MarkEditMac/Sources/Editor/Models/EditorDocument.swift:18 — TooManyMethods — 36 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 6 over it, 1.20× 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.
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
D10 · Test Quality · Skipped test · ×2
  • Skipped test: testCrossVolumeContract MarkEditKit/Tests/MoveFileTests.swift:98 — Skipped — throws XCTSkip
  • Skipped test: testExistenceOfAppKitSearchField MarkEditMac/Modules/Tests/RuntimeTests.swift:128 — Skipped — throws XCTSkip
D5 · Coupling · Off the main sequence · ×2
  • Off the main sequence: DiffKit — DiffKit: abstractness 0.00, instability 0.00, distance 1.00 — zone of pain — concrete and depended on by 1 project(s), so it's rigid to change.
  • Off the main sequence: TextBundle — TextBundle: abstractness 0.00, instability 0.00, distance 1.00 — zone of pain — concrete and depended on by 1 project(s), so it's rigid to change.
R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (8 lines × 2 locations) · ×2
  • Duplicated block (8 lines × 2 locations) CoreEditor/src/styling/themes/cobalt.ts:25 — CoreEditor/src/styling/themes/cobalt.ts:25 · CoreEditor/src/styling/themes/github-dark.ts:19 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and what repeats is a LIST OF ENTRIES rather than behaviour — the same entries written out more than once. Extract them into one shared, exported constant and spread that constant into each site, rather than into a function the sites call: a list like this often lives in declarative metadata (a decorator's options object, a static configuration table) that a build step must be able to read statically, where a function call is not allowed. Adding an entry to one copy and not the other is the failure this prevents.
  • Duplicated block (8 lines × 2 locations) CoreEditor/src/styling/themes/dracula.ts:25 — CoreEditor/src/styling/themes/dracula.ts:25 · CoreEditor/src/styling/themes/synthwave84.ts:35 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and what repeats is a LIST OF ENTRIES rather than behaviour — the same entries written out more than once. Extract them into one shared, exported constant and spread that constant into each site, rather than into a function the sites call: a list like this often lives in declarative metadata (a decorator's options object, a static configuration table) that a build step must be able to read statically, where a function call is not allowed. Adding an entry to one copy and not the other is the failure this prevents.
R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (5 lines × 2 locations) · ×2
  • Duplicated block (5 lines × 2 locations) CoreEditor/index.ts:99 — CoreEditor/index.ts:99 · CoreEditor/index.ts:107 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
  • Duplicated block (5 lines × 2 locations) CoreEditor/src/styling/themes/rose-pine-dawn.ts:40 — CoreEditor/src/styling/themes/rose-pine-dawn.ts:40 · CoreEditor/src/styling/themes/rose-pine.ts:40 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is a run of DECLARATIONS inside a construct — the members of a type, or the entries of an object or array literal — with no statement anywhere in it. Do not read this as an extract-a-helper row: nothing here executes, so there is no call site, and a call expression cannot stand where a member declaration or a literal's entry was. What repeats is a SHAPE, and which shape decides the move. Where the copies declare the same members, the repetition is a missing common ancestor: give it a base type, an interface both extend, a generic instantiated twice, or — where the copies are a literal's entries rather than a type's members — one shared constant each site spreads or refers to, so the set is written once. Where they declare DIFFERENT members and only the form is shared — a decorator and its options, an annotation, a registration table's keys — the form is prescribed by a framework or a schema rather than copied, and the only collapse available is to generate the declarations from that schema; where you do not own the generator, this is the cost of the framework and there is nothing to extract. Check which of the two it is before acting: these copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why the repetition is reported, but the sentence to act on is not the same in both cases.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · commands.insertNewlineContinueMarkupCommand (cyclomatic 44) · ×1
  • commands.insertNewlineContinueMarkupCommand (cyclomatic 44) CoreEditor/src/@vendor/lang-markdown/commands.ts:98 — commands.insertNewlineContinueMarkupCommand has cyclomatic complexity 44 (threshold 15). Most of this is not in the body itself: 1 of the 44 points is its own statement and the rest belongs to 2 function literals inside it that branch (lines 106, 104). The decisions are inside those literals, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literals' work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have each literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · EditorViewController.addLocalMonitorForEvents (cyclomatic 30) · ×1
  • EditorViewController.addLocalMonitorForEvents (cyclomatic 30) MarkEditMac/Sources/Editor/Controllers/EditorViewController.swift:13 — EditorViewController.addLocalMonitorForEvents has cyclomatic complexity 30 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · index.observeChanges (cyclomatic 30) · ×1
  • index.observeChanges (cyclomatic 30) CoreEditor/src/modules/input/index.ts:135 — index.observeChanges has cyclomatic complexity 30 (threshold 15). Most of this is not in the body itself: 1 of the 30 points is its own statement and the rest belongs to 2 function literals inside it that branch (lines 136, 233). The decisions are inside those literals, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literals' work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have each literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · complete.htmlCompletionFor (cyclomatic 25) · ×1
  • complete.htmlCompletionFor (cyclomatic 25) CoreEditor/src/@vendor/lang-html/complete.ts:481 — complete.htmlCompletionFor has cyclomatic complexity 25 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · index.handleKeyDown (cyclomatic 24) · ×1
  • index.handleKeyDown (cyclomatic 24) CoreEditor/src/modules/tokenizer/index.ts:48 — index.handleKeyDown has cyclomatic complexity 24 (threshold 15). Of this number, 18 points are the body's own statements and 6 belong to 3 function literals inside it that branch. To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · html.autoCloseTags (cyclomatic 23) · ×1
  • html.autoCloseTags (cyclomatic 23) CoreEditor/src/@vendor/lang-html/html.ts:105 — html.autoCloseTags has cyclomatic complexity 23 (threshold 15). Most of this is not in the body itself: 8 of the 23 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to one function literal inside it that branches (line 109). The decisions are inside the literal, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literal's work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have the literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · EditorViewController.updateTextFinderMode (cyclomatic 22) · ×1
  • EditorViewController.updateTextFinderMode (cyclomatic 22) MarkEditMac/Sources/Editor/Controllers/EditorViewController.swift:12 — EditorViewController.updateTextFinderMode has cyclomatic complexity 22 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · EditorViewController.toolbar (cyclomatic 22) · ×1
  • EditorViewController.toolbar (cyclomatic 22) MarkEditMac/Sources/Editor/Controllers/EditorViewController.swift:80 — EditorViewController.toolbar has cyclomatic complexity 22 (threshold 15). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Where every arm is uniform — the same kind of value, with no behaviour of its own — a table keyed by the case is the shorter form; wherever the arms carry different data or different behaviour, keep them as cases, because collapsing those trades an explicit, reviewable set of cases for nothing.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · EditorViewController.validateMenuItem (cyclomatic 18) · ×1
  • EditorViewController.validateMenuItem (cyclomatic 18) MarkEditMac/Sources/Editor/Controllers/EditorViewController.swift:85 — EditorViewController.validateMenuItem has cyclomatic complexity 18 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · core.resetEditor (cyclomatic 18) · ×1
  • core.resetEditor (cyclomatic 18) CoreEditor/src/core.ts:59 — core.resetEditor has cyclomatic complexity 18 (threshold 15). Of this number, 12 points are the body's own statements and 6 belong to 4 function literals inside it that branch. To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · ExtensionRelease.pageURL (cyclomatic 17) · ×1
  • ExtensionRelease.pageURL (cyclomatic 17) MarkEditMac/Modules/Sources/ExtensionCore/ExtensionRegistry.swift:39 — ExtensionRelease.pageURL has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, name the conditions: bind each compound test to a well-named local or a small predicate function, so the body reads as a sequence of named decisions rather than a chain of operators.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · toggleBlockWithMarks.toggleBlockWithMarks (cyclomatic 17) · ×1
  • toggleBlockWithMarks.toggleBlockWithMarks (cyclomatic 17) CoreEditor/src/modules/commands/toggleBlockWithMarks.ts:14 — toggleBlockWithMarks.toggleBlockWithMarks has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15). Of this number, 10 points are the body's own statements and 7 belong to one function literal inside it that branches. To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · commands.getContext (cyclomatic 17) · ×1
  • commands.getContext (cyclomatic 17) CoreEditor/src/@vendor/lang-markdown/commands.ts:34 — commands.getContext has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · commands.deleteMarkupBackward (cyclomatic 17) · ×1
  • commands.deleteMarkupBackward (cyclomatic 17) CoreEditor/src/@vendor/lang-markdown/commands.ts:243 — commands.deleteMarkupBackward has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15). Most of this is not in the body itself: 2 of the 17 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to one function literal inside it that branches (line 245). The decisions are inside the literal, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literal's work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have the literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · ExtensionsRowView.body (cyclomatic 16) · ×1
  • ExtensionsRowView.body (cyclomatic 16) MarkEditMac/Sources/Extension/ExtensionsRowView.swift:21 — ExtensionsRowView.body has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · ExtensionRegistry.refresh (cyclomatic 16) · ×1
  • ExtensionRegistry.refresh (cyclomatic 16) MarkEditMac/Modules/Sources/ExtensionCore/ExtensionRegistry.swift:236 — ExtensionRegistry.refresh has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · index.observeChanges (cognitive 56) · ×1
  • index.observeChanges (cognitive 56) CoreEditor/src/modules/input/index.ts:135 — index.observeChanges has cognitive complexity 56 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 22 (47 pts), boolean chains 9 (nesting depth added 25). Most of this is not in the body itself: 0 of the 56 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to 2 function literals inside it that branch (lines 136, 233). The decisions are inside those literals, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literals' work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have each literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · commands.insertNewlineContinueMarkupCommand (cognitive 51) · ×1
  • commands.insertNewlineContinueMarkupCommand (cognitive 51) CoreEditor/src/@vendor/lang-markdown/commands.ts:98 — commands.insertNewlineContinueMarkupCommand has cognitive complexity 51 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 17 (26 pts), boolean chains 18, loops 3 (4 pts), ternaries 1 (3 pts) (nesting depth added 12). Most of this is not in the body itself: 0 of the 51 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to 2 function literals inside it that branch (lines 106, 104). The decisions are inside those literals, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literals' work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have each literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · EditorViewController.addLocalMonitorForEvents (cognitive 35) · ×1
  • EditorViewController.addLocalMonitorForEvents (cognitive 35) MarkEditMac/Sources/Editor/Controllers/EditorViewController.swift:13 — EditorViewController.addLocalMonitorForEvents has cognitive complexity 35 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 15 (18 pts), boolean chains 15, match/switch 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 4). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — so group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function. Some of it IS depth: where a check sits inside another whose only job is to reach it, merge the two into one condition, and where an else follows a branch that already returns, drop the trailing else and let the rest of the body continue at one level.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · toggleListStyle.toggleListStyle (cognitive 31) · ×1
  • toggleListStyle.toggleListStyle (cognitive 31) CoreEditor/src/modules/commands/toggleListStyle.ts:14 — toggleListStyle.toggleListStyle has cognitive complexity 31 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 12 (22 pts), ternaries 1 (4 pts), loops 2 (3 pts), boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 14). Most of this is not in the body itself: 4 of the 31 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to 3 function literals inside it that branch (lines 64, 31, 52). The decisions are inside those literals, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literals' work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have each literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · commands.deleteMarkupBackward (cognitive 29) · ×1
  • commands.deleteMarkupBackward (cognitive 29) CoreEditor/src/@vendor/lang-markdown/commands.ts:243 — commands.deleteMarkupBackward has cognitive complexity 29 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (23 pts), boolean chains 6 (nesting depth added 15). Most of this is not in the body itself: 1 of the 29 points is its own statement and the rest belongs to one function literal inside it that branches (line 245). The decisions are inside the literal, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literal's work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have the literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · toggleBlockWithMarks.toggleBlockWithMarks (cognitive 27) · ×1
  • toggleBlockWithMarks.toggleBlockWithMarks (cognitive 27) CoreEditor/src/modules/commands/toggleBlockWithMarks.ts:14 — toggleBlockWithMarks.toggleBlockWithMarks has cognitive complexity 27 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (18 pts), boolean chains 7, loops 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 9). Of this number, 15 points are the body's own statements and 12 belong to one function literal inside it that branches. To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · EditorViewController.updateTextFinderMode (cognitive 25) · ×1
  • EditorViewController.updateTextFinderMode (cognitive 25) MarkEditMac/Sources/Editor/Controllers/EditorViewController.swift:12 — EditorViewController.updateTextFinderMode has cognitive complexity 25 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 13 (16 pts), boolean chains 5, ternaries 3 (4 pts) (nesting depth added 4). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — so group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function. Some of it IS depth: where a check sits inside another whose only job is to reach it, merge the two into one condition.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · complete.htmlCompletionFor (cognitive 25) · ×1
  • complete.htmlCompletionFor (cognitive 25) CoreEditor/src/@vendor/lang-html/complete.ts:481 — complete.htmlCompletionFor has cognitive complexity 25 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: boolean chains 9, if/else 8 (9 pts), ternaries 3 (6 pts), loops 1 (nesting depth added 4). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · formatContent.formatContent (cognitive 23) · ×1
  • formatContent.formatContent (cognitive 23) CoreEditor/src/modules/commands/formatContent.ts:16 — formatContent.formatContent has cognitive complexity 23 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (16 pts), boolean chains 5, loops 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 9). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · commands.getContext (cognitive 23) · ×1
  • commands.getContext (cognitive 23) CoreEditor/src/@vendor/lang-markdown/commands.ts:34 — commands.getContext has cognitive complexity 23 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (17 pts), boolean chains 4, loops 2 (nesting depth added 9). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · ExtensionsRowView.body (cognitive 20) · ×1
  • ExtensionsRowView.body (cognitive 20) MarkEditMac/Sources/Extension/ExtensionsRowView.swift:21 — ExtensionsRowView.body has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (11 pts), ternaries 3 (5 pts), boolean chains 4 (nesting depth added 4). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · index.handleKeyDown (cognitive 20) · ×1
  • index.handleKeyDown (cognitive 20) CoreEditor/src/modules/tokenizer/index.ts:48 — index.handleKeyDown has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (9 pts), boolean chains 6, ternaries 2 (4 pts), error handling 1 (nesting depth added 3). Of this number, 11 points are the body's own statements and 9 belong to 3 function literals inside it that branch. To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — so group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function. Some of it IS depth: where a check sits inside another whose only job is to reach it, merge the two into one condition.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · core.resetEditor (cognitive 20) · ×1
  • core.resetEditor (cognitive 20) CoreEditor/src/core.ts:59 — core.resetEditor has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 11 (12 pts), boolean chains 5, ternaries 2 (3 pts) (nesting depth added 2). Of this number, 13 points are the body's own statements and 7 belong to 4 function literals inside it that branch. To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — so group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function. Some of it IS depth: where a check sits inside another whose only job is to reach it, merge the two into one condition, and where an else follows a branch that already returns, drop the trailing else and let the rest of the body continue at one level.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · EditorViewController.validateMenuItem (cognitive 19) · ×1
  • EditorViewController.validateMenuItem (cognitive 19) MarkEditMac/Sources/Editor/Controllers/EditorViewController.swift:85 — EditorViewController.validateMenuItem has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (16 pts), boolean chains 2, match/switch 1 (nesting depth added 7). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · EditorWebView.updateMenuItems (cognitive 19) · ×1
  • EditorWebView.updateMenuItems (cognitive 19) MarkEditMac/Sources/Editor/Views/EditorWebView.swift:188 — EditorWebView.updateMenuItems has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 6 (12 pts), boolean chains 6, loops 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 · index.observeEventsForCompletion (cognitive 19) · ×1
  • index.observeEventsForCompletion (cognitive 19) CoreEditor/src/modules/events/index.ts:153 — index.observeEventsForCompletion has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (11 pts), boolean chains 6, ternaries 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 3). Most of this is not in the body itself: 0 of the 19 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to one function literal inside it that branches (line 154). The decisions are inside the literal, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literal's work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have the literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · ExtensionRelease.pageURL (cognitive 18) · ×1
  • ExtensionRelease.pageURL (cognitive 18) MarkEditMac/Modules/Sources/ExtensionCore/ExtensionRegistry.swift:39 — ExtensionRelease.pageURL has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: boolean chains 9, if/else 5, ternaries 2 (4 pts) (nesting depth added 2). To reduce it, name the conditions: bind each compound test to a well-named local or a small predicate function, so the body reads as a sequence of named decisions rather than a chain of operators.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · EditorFindPanel.navigateRecentSearches (cognitive 18) · ×1
  • EditorFindPanel.navigateRecentSearches (cognitive 18) MarkEditMac/Sources/Panels/Find/EditorFindPanel.swift:51 — EditorFindPanel.navigateRecentSearches has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (14 pts), boolean chains 4 (nesting depth added 4). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · index.wrapMath (cognitive 18) · ×1
  • index.wrapMath (cognitive 18) CoreEditor/src/modules/math/index.ts:41 — index.wrapMath has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (12 pts), boolean chains 3, ternaries 2 (3 pts) (nesting depth added 6). Of this number, 14 points are the body's own statements and 4 belong to one function literal inside it that branches. To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · index.updateQuery (cognitive 18) · ×1
  • index.updateQuery (cognitive 18) CoreEditor/src/modules/search/index.ts:91 — index.updateQuery has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (14 pts), boolean chains 2, loops 1 (2 pts) (nesting depth added 8). Of this number, 17 points are the body's own statements and 1 belongs to one function literal inside it that branches. To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · EditorModuleAPI.deleteLocalFileVersions (cognitive 17) · ×1
  • EditorModuleAPI.deleteLocalFileVersions (cognitive 17) MarkEditKit/Sources/Bridge/Native/Modules/EditorModuleAPI.swift:395 — EditorModuleAPI.deleteLocalFileVersions has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (10 pts), boolean chains 4, error handling 1 (2 pts), loops 1 (nesting depth added 4). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · ExtensionRegistry.refresh (cognitive 17) · ×1
  • ExtensionRegistry.refresh (cognitive 17) MarkEditMac/Modules/Sources/ExtensionCore/ExtensionRegistry.swift:236 — ExtensionRegistry.refresh has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (12 pts), boolean chains 4, match/switch 1 (nesting depth added 2). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — so group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function. Some of it IS depth: where a check sits inside another whose only job is to reach it, merge the two into one condition, and where an else follows a branch that already returns, drop the trailing else and let the rest of the body continue at one level.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · EditorWindow.updateTitleBarAppearance (cognitive 16) · ×1
  • EditorWindow.updateTitleBarAppearance (cognitive 16) MarkEditMac/Sources/Editor/EditorWindow.swift:66 — EditorWindow.updateTitleBarAppearance has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (10 pts), ternaries 3 (5 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 3). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — so group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function. Some of it IS depth: where a check sits inside another whose only job is to reach it, merge the two into one condition, and where an else follows a branch that already returns, drop the trailing else and let the rest of the body continue at one level.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · toggleLineLeadingMark.toggleLineLeadingMark (cognitive 16) · ×1
  • toggleLineLeadingMark.toggleLineLeadingMark (cognitive 16) REDACTED:10 — toggleLineLeadingMark.toggleLineLeadingMark has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 6 (14 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 · complete.completeAttrValue (cognitive 16) · ×1
  • complete.completeAttrValue (cognitive 16) CoreEditor/src/@vendor/lang-html/complete.ts:453 — complete.completeAttrValue has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 5 (9 pts), loops 1 (3 pts), ternaries 1 (3 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 8). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
D22 · Internal API Consistency · Ambiguous naming for file retrieval operations. `getFileContent` and `getFileObject` appear to perform the same domain operation (retrieving file data) but return different types (`String` vs `String?` or potentially different semantic meanings like raw bytes vs decoded text). Without distinct documentation, these names are confusingly similar. · ×1
  • Ambiguous naming for file retrieval operations. `getFileContent` and `getFileObject` appear to perform the same domain operation (retrieving file data) but return different types (`String` vs `String?` or potentially different semantic meanings like raw bytes vs decoded text). Without distinct documentation, these names are confusingly similar. — Rename `getFileObject` to `getFileData` (if returning raw bytes/JSON) or `getFileMetadata` (if returning info), and ensure `getFileContent` is explicitly named `getFileText` if it is strictly text-based, to distinguish between content retrieval and object/metadata retrieval. (signatures: EditorModuleAPI.getFileContent(path: String?): String? | EditorModuleAPI.getFileObject(path: String?): String?)
D3 · God Classes · MethodTooLong · ×1
  • MethodTooLong: EditorViewController.requestCompletions MarkEditMac/Sources/Editor/Controllers/EditorViewController.swift:15 — MethodTooLong — requestCompletions runs 182 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 82 over it, 1.82× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED · ×1
  • REDACTED
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (20 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (20 lines × 2) MarkEditMac/Modules/Sources/FontPicker/FontPickerConfiguration.swift:25 — MarkEditMac/Modules/Sources/FontPicker/FontPickerConfiguration.swift:25-44 | MarkEditMac/Modules/Sources/Statistics/StatisticsLocalizable.swift:24-43 — 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 `MarkEditMac/Modules/Sources/FontPicker/FontPickerConfiguration.swift:25` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members' bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) MarkEditMac/Modules/Sources/ExtensionCore/ExtensionConfig.swift:230 — MarkEditMac/Modules/Sources/ExtensionCore/ExtensionConfig.swift:230-238 | MarkEditMac/Sources/Main/AppRuntimeConfig.swift:365-373 — 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.
R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block with local edits (17 matched lines × 2 locations) · ×1
  • Duplicated block with local edits (17 matched lines × 2 locations) CoreEditor/src/bridge/web/config.ts:29 — CoreEditor/src/bridge/web/config.ts:29 · CoreEditor/src/bridge/web/config.ts:48 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 226 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both spans, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's finding: an edit made to one and not the other changes behaviour silently. Diff the two spans first to learn what genuinely differs, then extract the shared core into one module both sites use, passing the differences in as parameters — or, if one copy exists only because the other could not be imported from its context, make one of them the single source the other is generated or re-exported from. If one copy is no longer reachable, delete it rather than letting it shadow the live one.
R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (15 lines × 2 locations) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (15 lines × 2 locations) CoreEditor/src/styling/themes/minimal-dark.ts:16 — CoreEditor/src/styling/themes/minimal-dark.ts:16 · CoreEditor/src/styling/themes/minimal-light.ts:16 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.
R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (14 lines × 2 locations) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (14 lines × 2 locations) CoreEditor/src/styling/helper.ts:5 — CoreEditor/src/styling/helper.ts:5 · CoreEditor/src/styling/helper.ts:21 — 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.
R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block with local edits (11 matched lines × 2 locations) · ×1
  • Duplicated block with local edits (11 matched lines × 2 locations) CoreEditor/src/modules/completion/index.ts:168 — CoreEditor/src/modules/completion/index.ts:168 · CoreEditor/src/modules/tokenizer/index.ts:12 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 54 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both files, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's finding: an edit made to one and not the other changes behaviour silently. Diff the two spans first to learn what genuinely differs, then extract the shared core into one module both sites use, passing the differences in as parameters — or, if one copy exists only because the other could not be imported from its context, make one of them the single source the other is generated or re-exported from. If one copy is no longer reachable, delete it rather than letting it shadow the live one.
R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (9 lines × 2 locations) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (9 lines × 2 locations) CoreEditor/src/modules/smartQuotes/index.ts:78 — CoreEditor/src/modules/smartQuotes/index.ts:78 · CoreEditor/src/modules/smartQuotes/index.ts: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.
R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block with local edits (8 matched lines × 2 locations) · ×1
  • Duplicated block with local edits (8 matched lines × 2 locations) CoreEditor/src/bridge/web/core.ts:24 — CoreEditor/src/bridge/web/core.ts:24 · CoreEditor/src/bridge/web/core.ts:37 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 138 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both spans, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's finding: an edit made to one and not the other changes behaviour silently. Diff the two spans first to learn what genuinely differs, then extract the shared core into one module both sites use, passing the differences in as parameters — or, if one copy exists only because the other could not be imported from its context, make one of them the single source the other is generated or re-exported from. If one copy is no longer reachable, delete it rather than letting it shadow the live one.
R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block with local edits (6 matched lines × 2 locations) · ×1
  • Duplicated block with local edits (6 matched lines × 2 locations) CoreEditor/src/bridge/web/search.ts:25 — CoreEditor/src/bridge/web/search.ts:25 · CoreEditor/src/bridge/web/search.ts:39 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 71 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both spans, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's finding: an edit made to one and not the other changes behaviour silently. Diff the two spans first to learn what genuinely differs, then extract the shared core into one module both sites use, passing the differences in as parameters — or, if one copy exists only because the other could not be imported from its context, make one of them the single source the other is generated or re-exported from. If one copy is no longer reachable, delete it rather than letting it shadow the live one.
R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (6 lines × 2 locations) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (6 lines × 2 locations) CoreEditor/src/styling/themes/rose-pine-dawn.ts:28 — CoreEditor/src/styling/themes/rose-pine-dawn.ts:28 · CoreEditor/src/styling/themes/rose-pine.ts:28 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.
R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Complex function (anonymous) (cyclomatic 43, cognitive 62) · ×1
  • Complex function (anonymous) (cyclomatic 43, cognitive 62) CoreEditor/src/@vendor/lang-markdown/commands.ts:106 — (anonymous) has cyclomatic complexity 43 and cognitive complexity 62; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.
R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Complex function (anonymous) (cyclomatic 28, cognitive 51) · ×1
  • Complex function (anonymous) (cyclomatic 28, cognitive 51) CoreEditor/src/modules/input/index.ts:136 — (anonymous) has cyclomatic complexity 28 and cognitive complexity 51; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.
R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Complex function htmlCompletionFor (cyclomatic 25, cognitive 25) · ×1
  • Complex function htmlCompletionFor (cyclomatic 25, cognitive 25) CoreEditor/src/@vendor/lang-html/complete.ts:481 — htmlCompletionFor has cyclomatic complexity 25 and cognitive complexity 25; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.
R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Complex function handleKeyDown (cyclomatic 18, cognitive 11) · ×1
  • Complex function handleKeyDown (cyclomatic 18, cognitive 11) CoreEditor/src/modules/tokenizer/index.ts:48 — handleKeyDown has cyclomatic complexity 18 and cognitive complexity 11; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive sits below cyclomatic here, so much of the count is breadth — arms side by side rather than stacked — and splitting per arm would leave a function per arm; group the work between the checks into named steps instead. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.
R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Complex function getContext (cyclomatic 17, cognitive 23) · ×1
  • Complex function getContext (cyclomatic 17, cognitive 23) CoreEditor/src/@vendor/lang-markdown/commands.ts:34 — getContext has cyclomatic complexity 17 and cognitive complexity 23; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.
R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Complex function (anonymous) (cyclomatic 16, cognitive 30) · ×1
  • Complex function (anonymous) (cyclomatic 16, cognitive 30) CoreEditor/src/@vendor/lang-markdown/commands.ts:245 — (anonymous) has cyclomatic complexity 16 and cognitive complexity 30; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.
R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Complex function (anonymous) (cyclomatic 16, cognitive 17) · ×1
  • Complex function (anonymous) (cyclomatic 16, cognitive 17) CoreEditor/src/@vendor/lang-html/html.ts:109 — (anonymous) has cyclomatic complexity 16 and cognitive complexity 17; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.
R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Complex function (anonymous) (cyclomatic 15, cognitive 19) · ×1
  • Complex function (anonymous) (cyclomatic 15, cognitive 19) CoreEditor/src/modules/events/index.ts:154 — (anonymous) has cyclomatic complexity 15 and cognitive complexity 19; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.
R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Complex function (anonymous) (cyclomatic 15, cognitive 15) · ×1
  • Complex function (anonymous) (cyclomatic 15, cognitive 15) CoreEditor/src/modules/completion/index.ts:37 — (anonymous) has cyclomatic complexity 15 and cognitive complexity 15; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.
R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Complex function filterTransaction (cyclomatic 15, cognitive 13) · ×1
  • Complex function filterTransaction (cyclomatic 15, cognitive 13) CoreEditor/src/modules/input/index.ts:22 — filterTransaction has cyclomatic complexity 15 and cognitive complexity 13; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive sits below cyclomatic here, so much of the count is breadth — arms side by side rather than stacked — and splitting per arm would leave a function per arm; group the work between the checks into named steps instead. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.
R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Complex function formatContent (cyclomatic 14, cognitive 22) · ×1
  • Complex function formatContent (cyclomatic 14, cognitive 22) CoreEditor/src/modules/commands/formatContent.ts:16 — formatContent has cyclomatic complexity 14 and cognitive complexity 22; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.
R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Complex function update (cyclomatic 14, cognitive 19) · ×1
  • Complex function update (cyclomatic 14, cognitive 19) CoreEditor/src/@vendor/commands/history.ts:58 — update has cyclomatic complexity 14 and cognitive complexity 19; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.
R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Complex function resetEditor (cyclomatic 13, cognitive 14) · ×1
  • Complex function resetEditor (cyclomatic 13, cognitive 14) CoreEditor/src/core.ts:59 — resetEditor has cyclomatic complexity 13 and cognitive complexity 14; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.
R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Complex function parse (cyclomatic 12, cognitive 20) · ×1
  • Complex function parse (cyclomatic 12, cognitive 20) CoreEditor/src/modules/math/index.ts:144 — parse has cyclomatic complexity 12 and cognitive complexity 20; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.
R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Complex function pop (cyclomatic 12, cognitive 16) · ×1
  • Complex function pop (cyclomatic 12, cognitive 16) CoreEditor/src/@vendor/commands/history.ts:359 — pop has cyclomatic complexity 12 and cognitive complexity 16; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.
R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Complex function (anonymous) (cyclomatic 12, cognitive 11) · ×1
  • Complex function (anonymous) (cyclomatic 12, cognitive 11) CoreEditor/src/modules/input/index.ts:99 — (anonymous) has cyclomatic complexity 12 and cognitive complexity 11; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive sits below cyclomatic here, so much of the count is breadth — arms side by side rather than stacked — and splitting per arm would leave a function per arm; group the work between the checks into named steps instead. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.
R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Complex function updateQuery (cyclomatic 11, cognitive 21) · ×1
  • Complex function updateQuery (cyclomatic 11, cognitive 21) CoreEditor/src/modules/search/index.ts:91 — updateQuery has cyclomatic complexity 11 and cognitive complexity 21; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive is at or above cyclomatic here, so the branching is nested or entangled rather than laid out side by side — extracting each decision into its own named function is the change that pays. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.
R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Complex function extensions (cyclomatic 11, cognitive 10) · ×1
  • Complex function extensions (cyclomatic 11, cognitive 10) CoreEditor/src/extensions.ts:72 — extensions has cyclomatic complexity 11 and cognitive complexity 10; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive sits below cyclomatic here, so much of the count is breadth — arms side by side rather than stacked — and splitting per arm would leave a function per arm; group the work between the checks into named steps instead. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.
R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Complex function autoClosingQuotePosition (cyclomatic 11, cognitive 8) · ×1
  • Complex function autoClosingQuotePosition (cyclomatic 11, cognitive 8) CoreEditor/src/modules/smartQuotes/index.ts:69 — autoClosingQuotePosition has cyclomatic complexity 11 and cognitive complexity 8; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive sits below cyclomatic here, so much of the count is breadth — arms side by side rather than stacked — and splitting per arm would leave a function per arm; group the work between the checks into named steps instead. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.
R7 · Dead Code · Dead file (~23 LoC) · ×1
  • Dead file (~23 LoC) CoreEditor/src/bridge/web/dummy.ts — no import path from any entry point (9 application, 4 tooling, 34 test roots considered), and no other file in the scanned tree imports it — nothing in-repo names this module at all, which is the strongest form of this claim the import graph can make
R8 · Dependency Hygiene · Unused dependency 'tslib' · ×1
  • Unused dependency 'tslib' — Declared in CoreEditor/package.json but never imported anywhere in that package or its workspace members — no static import reaches it. Usually that is dead weight and attack surface, but two shapes are indistinguishable from source and are NOT dead: an optional or native peer that another dependency loads dynamically at runtime, and a package a build, docs or test step installs and invokes separately. Confirm which of the three this is before removing it.
Minor — 11 finding(s)
D20 · ADR Quality · No ADRs found · ×1
  • No ADRs found — No ADRs found. No recognised ADR directory (`docs/adr/`, `docs/decisions/`, `adr/`, `docs/rfcs/`, an `ADR0001/` folder, or their siblings) exists anywhere in this tree. What was searched, so you can tell an empty log from a search that missed one: every directory under the tree (build output, dependencies and VCS metadata excepted), for a document that is either any non-index page inside a recognised ADR directory, whatever its name and however deeply nested (`docs/adr/use-postgres.md`, `docs/adr/2024/0001-x.md`); or a file anywhere whose name is ADR-shaped (`0001-use-postgres.md`, `adr-012-caching.md`); or, when neither turned anything up, a document carrying the decision-record signature (an "Architecture Decision Record" heading, or Status / Context / Decision / Consequences as section headings). A decision log that clears none of these — unnumbered files outside any recognised directory, without those headings — is not seen by this check and this row is then wrong. If that is your case, say so rather than renaming anything; otherwise, consider recording architectural decisions in `docs/adr/`.
D26 · Project Cohesion · Split MarkEditMac/Modules · ×1
  • Split MarkEditMac/Modules — A 6k-LoC module whose namespaces are all UI components (SharedUI) plus unrelated helper namespaces like DiffKit and FileDrop, so it is large and sprawls across many unrelated areas. Suggested:
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED · ×1
  • REDACTED
M2 · Architecture documentation · No ADRs · ×1
  • No ADRs — No Architecture Decision Records found — no conventional ADR directory, no numbered `NNNN-title` documents in any markup this check reads, and nothing ADR-shaped by content. Design rationale recorded elsewhere (a design-notes tree, a mailing list, pull-request discussion) is not visible to this check and is not re-findable per decision, so a future maintainer cannot ask why one choice was made and get an answer.
M3 · Folder & project structure · No src/ separation · ×1
  • No src/ separation — Production code isn't grouped under a src/ folder — it's spread across several top-level directories, so there's no one place that says 'this is the product'.
M4 · Documentation accuracy · README/code drift · ×1
  • README/code drift — README claims MarkEdit is a macOS app but the repository contains no macOS project — searched for: `macOS project`. Each was matched case- and separator-insensitively against file and directory NAMES anywhere in the tree, and against the CONTENTS of manifest files (package.json, *.csproj, *.props, *.slnx, *.yml, Dockerfile); the README's own prose never counts, so a claim is never refuted by merely being made. Nothing outside that search was read — a footprint living only in a submodule, in a file type not listed here, or under a name none of those terms matches is not seen, and this row is then wrong.
P10 · Library API & versioning · Large public API surface · ×1
  • Large public API surface — 184/247 types (74%) declared in the published library are public. For a library, every public type is a stability contract — keep implementation types off the surface and expose only the intended API.
P2 · Observability · Logging is not universal · ×1
  • Logging is not universal — Only 4/5 runnable modules use logging (modules with no entry point or server are excluded — they are libraries a runnable module hosts). Silent: `MarkEditTools`.
P3 · Security & performance tooling · No SAST · ×1
  • No SAST — No static application security testing detected. For this repository's stack, add CodeQL's Swift pack (Swift/Xcode) (or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language) as a CI step. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: the 2278 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.
P6 · Release Hygiene · No changelog · ×1
  • No changelog — No CHANGELOG/HISTORY/RELEASES file — what shipped when isn't easy to reconstruct for support or audit. (Versioning/tagging makes releases traceable, but a changelog records the what.)
R7 · Dead Code · Unused export 'createMarkDeco' · ×1
  • Unused export 'createMarkDeco' CoreEditor/src/styling/matchers/lezer.ts:30 — Nothing imports this binding — it is safe to review for removal.
Minor — 1 finding(s)
D12 · Dependency Hygiene · Outdated (npm) · ×1
  • Outdated (npm): @codemirror/commands — @codemirror/commands is pinned at 6.11.0; registry.npmjs.org publishes 6.11.1 as the latest release. Upgrading is a judgement call — read that package's changelog for what changed between the two — but a direct production dependency several releases behind is where security and compatibility debt accumulates silently.

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-bf2aa5975c25443e84facdf49d2d29be/history.json --exit-code 0 --source .15artifacts/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-bf2aa5975c25443e84facdf49d2d29be/tree.json --exit-code 0 --source .3artifacts/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 .11artifacts/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-update1artifacts/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 14 file(s) — `CoreEditor/src/@types/global.d.ts`, `MarkEditCore/Sources/Extensions/WebKit+Extension.swift`, `MarkEditMac/Modules/Sources/SharedUI/LabeledSearchField.swift`, `MarkEditMac/Modules/Sources/SharedUI/MaterialView.swift`, `MarkEditMac/Sources/Editor/Controllers/EditorViewController+Completion.swift`, … (+9 more) — so the PII/GDPR sweep did not cover the unparsed regions of them; rows reported elsewhere in those files are real.0—
D37 · Vulnerability-disclosure 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 01a0f3a4-d3dc-7032-9266-96e30d7c82a3 · every finding is also locatable in findings.md, and the complete scoring record (with exit codes + durations) in sidecar.json.

Issues: 6 · Warnings: 157 · Recommendations: 11 · Info: 1 — Appendix A · all findings · full markdown report.
Generated by Watchdog — deterministic code-health analysis. 30-09-2026 @ 18:47 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