Executive summary
Read through the Preview lens: this repo is pre-1.0 / in development, so the colour bands are relaxed to what a preview needs — *green* means good enough for a preview, not yet production-stable. Code correctness and security stay near-strict even here; the score itself is absolute and comparable across repos.
MilkFeng/lumina is sound in substance but carries real gaps (49%). It is not in crisis, but the issues below raise the cost of changing it — friction its consumers ultimately inherit.
It is strongest in Architecture (98%) — the structure is clean and changes stay contained.
The area that most needs attention is Readiness (37%) — releases are harder to depend on — versioning, release notes and dependency hygiene are thin, so consumers can't easily tell what changed or trust an upgrade. Domain Modelling (53%) is the next concern — the domain model leaks and drifts, so business rules are harder to trust and change.
Leadership focus, highest impact first: SAST step to CI running what this repository's stack ships (Security & performance tooling); tests that import the unreached modules (directly or through… (Test Coverage); Nothing pauses a release for a human (Deployment & Rollback).
For scale: Medium (~22,196 production lines); rebuilding it from scratch would take roughly ~0.2 person-years (~1 engineer). Approximate, ±~30%.
It builds on a genuinely strong Architecture foundation (98%); the priorities above are the highest-leverage way to bring the rest up to that level.
Raise Readiness 37 → 70 (the Healthy floor) ⇒ headline 49 → ~59.
New since the last scan (57+)
- D3 · FileTooLong: parsers/epub_zip_parser.dart lib/src/features/library/data/parsers/epub_zip_parser.dart
- D16 · single-maintainer — knowledge-concentration (bus factor) risk
- D29 · High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/build_release.yml
- D29 · High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/build_release.yml
- D29 · High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/build_release.yml
- D29 · High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/build_release.yml
- D29 · High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/build_release.yml
- D29 · High: run-shell-injection .github/workflows/build_release.yml
- D29 · High: run-shell-injection .github/workflows/build_release.yml
- D29 · High: run-shell-injection .github/workflows/build_release.yml
- D29 · High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/build_release.yml
- D29 · High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/build_release.yml
- D29 · High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/build_release.yml
- D29 · High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/build_release.yml
- D29 · High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/build_release.yml
- D29 · High: run-shell-injection .github/workflows/build_release.yml
- D29 · High: run-shell-injection .github/workflows/build_release.yml
- D29 · High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/build_release.yml
- D29 · High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/build_release.yml
- D29 · High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/build_release.yml
- D29 · High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/build_release.yml
- D29 · High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/build_release.yml
- D29 · High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/build_release.yml
- D29 · High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/flutter_ci.yml
- D29 · High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/flutter_ci.yml
- D35 · Change coupling: reader_scripts.dart ↔ image_viewer.dart lib/src/features/reader/data/reader_scripts.dart
- D35 · Change coupling: image_viewer.dart ↔ reader_webview.dart lib/src/features/reader/presentation/image_viewer.dart
- D35 · Change coupling: reader_screen.dart ↔ reader_webview.dart lib/src/features/reader/presentation/reader_screen.dart
- D35 · Change coupling: reader_scripts.dart ↔ reader_screen.dart lib/src/features/reader/data/reader_scripts.dart
- D35 · Change coupling: reader_scripts.dart ↔ toc_drawer.dart lib/src/features/reader/data/reader_scripts.dart
- D36 · Unpinned build actions
- D36 · PR-triggered workflow without a permissions block
- D38 · Medium advisory (unmaintained): RUSTSEC-2025-0056 rust/Cargo.lock
- D38 · Medium advisory (unsound): RUSTSEC-2026-0190 rust/Cargo.lock
- D38 · Medium advisory (unsound): RUSTSEC-2025-0023 rust/Cargo.lock
- R10 · Duplicated block (13 lines × 2 locations) web_assets/controller.js/renderer/renderer.ts
- R10 · Duplicated block (11 lines × 2 locations) web_assets/controller.js/renderer/interaction.ts
- R10 · Duplicated block (8 lines × 2 locations) web_assets/controller.js/renderer/frame_manager.ts
- R10 · Duplicated block (7 lines × 2 locations) web_assets/controller.js/renderer/interaction.ts
- R10 · Duplicated block (6 lines × 2 locations) web_assets/controller.js/typ/typ_common.ts
- R10 · Duplicated block (5 lines × 2 locations) web_assets/controller.js/renderer/renderer.ts
- R10 · Duplicated block (5 lines × 2 locations) web_assets/controller.js/renderer/renderer.ts
- R10 · Duplicated block (5 lines × 3 locations) web_assets/controller.js/renderer/theme_manager.ts
- R2 · Complex function (anonymous) (cyclomatic 54, cognitive 98) web_assets/controller.js/renderer/interaction.ts
- R2 · Complex function detectActiveAnchor (cyclomatic 20, cognitive 39) web_assets/controller.js/renderer/pagination.ts
- R2 · Complex function setupFullscreenElement (cyclomatic 17, cognitive 26) web_assets/controller.js/typ/typ_common.ts
- R2 · Complex function parseColorString (cyclomatic 15, cognitive 21) web_assets/controller.js/common/types.ts
- R2 · Complex function checkImageAt (cyclomatic 13, cognitive 23) web_assets/controller.js/renderer/interaction.ts
- R2 · Complex function checkElementAtHelper (cyclomatic 13, cognitive 16) web_assets/controller.js/renderer/interaction.ts
- R2 · Complex function applyCenteringStyles (cyclomatic 12, cognitive 12) web_assets/controller.js/typ/typ_common.ts
- R2 · Complex function extractFootnoteHtml (cyclomatic 12, cognitive 11) web_assets/controller.js/renderer/interaction.ts
- R4 · Test Coverage
- R6 · Tooling
- DM4 · Anemic domain model: SpineItem lib/src/features/library/domain/book_manifest.dart
- DM4 · Anemic domain model: Href lib/src/features/library/domain/book_manifest.dart
- DM4 · Anemic domain model: ManifestItem lib/src/features/library/domain/book_manifest.dart
- DM5 · Mutable value-identity entity: Href lib/src/features/library/domain/book_manifest.dart
Rebuild cost & value ~ Modeled — €8,200–€41,000
| Cost to rebuild | €8,200–€41,000 |
| Domain complexity | Standard |
| Quality factor | 0.7× (at 49% quality) |
| Size & shape | Medium · effort split not classified (source measured from disk; the effort-tier breakdown is a C#-only syntax walk) |
This codebase represents roughly ~0.2 person-years of build effort (about ~€25,000 to rebuild). Its weakest lens is Readiness at 37% — the part of that asset most exposed by the findings below.
Top priorities
Diagnosis — what's actually going on
Architecture — module dependency matrix
At a glance — Code Health
At a glance — Architecture
At a glance — Maturity
At a glance — Readiness
At a glance — Security
At a glance — Domain Modelling
Security & Compliance — OWASP Top-10 mapping
| OWASP category | Findings | Severity |
|---|---|---|
| A03:2021 — Injection | 23 | High / Critical |
| A06:2021 — Vulnerable & Outdated Components | 3 | Medium |
Roadmap
First, integrate a SAST step into CI using the Dart analyzer's security lints and semgrep to fail the build on security regressions. Next, expand test coverage by adding tests for all unreached production modules. Then, implement a manual approval gate or draft release strategy to prevent bad builds from reaching users. Finally, ensure traceability by stamping a version in your build manifest or tagging releases with semver, and add eslint to your package.json scripts to run linting in CI.
| Do this | Helps | Effort | Dimension |
|---|---|---|---|
| Add a SAST step to CI running what this repository's stack ships: the Dart analyzer's security lints plus `semgrep --config=auto` — so a security regression fails the build instead of landing. | +11.6 pts | Medium | Security & performance tooling |
| Add tests that import the unreached modules (directly or through their public entry). | +11.6 pts | Medium | Test Coverage |
| Nothing pauses a release for a human: publish as a draft release (or gate the release job on a protected tag/manual dispatch) so a bad build can be stopped before users can download it. | +11.1 pts | Medium | Deployment & Rollback |
| Stamp a version in your build/package manifest (e.g. csproj <Version>, package.json, pyproject.toml, Cargo.toml, or a VERSION file) or tag releases with semver so builds and releases are traceable. | +11.1 pts | Medium | Release Hygiene |
| Add eslint as package.json scripts and run them in CI. | +10.3 pts | Medium | Tooling |
| Move delegated behaviour onto the domain entity (or make it an immutable value object); keep invariants inside the type. | +4.0 pts | Medium | Rich vs anemic domain model |
| Resolve the 1 The Launch Screen Assets README is a thin placeholder that only explains… finding(s) in Documentation Quality — start with README.md. | +1.6 pts | Low | Documentation Quality |
| Make the identity-determining fields immutable (`final` / `_private`+getter) so the entity's value-identity invariant holds. | +3.1 pts | Medium | Encapsulated state |
File quality
| File | Score | Band | Worst signal |
|---|---|---|---|
| .github/workflows/build_release.yml | 4.4 | Mixed | Static Analysis (SAST): High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag |
| .github/workflows/flutter_ci.yml | 5.8 | Mixed | Static Analysis (SAST): High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag |
| rust/Cargo.lock | 6.3 | Mixed | OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities: Medium advisory (unmaintained): RUSTSEC-2025-0056 |
| lib/src/features/reader/data/reader_scripts.dart | 7.4 | Near-clean | Change Coupling: Change coupling: reader_scripts.dart ↔ image_viewer.dart |
| lib/src/features/library/data/parsers/epub_zip_parser.dart | 8.5 | Near-clean | God Classes: FileTooLong: parsers/epub_zip_parser.dart |
| lib/src/features/reader/presentation/image_viewer.dart | 8.5 | Near-clean | Change Coupling: Change coupling: image_viewer.dart ↔ reader_webview.dart |
| lib/src/features/reader/presentation/reader_screen.dart | 8.5 | Near-clean | Change Coupling: Change coupling: reader_screen.dart ↔ reader_webview.dart |
| ios/Runner/Assets.xcassets/LaunchImage.imageset/README.md | 9.5 | Near-clean | Documentation Quality: The Launch Screen Assets README is a thin placeholder that only explains how to replace images in the xcassets directory and mentions an Xcode project open command, with no real guidance for customizing the launch screen. |
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. 32 of 34 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); 2 documentation/naming judgement(s) are LLM-assisted and labelled advisory. Overall confidence is 0.4 — 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.
What we checked — 34 dimensions across the health lenses
- 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, 33 of 43 do; the remainder are repo-wide signals — a dimension-level measurement, not a single line.
- Is there a tool behind the number? Every score below names the method that produced it — Roslyn, git, a scanner, or (for a handful of documentation/naming dimensions) an LLM labelled sampled · advisory — not a narrative.
- Does re-running give the same result? Run it again on the same commit and the score — and this report, byte for byte — is identical. A report whose numbers move between runs is describing the run, not the code.
Tools & methods
| Method | Backs | Version | Evaluator |
|---|---|---|---|
| Roslyn static analysis | Complexity, cohesion, coupling, dead code, API surface, layering | 5.3.0 | ✓ deterministic |
| Native secret scanner | Hardcoded secrets / credentials | 1.0.0 | ✓ deterministic |
| jscpd | Code duplication | — | ✓ deterministic |
| Coverage (coverlet / dotnet-coverage) | Line & branch coverage | 10.0.302 | ✓ deterministic |
| NuGet / dotnet | Outdated, vulnerable & deprecated dependencies | 10.0.302 | ✓ deterministic |
| git / LibGit2Sharp | Churn hotspots, knowledge concentration, history | 2.43.0 · 0.31.0 | ✓ deterministic |
| gitleaks · semgrep · trivy | Secrets in history, SAST, CVEs, IaC & container, PII / GDPR | 1.86.0 · 0.69.3 | ✓ deterministic |
| LLM (sampled · advisory) | Documentation quality, ADR conformance, naming — sampled over a bounded sample; advisory, never a deterministic measurement | Local LLM | ◐ LLM · sampled · advisory |
Run transparency — what happened this run
- D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities — scanner not present in this environment — The backing tool was not installed where this scan ran, so this dimension was not scored. Install the tool (or run in the hosted environment, where it is always present) for a graded result.
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
- 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 (jscpd) — 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.
- 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").
- 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.
- 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.
- 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").
- D33 JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities: JS/npm CVE matching reads package manifests and lockfiles — risk from how a dependency is used, and advisories not yet published, fall outside this scan.
- 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.
- AX9 CQS / query purity: Handlers are found by interface/name convention — a query handler using neither is not seen. Mutation is a resolved write/publish invocation (SaveChanges/repository/bus), so a write hidden behind a hand-rolled wrapper, reflection, or a string-keyed service locator resolves to a non-persistence type and isn't flagged; it detects that a query writes state, not whether the write is a legitimate read-side cache update. Clean means "no resolved write/publish in a query body", not a proof of CQS purity.
- DM4 Rich vs anemic domain model: Behaviour is detected as state mutation inside a method body — a method that enforces an invariant by validating-and-throwing without mutating reads as a query, and mutation delegated through an interface the scan can't resolve isn't credited; entities with zero public properties still drop out of the population. It detects that state changes, not whether the rule is correct.
- DM6 Domain ↔ infrastructure boundary: Infrastructure reached through a hand-rolled wrapper, a domain-named facade, reflection, or a string-keyed service locator resolves to a non-infra type and isn't seen; the body scan is symbol resolution over syntax, not full dataflow. A clean result means "no resolved infra reference in a domain body", not a proof of 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.
- P4 Deployment & Rollback: Approval/branch-protection rules live in repository settings the scan cannot see — only their in-repo evidence (config files, workflows) is checked, so a control enforced purely in the host's settings reads as "not evidenced".
- P6 Release Hygiene: Rollback/observability controls are inferred from repo artefacts (pipelines, dashboards-as-code) — controls configured in external tooling, with no in-repo trace, cannot be credited.
The LLM boundary
Dimensions
D3 · God Classes
1 god class(es) detected.
D4 · Code Duplication
0 duplicated block group(s) detected.
D13 · Secret Scanning
Secret scan ran and found no leaked secrets.
D19 · Documentation Quality
Lumina has a strong README that is well written for an Alpha project: it shows the logo, links to Flutter/License/Platform badges, notes the early-stage Alpha warning, lists four key features with emoji, and includes screenshots of each screen plus a full table-of-contents-style outline (Alpha, Key Features, Screenshots, Quick Start, Developer Guide, Requirements, Build from Source, Release Version, Roadmap, Acknowledgements). The Rust glue README is ignored as build glue. However the project has no architecture or design documentation and only one non-README file (the Cargokit copy-in) explains how to run a sample application.
What to do
- Resolve the 1 The Launch Screen Assets README is a thin placeholder that only explains… finding(s) in Documentation Quality — start with README.md. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
D21 · Naming Consistency
0 naming inconsistencies across 0 sampled symbols.
D28 · Secrets (history)
gitleaks scanned the full history AND the current working tree and found no secrets.
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)
23 finding(s): 0 critical, 23 high, 0 medium, 0 low.
What to do
- Resolve the 23 High finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with build_release.yml (21), flutter_ci.yml (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (23 issue-level).
D33 · JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities
No known-vulnerable JS/npm dependencies.
D34 · Knowledge Freshness
Every significant source file has living knowledge — recently and meaningfully worked.
D35 · Change Coupling
Strongest change-coupling: reader_scripts.dart↔image_viewer.dart 70%; image_viewer.dart↔reader_webview.dart 60%; reader_screen.dart↔reader_webview.dart 58%
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing
1/4 supply-chain integrity signals present (provenance, signing, SBOM, pinned actions).
What to do
- Resolve the 1 Unpinned build actions finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
- Resolve the 1 PR-triggered workflow without a permissions block finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
- Resolve the 1 No build provenance finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
D38 · OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities
3 finding(s): 0 critical, 0 high, 3 medium, 0 low.
Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions
AX9 · CQS / query purity
DM4 · Rich vs anemic domain model
- `SpineItem` is a data-only domain entity with public mutable state and no invariant-enforcing behaviour of its own, while the repo holds the logic in a foreign service/manager/use-case — the anemic domain model. Move the behaviour onto the entity so it enforces its own invariants (or make it an immutable `@freezed` value object) rather than being driven from outside. — book_manifest.dart:48
- `Href` is a data-only domain entity with public mutable state and no invariant-enforcing behaviour of its own, while the repo holds the logic in a foreign service/manager/use-case — the anemic domain model. Move the behaviour onto the entity so it enforces its own invariants (or make it an immutable `@freezed` value object) rather than being driven from outside. — book_manifest.dart:80
- `ManifestItem` is a data-only domain entity with public mutable state and no invariant-enforcing behaviour of its own, while the repo holds the logic in a foreign service/manager/use-case — the anemic domain model. Move the behaviour onto the entity so it enforces its own invariants (or make it an immutable `@freezed` value object) rather than being driven from outside. — book_manifest.dart:105
What to do
- Move delegated behaviour onto the domain entity (or make it an immutable value object); keep invariants inside the type.
DM5 · Encapsulated state
- `Href` derives its equality/identity from its own fields (Equatable / an overridden `hashCode`/`==`), so those fields must stay immutable once the object exists — yet it exposes freely externally-mutable fields (a non-`final` `var`, no `_private`+getter). Mutating a hashed field silently changes the entity's identity and breaks any hash-keyed collection or equality check. Make the identity-bearing fields immutable (`final`, or `_private` with a getter and construction-time initialisation), or model it as an immutable `@freezed` value. — book_manifest.dart:80
What to do
- Make the identity-determining fields immutable (`final` / `_private`+getter) so the entity's value-identity invariant holds.
DM6 · Domain ↔ infrastructure boundary
M1 · Documentation (README)
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 5 of 5 project(s) that lack one — worth up to 2 pts.
M2 · Architecture documentation
- No Architecture Decision Records found — no conventional ADR directory, no `NNNN-title.md` documents and nothing ADR-shaped by content. Design rationale recorded elsewhere (a design-notes tree, a mailing list, pull-request discussion) is not visible to this check and is not re-findable per decision, so a future maintainer cannot ask why one choice was made and get an answer.
- No C4/PlantUML/Mermaid diagram or architecture.md — the high-level shape isn't documented.
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 `NNNN-title.md` names is the most discoverable form).
- Add a C4 context/container diagram (Structurizr, PlantUML or Mermaid) or an architecture.md overview.
M3 · Folder & project structure
M4 · Documentation accuracy
P1 · CI/CD gates
P3 · Security & performance tooling
- No static application security testing detected. For this repository's stack, add the Dart analyzer's security lints plus `semgrep --config=auto` as a CI step.
What to do
- Add a SAST step to CI running what this repository's stack ships: the Dart analyzer's security lints plus `semgrep --config=auto` — 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.
P4 · Deployment & Rollback
What to do
- Nothing pauses a release for a human: publish as a draft release (or gate the release job on a protected tag/manual dispatch) so a bad build can be stopped before users can download it.
P6 · Release Hygiene
What to do
- Stamp a version in your build/package manifest (e.g. csproj <Version>, package.json, pyproject.toml, Cargo.toml, or a VERSION file) or tag releases with semver so builds and releases are traceable.
R1 · Type Safety
R10 · Code Duplication
- web_assets/controller.js/renderer/renderer.ts:279 · web_assets/controller.js/renderer/renderer.ts:320 — 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. — renderer.ts:279
- web_assets/controller.js/renderer/interaction.ts:174 · web_assets/controller.js/renderer/interaction.ts:197 — all 2 copies are in the same file, 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. — interaction.ts:174
- web_assets/controller.js/renderer/frame_manager.ts:65 · web_assets/controller.js/renderer/frame_manager.ts:91 — 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. — frame_manager.ts:65
- web_assets/controller.js/renderer/interaction.ts:211 · web_assets/controller.js/renderer/interaction.ts:267 — all 2 copies are in the same file, 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. — interaction.ts:211
- web_assets/controller.js/typ/typ_common.ts:87 · web_assets/controller.js/typ/typ_common.ts:128 — all 2 copies are in the same file, 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. — typ_common.ts:87
- web_assets/controller.js/renderer/renderer.ts:120 · web_assets/controller.js/renderer/renderer.ts:161 — all 2 copies are in the same file, 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. — renderer.ts:120
- web_assets/controller.js/renderer/renderer.ts:138 · web_assets/controller.js/renderer/renderer.ts:156 — all 2 copies are in the same file, 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. — renderer.ts:138
- web_assets/controller.js/renderer/theme_manager.ts:60 · web_assets/controller.js/renderer/theme_manager.ts:66 · web_assets/controller.js/renderer/theme_manager.ts:72 — all 3 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited. — theme_manager.ts:60
What to do
- Extract the duplicated blocks into shared functions/components.
R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity
- Branch-heavy code is where defects cluster — extract decisions into smaller functions. (×8) — interaction.ts:21, pagination.ts:82, typ_common.ts:33, …
What to do
- Break down the listed branch-heavy functions; aim P95 cyclomatic ≤ 5.
R3 · Large Files
R4 · Test Coverage
- 0% of 15 production file(s) reachable from 0 test file(s) via the import graph
What to do
- Add tests that import the unreached modules (directly or through their public entry).
R5 · Dependency Freshness
R6 · Tooling
- test ✓ · lint ✗ · typecheck ✓
What to do
- Add eslint as package.json scripts and run them in CI.
R7 · Dead Code
R8 · Dependency Hygiene
R9 · Circular Imports
Reference — by lens
| Lens | Score | Rating | Impact |
|---|---|---|---|
| Code Health | 72% | Adequate — gated by R2 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Architecture | 98% | Exemplary | Strongest area. |
| Maturity | 59% | Adequate — gated by M2 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Readiness | 37% | Weak — gated by R4, P3 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Security | 64% | Adequate — gated by D29, D36 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Domain Modelling | 53% | Adequate — gated by DM4 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
Not included — 79 check(s) not relevant to this codebase
- AC1 Text alternatives — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC2 Forms & labels — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC3 Page structure — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC4 Keyboard semantics — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC5 ARIA correctness — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC6 Visual & motion safety — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC7 A11y enforcement — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AX1 Captive dependencies — no DI registrations detected
- AX10 Code composition — not assessed — code composition is computed by ROLE over a document set 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 — no singleton implementations detected
- AX3 Project dependency cycles — not assessed — project cycles and dependency direction are computed over a project-reference graph 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
- AX4 Dependency direction — not assessed — project cycles and dependency direction are computed over a project-reference graph 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
- AX8 Test isolation — not assessed — test isolation is computed from a project graph (which projects are test projects, and what they reference) 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
- 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.
- 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.
- D1 Cyclomatic Complexity — Most of this repository's production source (.dart, .kt, .rs, .swift, .ts) had no cyclomatic complexity computed for it, so cyclomatic complexity was not measured — whatever else this pass did read is not this repository's complexity. Not scored: no method bodies were exposed for those file kinds by any language model this pass could load. This is a gap in the analysis run, not a finding about this repository.
- D10 Test Quality — ~1137 lines of test source are present (.swift, .dart) but the test-quality collector reads C# only, so skipped/assertion-free tests couldn't be counted. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository.
- D11 Test Reliability — Test reliability not included
- D12 Dependency Hygiene — Dependency hygiene not measured — dependency manifest found but not parsed for hygiene
- D14 License Compliance — Not scored — this repository's package manifest is not parsed for licence data yet. A gap in the analyzer's language coverage, NOT a finding that the repository's licenses are compliant (a Dart pubspec.yaml, a Cargo manifest and a Gradle version catalogue), which this pass does not parse yet — so this dimension asserts nothing about this repository's licensing in either direction.
- D15 Churn × Complexity Hotspots — complexity unreadable for .dart, .kt, .rs, .swift — churn × complexity hotspots could not be measured
- D16 Bus Factor — single-maintainer — knowledge-concentration (bus factor) risk
- D17 Explicit Debt — explicit-debt markers are read through a C# workspace today, so they were not read for this repository's language — this asserts nothing about how many markers the code carries. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
- 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.
- D2 Cognitive Complexity — Most of this repository's production source (.dart, .kt, .rs, .swift, .ts) had no cognitive complexity computed for it, so cognitive complexity was not measured — whatever else this pass did read is not this repository's complexity. Not scored: no method bodies were exposed for those file kinds by any language model this pass could load. This is a gap in the analysis run, not a finding about this repository.
- D20 ADR Quality — N/A — ADRs are expected on deployable products with a user-facing host, not consumed libraries; no ADR log is required here.
- D22 Internal API Consistency — No exposed public API
- D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — Production source is present (.dart, .kt, .rs, .swift, .ts) but bounded contexts are resolved over the C#/VB project set, which exposed none, so context scope could not be assessed. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer, not a verdict about this repository. Declaring the codebase's bounded contexts (≥2) would let cross-boundary type coupling be assessed — see the recommendation on this dimension for where. 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
- D26 Project Cohesion — Project cohesion is assessed over the .NET project set; this target exposed no projects, so project size and spread could not be assessed. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer's reach, not a verdict about this repository.
- D27 Navigability — No calls could be sampled, so navigability was not assessed — tracing effort is measured over resolved call sites and this target exposed none. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer's reach, not a verdict about this repository.
- D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities — Not scored — no dependency manifest in a supported ecosystem was read for this repository. A gap in the analyzer's language coverage, NOT a finding that the repository is free of vulnerable dependencies (a Dart pubspec.yaml, a Cargo manifest and a Gradle version catalogue — not scanned yet) — where an OSV-supported manifest exists, dependency vulnerabilities for this repository are reported under D38 instead.
- D31 IaC & Container Security — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation); nothing to scan.
- D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — No PII/GDPR-handling patterns detected (p/gdpr ruleset) — no data-compliance surface to assess.
- 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.
- D5 Coupling — Inter-project coupling could not be assessed — no analyzable project graph was found for this repository. Not scored: a gap in the analyzer's reach, not a verdict about this repository. (Coupling here is Martin afferent/efferent/instability plus reference cycles across a project-reference graph, read today from .NET project files; other ecosystems' module graphs are not read yet.)
- D6 Cohesion (LCOM4) — Cohesion (LCOM4) is measured over a C#/VB class graph, and this repository's production source is .dart, .kt, .rs, .swift, .ts, which this pass does not read — so no class could be assessed. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository.
- D7 Architectural Integrity — no checkable ADRs, and no project-reference graph for the cycle pass to read — so this dimension makes no claim about dependency cycles in either direction (where this repository's language has an import-cycle lens, cycles are reported there). Architectural integrity not assessed
- D8 Code Coverage — Coverage not included — suite not readable by the collector
- D9 Test Distribution — Test source is present (.swift, .dart) but the test-pyramid classifier reads C# only, so its unit/integration/BDD/E2E split couldn't be counted. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository.
- DM1 Aggregate boundaries — not scored for Dart: aggregate-vs-value-object classification cannot be told apart in source (every class-holding-class reads alike), and a child COLLECTION (legitimate membership) vs a single embedded aggregate is indistinguishable — reported as guidance rather than measured
- DM2 Strongly-typed ids — no in-repo typed-id idiom — primitive-obsession recorded as advisory DM8, DM2 not gated
- DM3 Integration-event coupling — not scored for Dart: a cross-package domain leak cannot be told apart in source from a legitimate shared-kernel package, and most repositories ship a single package — reported as guidance rather than measured
- DM7 Repository granularity — not scored for Dart: 'a repository per CHILD entity' needs the aggregate-root structure, which is not source-resolvable — reported as guidance rather than measured
- 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
- ED2 Event/command shape — not scored — deciding whether a command has more than one competing handler requires resolving the call graph, which this analysis does not build from source alone for this language. Reported as guidance rather than measured
- ED2 Event/command shape — not scored — deciding whether a command has more than one competing handler requires resolving the call graph, and a call made through an inferred or generic receiver has no resolvable owner in the source. Reported as guidance rather than measured
- ED5 Idempotency — no mutating command handlers or message consumers detected — idempotency check not applicable
- ES1 Event Sourcing — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this check looks for
- GD1 Unfinished & placeholder code — no source files
- 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, but the checks for excluded tests, skipped tests and sleep-based synchronisation currently recognise only some ecosystems' test-runner idioms, so on a repository built with another stack the zeros below mean 'not checked', not 'clean'.
- P2 Observability — Observability was not assessed: this check reads a source model that does not carry this repository's product — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of a logging idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repo lacks structured logging (it may log through its own ecosystem's logger). This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository.
- P5 DR & Backup — not evidenced — repo shows no backup/RTO/RPO controls; absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control
- P7 Outbound HTTP resilience — not measured — the application kind could not be determined for this repo
- P8 Schema migrations — not assessed — schema-migration practice is read from 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
- P9 Domain vs controller coverage — no coverage report found on disk — produce a coverage report in a standard format (lcov — `flutter test --coverage` (or `dart test --coverage=coverage` then `dart run coverage:format_coverage --lcov`)) into the repo working tree before the scan — a CI step is the usual place, since the artefact is commonly gitignored, or wire coverage collection into CI, to enable this cross-layer check
- PF1 Benchmark discipline — Performance was not assessed: this lens reads a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this lens does not yet model or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository — in particular it is NOT a statement that this repo is unpackaged or performance-careless.
- PF2 Allocation hygiene — Performance was not assessed: this lens reads a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this lens does not yet model or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository — in particular it is NOT a statement that this repo is unpackaged or performance-careless.
- PF3 Async & latency hygiene — Performance was not assessed: this lens reads a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this lens does not yet model or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository — in particular it is NOT a statement that this repo is unpackaged or performance-careless.
- R11 Import Boundaries — No recognizable feature-sliced/layered src layout — boundary rules not applicable.
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
Appendix A — Findings (grouped)
Issue — 23 finding(s)
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/build_release.yml:46
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/build_release.yml:49
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/build_release.yml:56
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/build_release.yml:62
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/build_release.yml:67
- High: run-shell-injection .github/workflows/build_release.yml:89
- High: run-shell-injection .github/workflows/build_release.yml:100
- High: run-shell-injection .github/workflows/build_release.yml:111
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/build_release.yml:128
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/build_release.yml:139
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/build_release.yml:142
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/build_release.yml:148
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/build_release.yml:153
- High: run-shell-injection .github/workflows/build_release.yml:164
- High: run-shell-injection .github/workflows/build_release.yml:179
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/build_release.yml:192
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/build_release.yml:204
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/build_release.yml:207
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/build_release.yml:213
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/build_release.yml:220
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/build_release.yml:225
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/flutter_ci.yml:16
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/flutter_ci.yml:19
Warning — 12 finding(s)
- Change coupling: reader_scripts.dart ↔ image_viewer.dart lib/src/features/reader/data/reader_scripts.dart
- Change coupling: image_viewer.dart ↔ reader_webview.dart lib/src/features/reader/presentation/image_viewer.dart
- Change coupling: reader_screen.dart ↔ reader_webview.dart lib/src/features/reader/presentation/reader_screen.dart
- Change coupling: reader_scripts.dart ↔ reader_screen.dart lib/src/features/reader/data/reader_scripts.dart
- Change coupling: reader_scripts.dart ↔ toc_drawer.dart lib/src/features/reader/data/reader_scripts.dart
- Medium advisory (unsound): RUSTSEC-2026-0190 rust/Cargo.lock
- Medium advisory (unsound): RUSTSEC-2025-0023 rust/Cargo.lock
- single-maintainer — knowledge-concentration (bus factor) risk
- FileTooLong: parsers/epub_zip_parser.dart lib/src/features/library/data/parsers/epub_zip_parser.dart:0
- Unpinned build actions
- PR-triggered workflow without a permissions block
- Medium advisory (unmaintained): RUSTSEC-2025-0056 rust/Cargo.lock
Recommendation — 6 finding(s)
- Test reliability not included
- complexity unreadable for .dart, .kt, .rs, .swift — churn × complexity hotspots could not be measured
- The Launch Screen Assets README is a thin placeholder that only explains how to replace images in the xcassets directory and mentions an Xcode project open command, with no real guidance for customizing the launch screen. ios/Runner/Assets.xcassets/LaunchImage.imageset/README.md
- No build provenance
- No SBOM
- Coverage not included — suite not readable by the collector
Info — 2 finding(s)
- Dependency hygiene not measured — dependency manifest found but not parsed for hygiene
- No exposed public API
Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail
| Dimension | Tool | Version | Command | Findings | Raw output |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| D28 · Secrets (history) | gitleaks | — | gitleaks detect --no-banner --report-format json --report-path /dev/stdout --exit-code 0 --source . | 0 | artifacts/raw/gitleaks-history.json |
| D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) | semgrep | — | semgrep --config /opt/semgrep-rules/security-audit.yml --config /opt/semgrep-rules/owasp-top-ten.yml --json --quiet --timeout 0 --metrics off . | 23 | artifacts/raw/semgrep.json |
| D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities | none (no readable dependency manifest) | — | none (no readable dependency manifest): not present in this environment | 0 | — |
| D31 · IaC & Container Security | trivy | — | trivy: not applicable — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation); nothing to scan. | 0 | — |
| D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) | semgrep | — | semgrep: not applicable — No PII/GDPR-handling patterns detected (p/gdpr ruleset) — no data-compliance surface to assess. | 0 | — |
| D33 · JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities | trivy | — | trivy fs --scanners vuln --format json --quiet --severity CRITICAL,HIGH,MEDIUM,LOW --skip-dirs **/bin/** --skip-dirs **/obj/** . --skip-db-update | 0 | — |
| D37 · Vulnerability-disclosure Policy | disclosure | — | disclosure: not applicable — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed. | 0 | — |
| D38 · OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities | osv-scanner | — | osv-scanner --format json --recursive . | 3 | artifacts/raw/osv-scanner.json |
| D40 · Network Egress Confinement | runtime-hardening | — | runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here. | 0 | — |
| D41 · Kernel & Syscall Confinement | runtime-hardening | — | runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here. | 0 | — |
| D42 · Runtime Threat Enforcement | runtime-hardening | — | runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here. | 0 | — |