Public report — Parabolic, published 5 Aug 2026. Concrete security findings (CVE IDs, secret matches, dependency versions) are hidden in this version; ask the repo owner for the full report.
Watchdog 05-08-2026 @ 16:33 UTC Public
Code Health Audit

NickvisionApps/Parabolic

35% Weak
CriticalWeakAdequateStrongExemplary
middle

Small · 10,404 LoC · 3 projects · rebuild ~0.4 person-years · weakest lens: Readiness (22%)

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

55/58dimensions tool-verifieddeterministic · confidence 1.0 · 3 LLM-assisted, advisory
73findings with an exact file:lineof 93 — the remainder are repo-wide signals (a dimension-level measurement, not a single line); open any file:line and verify
58/107dimensions across the health lenses10404 LoC · 3 projects — wide & deep

Executive summary

Read through the Production lens — the standard calibration. *Green* means good enough to run in production. The score is absolute and comparable across repos.

NickvisionApps/Parabolic carries serious risk (35%). Several issues below can materially affect reliability, security, or the cost of change and warrant near-term attention.

The area that most needs attention is Readiness (22%) — operating, monitoring and recovering the system safely is harder. Code Health (36%) is the next concern — changes there are slower and more error-prone.

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); `AddStandardResilienceHandler()` (or Polly policies) to your… (Outbound HTTP resilience).

For scale: Small (~10,404 production lines); rebuilding it from scratch would take roughly ~0.4 person-years (~1 engineer). Approximate, ±~30%.

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.
Readiness 22% · 46% weightCode Health 36% · 25% weightMaturity 47% · 14% weightSecurity 56% · 8% weightPerformance 67% · 4% weightArchitecture 77% · 2% weight

Raise Readiness 22 → 70 (the Healthy floor) ⇒ headline 35 → ~46.

Code composition — where the lines go
Business logic 51%Plumbing 49%
New since the last scan (5+)

5 finding(s) are new versus the previous scan (2026-08-01) — surfaced by this scheduled scan itself, no pull request required.

  • D35 · Change coupling: IDownloadService.cs ↔ RecoveryService.cs Nickvision.Parabolic.Shared/Services/IDownloadService.cs
  • R10 · Duplicated block (13 lines × 2 locations) extension/chrome/background.js
  • R10 · Duplicated block (12 lines × 2 locations) extension/chrome/utils.js
  • R10 · Duplicated block (7 lines × 2 locations) extension/chrome/options.js
  • R4 · Test Coverage

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 — €21,000–€110,000
Cost to rebuild€21,000–€110,000 (0.2–0.7 person-years (342–1,123 h), ~1 engineer)
Domain complexityStandard — harder problems cost more per line
Quality factor0.7× (at 35% quality) — the last 20% of quality is most of the work
Size & shapeSmall · 25% boilerplate · 24% straight-line · 51% branching logic

This codebase represents roughly ~0.4 person-years of build effort (about ~€64,000 to rebuild). Its weakest lens is Readiness at 22% — the part of that asset most exposed by the findings below.

How we model this: boilerplate at a scaffolding rate + logic × domain Standard (×1.2) — service/app, high decision density × a 0.7× quality factor, at €60–95/h; indicative, ±~30%. 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 automated tests finding(s) in Code Coverage.
+11.7 pts · Low effort · Code Coverage
2
Resolve the 1 No tests found finding(s) in Test Distribution.
+11.7 pts · Low effort · Test Distribution
3
Add a SAST step to CI running what this repository's stack ships: CodeQL's csharp pack (it analyses VB.NET too), or a security analyzer package — or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language — so a security regression fails the build instead of landing.
+12.5 pts · Medium effort · Security & performance tooling

Diagnosis — what's actually going on

Value concentrated against a weak lens · High · Value at risk
This is a Small asset (~0.4 person-years to rebuild), and its weakest lens is Readiness at 22%. The operational and business risk on an asset this size concentrates there — that's where remediation buys the most protection.
Evidence: valuation: Small, ~0.4 person-years rebuild (10,404 LoC) · weakest lens: Readiness 22%
→ Direct remediation budget at Readiness 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: Add a SAST step to CI running what this repository's stack ships: CodeQL's csharp pack (it analyses VB.NET too), or a security analyzer package — or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language — so a security regression fails the build instead of landing. The rest can wait behind it.
Evidence: priority ranking: top of 5 ranked by impact/effort
→ Add a SAST step to CI running what this repository's stack ships: CodeQL's csharp pack (it analyses VB.NET too), or a security analyzer package — or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language — so a security regression fails the build instead of landing.

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 Nickvision.Parabolic.GNOME GNOME Nickvision.Parabolic.Shared Shared Nickvision.Parabolic.GNOME->Nickvision.Parabolic.Shared Nickvision.Parabolic.WinUI WinUI Nickvision.Parabolic.WinUI->Nickvision.Parabolic.Shared

Architecture — module dependency matrix

19 modules, 27 dependencies — 1 dependency cycle, shown as the red cell(s) above the diagonal. 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.)

…dowsAppRuntime.Common…ndockedRegFreeWinRTCS…ision.Parabolic.GNOME…rabolic.GNOME.Helpers…ision.Parabolic.WinUI…c_WinUIGenericHelpers…ic_WinUIVtableClasses…plugins.postprocessor…postprocessor.srt_fix…bolic.Shared.Services…rabolic.Shared.Models…ic.Shared.Controllers…rabolic.Shared.Events…abolic.Shared.Helpers…rabolic.WinUI.Helpers…abolic.GNOME.Controls…abolic.WinUI.Controls…Parabolic.GNOME.Views…Parabolic.WinUI.Views…dowsAppRuntime.Common1…ndockedRegFreeWinRTCS2…ision.Parabolic.GNOME3…rabolic.GNOME.Helpers4…ision.Parabolic.WinUI5…c_WinUIGenericHelpers6…ic_WinUIVtableClasses7…plugins.postprocessor8…postprocessor.srt_fix9…bolic.Shared.Services10…rabolic.Shared.Models11…ic.Shared.Controllers12…rabolic.Shared.Events13…abolic.Shared.Helpers14…rabolic.WinUI.Helpers15…abolic.GNOME.Controls16…abolic.WinUI.Controls17…Parabolic.GNOME.Views18…Parabolic.WinUI.Views191618129213286113113212541115421

At a glance — Code Health · 36% · Weak · gated by R1, X4

At a glance — Architecture · 77% · Adequate · gated by AX2

At a glance — Maturity · 47% · Weak · gated by D16, M2

At a glance — Readiness · 22% · Critical · gated by D8, D9, R4, P3, P7

At a glance — Security · 56% · Adequate · gated by D29

At a glance — Performance · 67% · Adequate

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 — Injection12High / Critical

Roadmap

First, integrate a static analysis tool like CodeQL or Semgrep into the CI pipeline to fail the build on security regressions. Next, expand test coverage by adding tests for all unreached production modules to ensure comprehensive validation. Then, implement standard resilience handlers or Polly policies for all HttpClient registrations to prevent flaky dependencies from taking down the application. Finally, address the remaining gaps in code coverage and test distribution to ensure all components are properly tested.

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

Do thisHelpsEffortDimension
Resolve the 1 No automated tests finding(s) in Code Coverage.+11.7 ptsLowCode Coverage
Resolve the 1 No tests found finding(s) in Test Distribution.+11.7 ptsLowTest Distribution
Add a SAST step to CI running what this repository's stack ships: CodeQL's csharp pack (it analyses VB.NET too), or a security analyzer package — or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language — so a security regression fails the build instead of landing.+12.5 ptsMediumSecurity & performance tooling
Add tests that import the unreached modules (directly or through their public entry).+12.5 ptsMediumTest Coverage
Add `AddStandardResilienceHandler()` (or Polly policies) to your HttpClient registrations so a flaky dependency can't take the app down.+12.3 ptsMediumOutbound HTTP resilience
Keep a changelog (e.g. Keep-a-Changelog) recording what shipped in each release.+11.7 ptsMediumRelease Hygiene
Extend structured logging across the projects you operate, and give the library ones a diagnostics seam instead — an `EventSource`/`ActivitySource` the host can subscribe to, or an optional logger on your options object — rather than taking a logging dependency on your consumers' behalf.+11.1 ptsMediumObservability
Resolve the 8 EmptyCatchBlock finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with AddDownloadDialog.cs (6), PreferencesDialog.cs, Download.cs.+4.2 ptsLowExplicit Debt

File quality

Per-file score 0–10 — a quality signature. Of 25 files carrying findings, judged against the Production bar: 4% slop · 64% mixed · 32% near-clean.

FileScoreBandWorst signal
Nickvision.Parabolic.GNOME/Views/AddDownloadDialog.cs2.2SlopExplicit Debt: EmptyCatchBlock
.github/workflows/windows.yml4.6MixedStatic Analysis (SAST): High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag
Nickvision.Parabolic.Shared/Models/Download.cs4.8MixedExplicit Debt: EmptyCatchBlock
Nickvision.Parabolic.Shared/Controllers/MainWindowController.cs4.9MixedCyclomatic Complexity: MainWindowController.CheckForUpdatesAsync (cyclomatic 16)
.github/workflows/macos.yml5.1MixedStatic Analysis (SAST): High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag
.github/workflows/flatpak.yml5.8MixedStatic Analysis (SAST): High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag
.github/workflows/spelling.yml5.8MixedStatic Analysis (SAST): High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag
Nickvision.Parabolic.Shared/Services/DownloadService.cs6.3MixedCode Duplication: Duplicated block (8 lines × 2)
Nickvision.Parabolic.WinUI/Views/AddDownloadDialog.xaml.cs7.0MixedCognitive Complexity: AddDownloadDialog.DiscoverMediaAsync (cognitive 16)
Nickvision.Parabolic.Shared/Models/Format.cs7.1MixedCyclomatic Complexity: Format.Format.ctor (cyclomatic 53)
Nickvision.Parabolic.Shared/Controllers/AddDownloadDialogController.cs7.2MixedCyclomatic Complexity: AddDownloadDialogController.DiscoverAsync (cyclomatic 29)
Nickvision.Parabolic.WinUI/Views/MainWindow.xaml.cs7.3MixedCyclomatic Complexity: MainWindow.UpdateDownloadsList (cyclomatic 17)
Nickvision.Parabolic.Shared/Services/DiscoveryService.cs7.4MixedCyclomatic Complexity: DiscoveryService.GetForUrlAsync (cyclomatic 17)
Nickvision.Parabolic.GNOME/Views/PreferencesDialog.cs7.6MixedExplicit Debt: EmptyCatchBlock
Nickvision.Parabolic.Shared/Services/YtdlpExecutableService.cs7.8MixedCyclomatic Complexity: YtdlpExecutableService.GetDownloadProcess (cyclomatic 128)
Nickvision.Parabolic.Shared/Models/Media.cs7.8MixedCyclomatic Complexity: Media.Media.ctor (cyclomatic 102)
Nickvision.Parabolic.Shared/Services/HistoryService.cs7.8MixedChange Coupling: Change coupling: HistoryService.cs ↔ RecoveryService.cs
Nickvision.Parabolic.WinUI/Views/KeyringDialog.xaml.cs8.5Near-cleanCognitive Complexity: KeyringDialog.ShowAsync (cognitive 33)
Nickvision.Parabolic.Shared/Models/DiscoveryResult.cs8.5Near-cleanCognitive Complexity: DiscoveryResult.DiscoveryResult.ctor (cognitive 22)
Nickvision.Parabolic.WinUI/Views/SettingsPage.xaml.cs8.5Near-cleanCode Duplication: Duplicated block (19 lines × 2)

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. 55 of 58 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); 3 documentation/naming judgement(s) are LLM-assisted and labelled advisory. Overall confidence is 0.6 — 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 — 58 dimensions across the health lenses
D1D2D3D4D5D6D8D9D12D13D14D15D16D17D18D19D20D21D24D26D27D28D29D34D35AX1AX10AX2AX3AX4AX5AX6GD1IC1M1M2M3M4P1P2P3P6P7PF1PF2PF3R1R10R2R3R4R7R9X1X2X3X4X5

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, 73 of 93 do; the remainder are repo-wide signals — a dimension-level measurement, not a single line. (Every path in this report is repo-relative by construction: paths are normalized at the producer and the report is rejected if any rooted path leaks through.)
  2. Is there a tool behind the number? Every score below names the method that produced it — Roslyn, git, a scanner, or (for a handful of documentation/naming dimensions) an LLM labelled sampled · advisory — not a narrative.
  3. Does re-running give the same result? Run it again on the same commit and the score — and this report, byte for byte — is identical. A report whose numbers move between runs is describing the run, not the code.

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

Tools & methods

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

MethodBacksVersionEvaluator
Roslyn static analysisComplexity, cohesion, coupling, dead code, API surface, layering5.3.0✓ deterministic
Native secret scannerHardcoded secrets / credentials1.0.0✓ deterministic
jscpdCode duplication✓ deterministic
Coverage (coverlet / dotnet-coverage)Line & branch coverage10.0.302✓ deterministic
NuGet / dotnetOutdated, vulnerable & deprecated dependencies10.0.302✓ 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 019fd2c5-896c-7322-b3e9-c35e8a0b9b58.

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

A clean run — every tool resolved and ran, and every applicable dimension was measured at full confidence. No scanner was unavailable, no analysis timed out or crashed, and nothing fell back to a degraded estimate.

When something does degrade — a missing scanner, a shallow clone, an LLM hiccup — it is named here explicitly and its exact cause recorded in diagnostics.md, never absorbed silently into the score.

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 (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.
  • 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.
  • D8 Code Coverage: Coverage is measured by building and running the test suite inside Watchdog's isolated image — the target repo is never modified, and nothing on your systems runs. So coverage exists only when the suite builds and runs within the inline time budget; one that needs external services, can't build, or exceeds the budget yields no coverage (D8 then degrades to not-measured, not a low score). Line coverage also says nothing about assertion quality.
  • 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.
  • 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").
  • D14 License Compliance: License compatibility is checked against declared package metadata and a policy — mislabelled or missing license metadata, and obligations that depend on how you distribute, are not resolved here.
  • D15 Churn × Complexity Hotspots: Churn hotspots come from git history — a freshly imported or squashed repository has no churn signal, and recent rewrites can mask a historically risky file.
  • D16 Bus Factor: Bus-factor is a time-decayed model of commit attribution (who has recently, repeatedly worked a file), not comprehension — pairing, review and reading-without-committing spread knowledge it can't see; bot commits and shared accounts still distort it.
  • D17 Explicit Debt: Acknowledged-debt signals (TODO/FIXME, suppressions, dead code) are textual — undocumented debt that nobody marked, and debt that lives in design rather than annotations, is invisible. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, generated stubs) is excluded — it is never the team's dead code to delete.
  • D18 Solution Shape: Build integrity reflects whether the solution compiled in this environment — a build that needs a private feed, a specific SDK, or a generated file absent from the repo can read as broken when it is merely unreproducible here.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • D24 Comment Value: Comment value (WHY vs WHAT) is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it is advisory and cannot weigh a comment against the precise code change it was written to explain.
  • 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.
  • D27 Navigability: Indirection/navigability is structural — it measures hops to follow a call, not whether that indirection buys real flexibility or just ceremony.
  • D28 Secrets (history): Secret-history scanning sweeps the git log for known patterns — a secret that predates the available history, or never matched a signature, is not found (clean means "nothing matched in the history we can see").
  • D29 Static Analysis (SAST): SAST findings are pattern-based (semgrep) — it finds classes of bug it has rules for; logic flaws, auth/authorization gaps and issues needing runtime context are out of reach (and clean means "no rule matched").
  • D34 Knowledge Freshness: Freshness is decayed commit RECENCY, not comprehension — code read often but rarely committed reads as orphaned, and stable code that genuinely needs no changes is penalised the same as forgotten code; bot/squash commits distort it like the bus factor.
  • D35 Change Coupling: Change coupling is co-change in COMMITS — files split across separate commits, or coupled only through a shared config/build step, read as uncoupled, and a sweeping commit (rename/format) is excluded so it doesn't couple everything. It shows that files change together, not WHY: a high coupling can be a healthy cohesive pair as readily as a hidden leak.
  • AX10 Code composition: Role is inferred from namespace/folder convention, not semantics — a domain concept living in a folder named "Services" reads as application, and the split is lines-of-code, not business value. The business-logic-share score is a SOFT, FLOORED signal: it contributes to the Architecture lens but is floored at the Critical gate, so an infrastructure-heavy design (a gateway, an ETL, a driver) is legitimately low without being nuked to zero.
  • M4 Documentation accuracy: Onboarding quality is an LLM read of the docs/setup present — it cannot run the onboarding or measure how long a real new joiner takes; the verdict is sampled and advisory.
  • P6 Release Hygiene: Rollback/observability controls are inferred from repo artefacts (pipelines, dashboards-as-code) — controls configured in external tooling, with no in-repo trace, cannot be credited.

The LLM boundary

LLM-set scores this run (5): D19, D20, D21, D24, M4 (model: Local LLM). For these, a model reads a bounded sample and sets the numeric score (documentation, ADR quality, naming, comment value, onboarding) — D25 sets the ADR-conformance fraction over sampled code, D22 judges API accuracy over a sample. These 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 Complexity6.8 / 10Adequate✓ 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: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 6.8 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

12 method(s) exceeded the cyclomatic complexity threshold of 15; the worst was YtdlpExecutableService.GetDownloadProcess at 128. A further 1 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 PostProcessorArgument.ToString at 28 — they are counted neither in the figure above nor in this dimension's score.

YtdlpExecutableService.GetDownloadProcess (cyclomatic 128)Nickvision.Parabolic.Shared/Services/YtdlpExecutableService.cs:125
Media.Media.ctor (cyclomatic 102)Nickvision.Parabolic.Shared/Models/Media.cs:38
Format.Format.ctor (cyclomatic 53)Nickvision.Parabolic.Shared/Models/Format.cs:59
Format.ToString (cyclomatic 53)Nickvision.Parabolic.Shared/Models/Format.cs:224
Download.Process_OutputDataReceived (cyclomatic 30)Nickvision.Parabolic.Shared/Models/Download.cs:233

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

What to do

  1. Resolve the 1 YtdlpExecutableService.GetDownloadProcess (cyclomatic 128) finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with YtdlpExecutableService.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
  2. Resolve the 1 Media.Media.ctor (cyclomatic 102) finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with Media.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
  3. Resolve the 1 Format.Format.ctor (cyclomatic 53) finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with Format.cs. — 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 Complexity5.5 / 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: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 5.5 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

16 method(s) exceeded the cognitive complexity threshold of 15; the worst was Media.Media.ctor at 177.

Media.Media.ctor (cognitive 177)Nickvision.Parabolic.Shared/Models/Media.cs:38
YtdlpExecutableService.GetDownloadProcess (cognitive 132)Nickvision.Parabolic.Shared/Services/YtdlpExecutableService.cs:125
Download.Process_Exited (cognitive 65)Nickvision.Parabolic.Shared/Models/Download.cs:141
AddDownloadDialogController.DiscoverAsync (cognitive 47)Nickvision.Parabolic.Shared/Controllers/AddDownloadDialogController.cs:253
Download.Process_OutputDataReceived (cognitive 45)Nickvision.Parabolic.Shared/Models/Download.cs:233

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

What to do

  1. Resolve the 1 Media.Media.ctor (cognitive 177) finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with Media.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
  2. Resolve the 1 YtdlpExecutableService.GetDownloadProcess (cognitive 132) finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with YtdlpExecutableService.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
  3. Resolve the 1 Download.Process_Exited (cognitive 65) finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with Download.cs. — 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 Classes9.2 / 10Exemplary✓ 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: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 9.2 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

2 god class(es) detected.

TooManyMethods: MainWindowNickvision.Parabolic.WinUI/Views/MainWindow.xaml.cs:0
ClassTooLong: AddDownloadDialogNickvision.Parabolic.GNOME/Views/AddDownloadDialog.cs:0

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

D4 · Code Duplication9.8 / 10Exemplary✓ 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: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 9.8 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

5 duplicated block group(s) detected.

Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) · ×2Nickvision.Parabolic.Shared/Services/ConfigurationMigrationService.cs:40
Duplicated block (19 lines × 2)Nickvision.Parabolic.WinUI/Views/SettingsPage.xaml.cs:219
Duplicated block (12 lines × 2)Nickvision.Parabolic.Shared/Models/Format.cs:273
Duplicated block (11 lines × 2)Nickvision.Parabolic.Shared/Controllers/PreferencesViewController.cs:366

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

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

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

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

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

Maturity: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

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

Off the main sequence: Nickvision.Parabolic.Shared

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

D6 · Cohesion (LCOM4)9.6 / 10Exemplary✓ 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: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 9.6 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

1 of 28 classes have LCOM4 above 3.

Low cohesion: AddDownloadDialog (LCOM4 7)Nickvision.Parabolic.WinUI/Views/AddDownloadDialog.xaml.cs:24

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

D8 · Code Coverage0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: How much of the code is actually exercised by tests.

Method: Coverage from coverlet runs or committed reports (Cobertura/OpenCover/lcov), computed per-file with structured exclusions for generated, trivial, and glue code. When the suite can't be built/run in-image AND no report is committed, coverage is reported NOT-MEASURED (excluded from the score) with the precondition to make it measurable — never a LoC-ratio proxy folded in as if measured. Deterministic.

Maturity: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 0.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

No automated tests — no test code was found in this repository.

No automated tests

What to do

  1. Resolve the 1 No automated tests finding(s) in Code Coverage. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).
  2. Enforce Code Coverage in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.

Detailed fixes: d8_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D9 · Test Distribution0.0 / 10Critical✓ 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: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 0.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

No test suite found.

No tests found

What to do

  1. Resolve the 1 No tests found finding(s) in Test Distribution. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

Detailed fixes: d9_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D12 · Dependency Hygiene9.4 / 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: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 9.4 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

7 outdated, 0 vulnerable, 0 deprecated, 1 prerelease packages.

Prerelease dependency: CommunityToolkit.Labs.WinUI.Controls.TokenView
Outdated: GirCore.Adw-1 · ×7

✓ 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: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · 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.

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

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

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

Maturity: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

0 of 13 packages use a banned license.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d14_recommendation.md.

D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots9.7 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 9.7 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

Top hotspots: Nickvision.Parabolic.Shared/Services/YtdlpExecutableService.cs (2×128=256)

Hotspot: Nickvision.Parabolic.Shared/Services/YtdlpExecutableService.csNickvision.Parabolic.Shared/Services/YtdlpExecutableService.cs

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

D16 · Bus Factor2.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 2.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

31 source file(s) have their living knowledge concentrated in one author (≥90% of recent, decayed contribution). The largest is Nickvision.Parabolic.GNOME/Views/AddDownloadDialog.cs.

Off-boarding risk: anonymized user #1

What to do

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

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

D17 · Explicit Debt8.7 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 8.7 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

8 deducted debt markers + 0 dead symbols across 10404 LoC (0.6/KLoC) → score 8.7.

EmptyCatchBlock · ×8Nickvision.Parabolic.GNOME/Views/AddDownloadDialog.cs:224

What to do

  1. Resolve the 8 EmptyCatchBlock finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with AddDownloadDialog.cs (6), PreferencesDialog.cs, Download.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (8 issue-level).
  2. Enforce Explicit Debt in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

D18 · Solution Shape10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether the solution is laid out in a sensible, conventional structure.

Method: Solution structure: project count, decomposition, shell-project detection, build success (confirmed failures cap the score); traced to actual .sln files and binaries. Deterministic.

Maturity: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

3 projects, 94 source files, 10404 hand-written lines of code (10404 production / 0 test), 2 inter-project edges (build failed).

Build did not complete in the analyzer

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d18_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D19 · Documentation Quality / 10Adequate◐ 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: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective Adequate / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

The Parabolic project has a strong README with an engaging banner and clear sections for features, legal disclaimer, platform-specific installation, and contributing. The extension README is concise but lacks the promised Chrome Web Store link (it clips mid-screenshot) and does not cover the yt-dlp-plugins documentation path. A dedicated architecture or dependency doc would strengthen quality.

The legal copyright disclaimer is a CAUTION heading with no actionable links to DMCA policy or reporting channels.README.md
XML-doc coverage: Nickvision.Parabolic.GNOME · ×3Nickvision.Parabolic.GNOME/Nickvision.Parabolic.GNOME.csproj

What to do

  1. Resolve the 1 The legal copyright disclaimer is a CAUTION heading with no actionable… finding(s) in Documentation Quality — start with README.md. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

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

D20 · ADR Quality / 10Critical◐ Sampled · advisory

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: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective Critical / 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 Consistency / 10Strong◐ 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: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective Strong / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

4 naming inconsistencies across 200 sampled symbols.

The concept of 'History Length' is named inconsistently. The service interface and implementation use the property name 'Length', while the view controller uses 'HistoryLength'.
The action of clearing/cleaning up data is named inconsistently. 'ClearAsync' is used for recovery, 'ClearCompleted' for downloads, and 'Clear...' for controllers. The verb choice (Clear vs Remove) and scope (Completed vs All) vary.
Inconsistent naming for adding/starting operations. 'AddAsync' is used for History and Recovery, while 'Resume' is used for Download. 'Start' or 'Begin' might be more consistent with 'Add' or 'Create'.
The identifier for a download is named 'Id' in the model and event args, which is consistent, but the parameter name in 'DownloadService.RetryAsync' and 'DownloadService.StopAsync' uses 'int' (likely an ID), while other services use specific types.

What to do

  1. Resolve the 1 The concept of 'History Length' is named inconsistently. The service… finding(s) in Naming Consistency. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
  2. Resolve the 1 The action of clearing/cleaning up data is named inconsistently.… finding(s) in Naming Consistency. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
  3. Resolve the 1 Inconsistent naming for adding/starting operations. 'AddAsync' is used… finding(s) in Naming Consistency. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

Detailed fixes: d21_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D24 · Comment Value / 10Weak◐ Sampled · advisory

What it measures: Whether comments are worth it — explaining WHY (valuable) rather than WHAT (redundant).

Method: Judged by language model at low temperature (0.0-0.1) on deterministically sampled inline comments with surrounding code; findings verified back to sampled comments by substring match. Advisory, sampled.

Maturity: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective Weak / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

0 valuable / 3 redundant across 28 sampled comments; 3 shown with locations.

redundant comment · ×3Nickvision.Parabolic.GNOME/Controls/DownloadRow.cs:77

What to do

  1. Resolve the 3 redundant comment finding(s) in Comment Value — start with DownloadRow.cs, AddDownloadDialog.cs, MainWindow.xaml.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 recommendation-level).

Detailed fixes: d24_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

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

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

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

Maturity: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

0 of 3 projects flagged as possibly oversized/incoherent.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d26_recommendation.md.

D27 · Navigability8.5 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: How far you must trace to follow a call — low indirection and co-located slices read easier.

Method: Call indirection (interface hops, cross-namespace calls, slice-locality scaled) over a sampled set of method invocations, size-aware baseline. Sampled; confidence discounted by symbol-resolution gaps.

Coverage: Slice locality from the first namespace segments, SAMPLED (≤400 methods) — not exhaustive.

Maturity: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 8.5 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

92 % of calls cross a namespace and 15 % go through an interface, but 100 % of collaborators are co-located — so a call's collaborators sit together and tracing stays easy. Baseline: medium — clean/modular boundaries expected.

What to do

  1. Improve Navigability — currently 8.5/10. — 92 % of calls cross a namespace and 15 % go through an interface, but 100 % of collaborators are co-located — so a call's collaborators sit together and tracing stays easy. Baseline: medium — clean/modular boundaries expected.

Detailed fixes: d27_recommendation.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: Git-history secret scan via gitleaks detect over full history in an isolated checkout; each match flagged High. Exhaustive; degrades cleanly when tool absent.

Maturity: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · 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)1.2 / 10Critical✓ 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: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 1.2 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

12 finding(s): 0 critical, 12 high, 0 medium, 0 low.

High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag · ×12.github/workflows/flatpak.yml:28detected by semgrep finding

What to do

  1. Resolve the 12 High finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with windows.yml (5), macos.yml (3), flatpak.yml (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (12 issue-level).

Detailed fixes: d29_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: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

Every significant source file has living knowledge — recently and meaningfully worked.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d34_recommendation.md.

D35 · Change Coupling9.4 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Coverage: Population: PRODUCTION source files only — test and generated files are dropped before pairing, so a class co-changing with its own test (trivially ~100%) can't drown the real production↔production coupling. Pairs ranked by Degree-of-Coupling; coupling through a build step, config, or non-source file isn't seen.

Maturity: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 9.4 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

Strongest change-coupling: HistoryService.cs↔RecoveryService.cs 64%; HistoryService.cs↔IDownloadService.cs 60%; MainWindowController.cs↔PreferencesViewController.cs 57%

Change coupling: HistoryService.cs ↔ RecoveryService.cs · ×9Nickvision.Parabolic.Shared/Services/HistoryService.cs

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions

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

AX1 · Captive dependencies10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Architecture — Whether any singleton service captures a scoped/transient dependency — a silent lifetime/threading bug.

Method: Roslyn scan: DI registrations parsed from AddSingleton/Scoped/Transient; each singleton checked for captured shorter-lifetime dependencies. Exhaustive, deterministic.

AX10 · Code composition8.7 / 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.

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 — check that business logic isn't leaking into the application/infrastructure layers (a thin domain is the anemic-domain smell).
AX2 · Stateful singletons3.3 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

Other · Architecture — Whether singleton services avoid mutable shared instance state that concurrent callers would race on.

Method: Roslyn scan: singleton field mutations unguarded by lock or Interlocked, per type; syntax-based guard detection. Deterministic, traceable per field.

  • `DownloadService` is a singleton (one shared instance) but mutates instance state outside any lock (_downloading, _queued, _completed; e.g. `_downloading` at line 90). — DownloadService.cs:15
  • `HistoryService` is a singleton (one shared instance) but mutates instance state outside any lock (_tableEnsured; e.g. `_tableEnsured` at line 237). — HistoryService.cs:11
  • `RecoveryService` is a singleton (one shared instance) but mutates instance state outside any lock (_tableEnsured; e.g. `_tableEnsured` at line 186). — RecoveryService.cs:11
  • `ThumbnailService` is a singleton (one shared instance) but mutates instance state outside any lock (_cache, _mediaMap; e.g. `_cache` at line 71). — ThumbnailService.cs:12
  • `MainWindowController` is a singleton (one shared instance) but mutates instance state outside any lock (_latestAppVersion, _latestYtdlpVersion, _latestDenoVersion; e.g. `_latestAppVersion` at line 131). — MainWindowController.cs:19
  • `MainWindow` is a singleton (one shared instance) but mutates instance state outside any lock (_downloadRows; e.g. `_downloadRows` at line 474). This type is a UI view, so it is thread-CONFINED rather than locked: if every one of those mutations is reached only from the UI thread — directly, or marshalled back through the dispatcher — the confinement IS the synchronisation and there is nothing to add (do not take a lock on a view; that is how the UI thread deadlocks). Check the ones that are not: a handler for a background event that mutates before it marshals is a real race. — MainWindow.xaml.cs:23

What to do

  • Keep singletons stateless or back their state with thread-safe types (Concurrent*/Immutable*); otherwise concurrent callers race.
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.

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

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

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

AX6 · Interface segregation9.5 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

Method: Roslyn scan: public interface member counts; fat-interface threshold (over 15 members) flagged per type. Deterministic, type-level.

  • `IDownloadService` declares 22 members. A wide interface forces every implementer and caller to depend on methods they don't use (the Interface-Segregation 'I' in SOLID). Split it into focused role-interfaces. — IDownloadService.cs:9

What to do

  • Split fat interfaces into focused role-interfaces so clients depend only on what they use.
GD1 · Unfinished & placeholder code10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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

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

IC1 · Incompleteness & stubs6.8 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

Method: Roslyn syntax scan: incompleteness by code shape (constant-returning methods, async-never-await, #if false branches, skeleton types), not keyword-gated. Deterministic, code-shape heuristic.

  • `SingleRevertToTitleButton_OnClicked` is declared `async` but never awaits anything, so it runs synchronously while pretending to be asynchronous. Drop `async` or do the real async work. — AddDownloadDialog.cs:506
  • `Dialog_OnClosed` is declared `async` but never awaits anything, so it runs synchronously while pretending to be asynchronous. Drop `async` or do the real async work. — PreferencesDialog.cs:177
  • `AddPostprocessingArgumentAsync` is declared `async` but never awaits anything, so it runs synchronously while pretending to be asynchronous. Drop `async` or do the real async work. — PreferencesViewController.cs:362
  • `DeletePostprocessingArgumentAsync` is declared `async` but never awaits anything, so it runs synchronously while pretending to be asynchronous. Drop `async` or do the real async work. — PreferencesViewController.cs:382
  • `UpdatePostprocessingArgumentAsync` is declared `async` but never awaits anything, so it runs synchronously while pretending to be asynchronous. Drop `async` or do the real async work. — PreferencesViewController.cs:393
  • `ClearAll` is declared `async` but never awaits anything, so it runs synchronously while pretending to be asynchronous. Drop `async` or do the real async work. — HistoryDialog.xaml.cs:119
  • `ApplyChangesAsync` is declared `async` but never awaits anything, so it runs synchronously while pretending to be asynchronous. Drop `async` or do the real async work. — SettingsPage.xaml.cs:331

What to do

  • Remove the dead code that still moves this score: delete dead if(false) / #if false branches and either do the real async work or drop the async keyword from fake-async methods.
M1 · Documentation (README)6.7 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

What to do

  • Add a '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 3 of 3 project(s) that lack one — worth up to 2 pts.
M2 · Architecture documentation0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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

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

  • No Architecture Decision Records found — no conventional ADR directory, no `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 structure6.0 / 10Adequate✓ 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'.
  • No test surface was found — there are no tests here to separate from production code, so the folder question hasn't been reached yet.

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.
  • Start a test surface where your build system looks for one (tests/, test/, spec/, or your ecosystem's test source set) — the separation follows from putting the first tests in the right place.
M4 · Documentation accuracy10.0 / 10Exemplary◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

P1 · CI/CD gates8.5 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

  • A CI pipeline exists and the word "test" appears, but no explicit test-runner invocation (your stack's test command, or a test job) was matched — so either the gate runs tests through a step this pass could not recognise, or "test" is incidental here (a path, "latest", a reporter). Check the coverage dimensions first: if this repo has no test suite yet, that is the finding and this row follows from it. If a suite does exist, make the runner step explicit so the gate is unambiguous.

What to do

  • Run the test suite in CI via an explicit runner step (`dotnet test` for the toolchain this pipeline already uses) and gate merges on it.
P2 · Observability6.0 / 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 2/3 service-like projects use logging (pure contract/DTO projects are excluded — they have nothing to log). Of those 3, 2 ship a process this repository operates; the rest are libraries their consumer hosts, where the logging decision belongs to the host.

What to do

  • Extend structured logging across the projects you operate, and give the library ones a diagnostics seam instead — an `EventSource`/`ActivitySource` the host can subscribe to, or an optional logger on your options object — rather than taking a logging dependency on your consumers' behalf.
  • Consider OpenTelemetry tracing/metrics and a health-check endpoint for operability.
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 csharp pack (it analyses VB.NET too), or a security analyzer package (or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language) as a CI step.

What to do

  • Add a SAST step to CI running what this repository's stack ships: CodeQL's csharp pack (it analyses VB.NET too), or a security analyzer package — 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.
P7 · Outbound HTTP resilience3.0 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

Readiness · Readiness — Whether outbound HTTP calls are wrapped in resilience (retry/timeout/circuit-breaker) so a failing dependency doesn't cascade.

Method: Roslyn scan: Polly resilience markers (Retry, CircuitBreaker, Timeout) on outbound HTTP invocations. Computed per type, deterministic.

  • The app makes outbound HTTP calls but no resilience handler was detected (Polly / AddStandardResilienceHandler / circuit-breaker). A slow or failing dependency will cascade — add timeouts, retries with back-off, and a circuit breaker.

What to do

  • Add `AddStandardResilienceHandler()` (or Polly policies) to your HttpClient registrations so a flaky dependency can't take the app down.
PF1 · Benchmark discipline6.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

Method: Repo + source scan: BenchmarkDotNet referenced (csproj/source), [Benchmark]/[MemoryDiagnoser] attribute counts, and a benchmark step in CI — scored as a bonus ladder (absence is neutral, never a deduction). Deterministic, presence detection.

  • No benchmark suite was found. Where code is performance-sensitive, a benchmark guards against silent regressions — but it's a bonus here, not a deduction.

What to do

  • Add a benchmarking harness for the hot paths and run it in CI to catch regressions (for .NET, a BenchmarkDotNet project with [MemoryDiagnoser] to track allocations).
PF2 · Allocation hygiene6.4 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

Method: Production-source scan: density (per 1k LoC) of allocation-aware APIs — Span/Memory, ArrayPool/ObjectPool, stackalloc, ValueTask, value-type structs, IBufferWriter, string.Create, SkipLocalsInit. Reward-only. Deterministic, syntax/text detection.

What to do

  • Raise allocation-aware density on the hot paths — currently 8 use(s) across 10,413 production line(s) (~0.8/1k). More Span/Memory, pooling (ArrayPool/ObjectPool), stackalloc and ValueTask on the allocation-heavy paths climbs this toward 10.
PF3 · Async & latency hygiene8.5 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

Readiness · Performance — Whether asynchronous code keeps its host responsive — a library awaits with ConfigureAwait(false) (so it never captures and stalls the host's context) and avoids sync-over-async blocking (.Wait()/.GetAwaiter().GetResult()) that wastes threads and risks deadlock.

Method: Production-source scan: sync-over-async blocking (.Wait()/.GetAwaiter().GetResult()) counted everywhere, and — for a library with ≥5 awaits — the share of awaits using ConfigureAwait(false). Deterministic, syntax/text detection.

  • 1 blocking call(s) on async work (.Wait()/.GetAwaiter().GetResult()) — these waste a thread and can deadlock in a consumer with a synchronization context.

What to do

  • Make the call chain async end-to-end and await it — never block on a Task with .Wait()/.GetAwaiter().GetResult() in library code.
R1 · Type Safety0.0 / 10Critical✓ 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.

  • 0 typed · 6 plain JS — the untyped files are extension/chrome/background.js, extension/chrome/options.js, extension/chrome/utils.js, extension/firefox/background.js, extension/firefox/options.js, extension/firefox/utils.js.

What to do

  • Adopt TypeScript for the frontend: add a typecheck step to the build, then either type-check the existing JavaScript in place (`checkJs`/JSDoc types) or convert the highest-traffic modules first — no file is typed today, so this is an adoption, not a clean-up.
R10 · Code Duplication8.5 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

React / JS · Code Health — Copy-pasted token-identical blocks across the frontend (the D4 clone algorithm over JS/TS tokens, D-386).

Method: Copy-pasted token-identical blocks across the frontend (the D4 clone algorithm run over JS/TS tokens). Deterministic.

  • extension/chrome/background.js:21 · extension/firefox/background.js:18 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 directories, so the shared home is a decision rather than an obvious spot: check first whether one of them already owns this behaviour, and otherwise put the extracted module somewhere all of the sites already reach rather than making one of them depend on another. — background.js:21
  • extension/chrome/utils.js:4 · extension/firefox/utils.js:4 — 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. — utils.js:4
  • extension/chrome/options.js:3 · extension/firefox/options.js:3 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 directories, so the shared home is a decision rather than an obvious spot: check first whether one of them already owns this behaviour, and otherwise put the extracted module somewhere all of the sites already reach rather than making one of them depend on another. — options.js:3

What to do

  • Extract the duplicated blocks into shared functions/components.
R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity9.0 / 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.

What to do

  • Break down the listed branch-heavy functions; aim P95 cyclomatic ≤ 5.
R3 · Large Files10.0 / 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.

R4 · Test Coverage0.0 / 10Critical✓ 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.

  • 0% of 6 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).
R7 · Dead Code10.0 / 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.

R9 · Circular Imports10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ 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.

X1 · Async correctness5.4 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

  • `async void` can't be awaited and its exceptions crash the process instead of propagating. Return `Task` — or, where the delegate contract requires void (timer/event/callback registrations), make this a thin void shim that awaits a Task-returning inner method inside try/catch so exceptions are contained. (×13) — AddDownloadDialog.cs:303, HistoryDialog.cs:61, HistoryDialog.cs:70, …
  • Blocking on a Task with `.Wait()`/`.GetAwaiter().GetResult()` can deadlock (and wastes a thread). Prefer awaiting it: make the caller `async` and `await` instead. Where a synchronous entry point must stay — a public sync API you cannot break, or a process entry point that must not return until the work finishes — the block belongs in ONE documented bridge and never inside code that is already async; and where it already is that bridge, give the wait a TIMEOUT so a hung task fails the call instead of hanging the process. — MainWindow.cs:122

What to do

  • async void method: AuthenticationCredentialRow_OnNotify
X2 · Cancellation propagation4.3 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

Other · Code Health — Whether async methods accept a CancellationToken so work can be cancelled (adoption curve).

Method: Roslyn scan: every async method (excluding framework-fixed overrides/Blazor handlers) checked for CancellationToken parameter presence. Deterministic, adoption percentage.

  • Only 6/123 async methods accept a CancellationToken, so in-flight work can't be stopped early when the caller gives up — whatever ends it in your host (shutdown signal, timeout, abandoned request, user cancel). Thread a token through the call chain and honour it at each await and loop; where a method genuinely cannot be interrupted, omitting it is a deliberate choice — judge against your hosting model.
  • No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started. (×24) — DownloadRow.cs:86, DownloadRow.cs:224, DownloadRow.cs:242, …
  • No CancellationToken parameter — the body observes an ambient token instead (a field or a context object), so the work does stop on cancellation, but a caller cannot cancel this call independently of the owner that created that token. — AddDownloadDialog.cs:329

What to do

  • Thread a CancellationToken through async methods so work stops promptly on cancellation.
X3 · Exception handling4.6 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

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

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

  • An empty catch block silently discards the error — failures vanish with no log and no rethrow. Log it, handle it, or don't catch it. (×8) — AddDownloadDialog.cs:224, AddDownloadDialog.cs:300, AddDownloadDialog.cs:363, …

What to do

  • Swallowed exception (empty catch)
X4 · Structured logging1.8 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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

Method: Roslyn syntax scan: every log call-site counted; interpolated-string first-argument violations flagged. Population is all log calls, not estimated. Deterministic.

  • Logging an interpolated string (`$"..."`) collapses the event to plain text — you lose the named, queryable properties structured logging exists for. Use a message template with placeholders: `LogInformation("User {UserId} did {Action}", id, action)`. If these calls go through a logging wrapper that only accepts a pre-formatted string, give the wrapper a template+args overload that forwards to the underlying logger, then migrate call sites to it. (×25) — AddDownloadDialogController.cs:168, AddDownloadDialogController.cs:243, AddDownloadDialogController.cs:260, …

What to do

  • Interpolated log message defeats structured logging
X5 · Nullable reference types6.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

  • ~7.8 `!` suppressions per 1k syntax nodes — 384 suppression(s) across the 49019 syntax node(s) in code where nullable warnings are ENABLED, which is the only code a `!` can suppress anything in (a `!` under `#nullable disable` is inert and is not counted, and its file's nodes are not in the denominator). Each one tells the compiler to trust you about null, suppressing the very safety NRTs provide.

What to do

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

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 Health36%Weak — gated by R1, X4Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Architecture77%Adequate — gated by AX2Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Maturity47%Weak — gated by D16, M2Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Readiness22%Critical — gated by D8, D9, R4, P3, P7Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Security56%Adequate — gated by D29Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Performance67%AdequateStrongest area.
Not included — 49 check(s) not relevant to this codebase

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

  • AC1 Text alternatives — No user-facing web UI (the repo is a library/CLI/worker/headless service) — accessibility is not applicable.
  • AC2 Forms & labels — No user-facing web UI (the repo is a library/CLI/worker/headless service) — accessibility is not applicable.
  • AC3 Page structure — No user-facing web UI (the repo is a library/CLI/worker/headless service) — accessibility is not applicable.
  • AC4 Keyboard semantics — No user-facing web UI (the repo is a library/CLI/worker/headless service) — accessibility is not applicable.
  • AC5 ARIA correctness — No user-facing web UI (the repo is a library/CLI/worker/headless service) — accessibility is not applicable.
  • AC6 Visual & motion safety — No user-facing web UI (the repo is a library/CLI/worker/headless service) — accessibility is not applicable.
  • AC7 A11y enforcement — No user-facing web UI (the repo is a library/CLI/worker/headless service) — accessibility is not applicable.
  • AX7 Slice cohesion — not applicable — not a vertical-slice architecture
  • AX8 Test isolation — no test/production split to check
  • AX9 CQS / query purity — no CQRS query handlers detected — query purity is not applicable to this codebase
  • C1 Data Protection — No personal data detected in the analyzed source — no PII-typed entity/column names (Email, FirstName, DateOfBirth, …), no ASP.NET Identity / user-account model, and no stored user credentials. GDPR data-protection controls are therefore N/A here. If this is intentional, record the no-PII posture in an ADR; if the app does process personal data, name those fields conventionally so this dimension activates.
  • C2 Access Controls — No access-control surface detected in the analyzed source — no web/app surface to authorize (no HTTP API or web-UI project) and no authorization code at all (no [Authorize]/policies, no imperative guard methods). Access control is therefore N/A here — this is a library/CLI, which is authorized by its CALLER, not by itself. If this codebase grows request handlers, the dimension reactivates and a default-deny posture is expected then.
  • C3 Audit Trail — No personal data detected in the analyzed source — no PII-typed entity/column names (Email, FirstName, DateOfBirth, …), no ASP.NET Identity / user-account model, and no stored user credentials. GDPR data-protection controls are therefore N/A here. If this is intentional, record the no-PII posture in an ADR; if the app does process personal data, name those fields conventionally so this dimension activates.
  • C4 Data Retention — No personal data detected in the analyzed source — no PII-typed entity/column names (Email, FirstName, DateOfBirth, …), no ASP.NET Identity / user-account model, and no stored user credentials. GDPR data-protection controls are therefore N/A here. If this is intentional, record the no-PII posture in an ADR; if the app does process personal data, name those fields conventionally so this dimension activates.
  • C5 Data-Subject Rights — No personal data detected in the analyzed source — no PII-typed entity/column names (Email, FirstName, DateOfBirth, …), no ASP.NET Identity / user-account model, and no stored user credentials. GDPR data-protection controls are therefore N/A here. If this is intentional, record the no-PII posture in an ADR; if the app does process personal data, name those fields conventionally so this dimension activates.
  • D10 Test Quality — No tests were found in the analyzed repository to assess for quality.
  • D11 Test Reliability — Test reliability not included
  • D22 Internal API Consistency — No exposed public API
  • D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — At only 10k LoC the codebase is small despite three projects, so its size alone makes it not need boundaries.
  • D25 ADR Conformance — no ADRs to check
  • D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities — the solution did not restore on the analyzer's .NET SDK (an SDK/target-framework/restore mismatch, common for an older codebase), so there was no restored dependency graph to scan for NuGet CVEs — excluded rather than scored; re-run on an SDK that can restore this solution
  • 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.
  • D33 JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities — No JS/npm manifest or lockfile found outside build output (package.json, package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); no JS dependencies to scan.
  • 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).
  • 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.
  • D38 OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities — No supported non-.NET dependency lockfile found outside build output (npm package-lock/yarn/pnpm/bun, Go go.mod, Rust Cargo.lock, Maven pom.xml, Gradle lockfiles, Python requirements.txt/poetry.lock/Pipfile.lock/pdm.lock, PHP composer.lock, Ruby Gemfile.lock, Elixir mix.lock, Dart pubspec.lock, Swift Package.resolved); nothing for OSV to scan. A NuGet-only repo stays NotApplicable — .NET CVEs are D30's domain.
  • D39 IL Efficiency — The target did not build, so no IL was available to measure.
  • D40 Network Egress Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.
  • D41 Kernel & Syscall Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.
  • D42 Runtime Threat Enforcement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.
  • D7 Architectural Integrity — no checkable ADRs and no dependency cycles — architectural integrity not assessed
  • DM1 Domain Modelling — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this check looks for
  • ED1 Event-Driven — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this check looks for
  • ED5 Idempotency — no mutating command handlers or message consumers detected — idempotency check not applicable
  • ES1 Event Sourcing — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this check looks for
  • 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'.
  • 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
  • P8 Schema migrations — no EF Core usage detected
  • P9 Domain vs controller coverage — no coverage report found on disk — produce a coverage report in a standard format (Cobertura — `dotnet test --collect:"XPlat Code Coverage"` with a `coverlet.collector` PackageReference) 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
  • R11 Import Boundaries — No recognizable feature-sliced/layered src layout — boundary rules not applicable.
  • R5 Dependency Freshness — no package-lock.json — dependency freshness not measured (would require an npm lockfile); JS/npm CVEs are scored in D33 (JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities)
  • R6 Tooling — no package.json in the repository — test/lint/typecheck wiring is read from package.json scripts (corroborated against CI), so this project's own toolchain isn't measured here
  • R8 Dependency Hygiene — Not measured — no package.json declares any dependency, so there is nothing to check imports against (imports may resolve through a host runtime rather than node).
  • S1 Web-Security Posture — No web surface detected in the analyzed source — no HTTP API or web-UI project (no controllers/minimal-API endpoints, no Razor/Blazor views) and no web middleware (HTTPS redirection, HSTS, security headers, cookies). Transport security, security headers, secure cookies, CSRF/input-validation and middleware-order controls are therefore N/A here — this is a library/CLI/worker, not a web app. Crypto hygiene was still checked and found nothing to flag. If this codebase becomes web-facing, the dimension reactivates automatically.
  • SC1 Supply-chain hygiene — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
  • X6 Hand-rolled structured-format parsing — Reported, not scored — this card publishes what it found rather than grading it. Its content is the findings and the key metric above.
  • X7 Silent fallback defaults — Reported, not scored — this card publishes what it found rather than grading it. Its content is the findings and the key metric above.

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.

Issue — 21 finding(s)
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · High · ×12
  • High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/flatpak.yml:28 — GitHub Actions step uses a mutable tag or branch reference. Tags and branch names can be silently repointed by the action owner, enabling supply-chain attacks — as seen in the trivy-action and kics-github-action compromises. Pin the reference to a full 40-character commit SHA instead, e.g. `uses: actions/checkout@<40-character SHA>`. This step references `actions/checkout@v6`; resolve the SHA it points at today with `gh api repos/actions/checkout/commits/v6 --jq .sha`.
  • High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/flatpak.yml:29 — GitHub Actions step uses a mutable tag or branch reference. Tags and branch names can be silently repointed by the action owner, enabling supply-chain attacks — as seen in the trivy-action and kics-github-action compromises. Pin the reference to a full 40-character commit SHA instead, e.g. `uses: flatpak/flatpak-github-actions/flatpak-builder@<40-character SHA>`. This step references `flatpak/flatpak-github-actions/flatpak-builder@v6`; resolve the SHA it points at today with `gh api repos/flatpak/flatpak-github-actions/commits/v6 --jq .sha`. `flatpak/flatpak-github-actions/flatpak-builder` is hosted INSIDE the `flatpak/flatpak-github-actions` repository (a subdirectory action or a reusable workflow), so the SHA to pin is that repository's commit — keep the full `flatpak/flatpak-github-actions/flatpak-builder` path in `uses:` and query only `flatpak/flatpak-github-actions`.
  • High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/macos.yml:30 — GitHub Actions step uses a mutable tag or branch reference. Tags and branch names can be silently repointed by the action owner, enabling supply-chain attacks — as seen in the trivy-action and kics-github-action compromises. Pin the reference to a full 40-character commit SHA instead, e.g. `uses: actions/checkout@<40-character SHA>`. This step references `actions/checkout@v6`; resolve the SHA it points at today with `gh api repos/actions/checkout/commits/v6 --jq .sha`.
  • High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/macos.yml:38 — GitHub Actions step uses a mutable tag or branch reference. Tags and branch names can be silently repointed by the action owner, enabling supply-chain attacks — as seen in the trivy-action and kics-github-action compromises. Pin the reference to a full 40-character commit SHA instead, e.g. `uses: actions/setup-dotnet@<40-character SHA>`. This step references `actions/setup-dotnet@v5`; resolve the SHA it points at today with `gh api repos/actions/setup-dotnet/commits/v5 --jq .sha`.
  • High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/macos.yml:48 — GitHub Actions step uses a mutable tag or branch reference. Tags and branch names can be silently repointed by the action owner, enabling supply-chain attacks — as seen in the trivy-action and kics-github-action compromises. Pin the reference to a full 40-character commit SHA instead, e.g. `uses: actions/upload-artifact@<40-character SHA>`. This step references `actions/upload-artifact@v4`; resolve the SHA it points at today with `gh api repos/actions/upload-artifact/commits/v4 --jq .sha`.
  • High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/spelling.yml:15 — GitHub Actions step uses a mutable tag or branch reference. Tags and branch names can be silently repointed by the action owner, enabling supply-chain attacks — as seen in the trivy-action and kics-github-action compromises. Pin the reference to a full 40-character commit SHA instead, e.g. `uses: actions/checkout@<40-character SHA>`. This step references `actions/checkout@v6`; resolve the SHA it points at today with `gh api repos/actions/checkout/commits/v6 --jq .sha`.
  • High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/spelling.yml:16 — GitHub Actions step uses a mutable tag or branch reference. Tags and branch names can be silently repointed by the action owner, enabling supply-chain attacks — as seen in the trivy-action and kics-github-action compromises. Pin the reference to a full 40-character commit SHA instead, e.g. `uses: codespell-project/actions-codespell@<40-character SHA>`. This step references `codespell-project/actions-codespell@v2`; resolve the SHA it points at today with `gh api repos/codespell-project/actions-codespell/commits/v2 --jq .sha`.
  • High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/windows.yml:39 — GitHub Actions step uses a mutable tag or branch reference. Tags and branch names can be silently repointed by the action owner, enabling supply-chain attacks — as seen in the trivy-action and kics-github-action compromises. Pin the reference to a full 40-character commit SHA instead, e.g. `uses: actions/checkout@<40-character SHA>`. This step references `actions/checkout@v6`; resolve the SHA it points at today with `gh api repos/actions/checkout/commits/v6 --jq .sha`.
  • High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/windows.yml:42 — GitHub Actions step uses a mutable tag or branch reference. Tags and branch names can be silently repointed by the action owner, enabling supply-chain attacks — as seen in the trivy-action and kics-github-action compromises. Pin the reference to a full 40-character commit SHA instead, e.g. `uses: msys2/setup-msys2@<40-character SHA>`. This step references `msys2/setup-msys2@v2`; resolve the SHA it points at today with `gh api repos/msys2/setup-msys2/commits/v2 --jq .sha`.
  • High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/windows.yml:47 — GitHub Actions step uses a mutable tag or branch reference. Tags and branch names can be silently repointed by the action owner, enabling supply-chain attacks — as seen in the trivy-action and kics-github-action compromises. Pin the reference to a full 40-character commit SHA instead, e.g. `uses: actions/setup-dotnet@<40-character SHA>`. This step references `actions/setup-dotnet@v5`; resolve the SHA it points at today with `gh api repos/actions/setup-dotnet/commits/v5 --jq .sha`.
  • High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/windows.yml:101 — GitHub Actions step uses a mutable tag or branch reference. Tags and branch names can be silently repointed by the action owner, enabling supply-chain attacks — as seen in the trivy-action and kics-github-action compromises. Pin the reference to a full 40-character commit SHA instead, e.g. `uses: actions/upload-artifact@<40-character SHA>`. This step references `actions/upload-artifact@v4`; resolve the SHA it points at today with `gh api repos/actions/upload-artifact/commits/v4 --jq .sha`.
  • High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/windows.yml:105 — GitHub Actions step uses a mutable tag or branch reference. Tags and branch names can be silently repointed by the action owner, enabling supply-chain attacks — as seen in the trivy-action and kics-github-action compromises. Pin the reference to a full 40-character commit SHA instead, e.g. `uses: actions/upload-artifact@<40-character SHA>`. This step references `actions/upload-artifact@v4`; resolve the SHA it points at today with `gh api repos/actions/upload-artifact/commits/v4 --jq .sha`.
D17 · Explicit Debt · EmptyCatchBlock · ×8
  • EmptyCatchBlock Nickvision.Parabolic.GNOME/Views/AddDownloadDialog.cs:224 — empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Narrow the catch to the exception you actually expect, record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or — where swallowing really is correct, as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — write down WHY in a comment on the catch. The comment has to give the reason: a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all and leaves this row in place. Any of the three makes the decision reviewable; all three clear this row.
  • EmptyCatchBlock Nickvision.Parabolic.GNOME/Views/AddDownloadDialog.cs:300 — empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Narrow the catch to the exception you actually expect, record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or — where swallowing really is correct, as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — write down WHY in a comment on the catch. The comment has to give the reason: a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all and leaves this row in place. Any of the three makes the decision reviewable; all three clear this row.
  • EmptyCatchBlock Nickvision.Parabolic.GNOME/Views/AddDownloadDialog.cs:363 — empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Narrow the catch to the exception you actually expect, record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or — where swallowing really is correct, as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — write down WHY in a comment on the catch. The comment has to give the reason: a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all and leaves this row in place. Any of the three makes the decision reviewable; all three clear this row.
  • EmptyCatchBlock Nickvision.Parabolic.GNOME/Views/AddDownloadDialog.cs:402 — empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Narrow the catch to the exception you actually expect, record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or — where swallowing really is correct, as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — write down WHY in a comment on the catch. The comment has to give the reason: a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all and leaves this row in place. Any of the three makes the decision reviewable; all three clear this row.
  • EmptyCatchBlock Nickvision.Parabolic.GNOME/Views/AddDownloadDialog.cs:520 — empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Narrow the catch to the exception you actually expect, record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or — where swallowing really is correct, as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — write down WHY in a comment on the catch. The comment has to give the reason: a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all and leaves this row in place. Any of the three makes the decision reviewable; all three clear this row.
  • EmptyCatchBlock Nickvision.Parabolic.GNOME/Views/AddDownloadDialog.cs:572 — empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Narrow the catch to the exception you actually expect, record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or — where swallowing really is correct, as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — write down WHY in a comment on the catch. The comment has to give the reason: a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all and leaves this row in place. Any of the three makes the decision reviewable; all three clear this row.
  • EmptyCatchBlock Nickvision.Parabolic.GNOME/Views/PreferencesDialog.cs:284 — empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Narrow the catch to the exception you actually expect, record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or — where swallowing really is correct, as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — write down WHY in a comment on the catch. The comment has to give the reason: a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all and leaves this row in place. Any of the three makes the decision reviewable; all three clear this row.
  • EmptyCatchBlock Nickvision.Parabolic.Shared/Models/Download.cs:219 — empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Narrow the catch to the exception you actually expect, record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or — where swallowing really is correct, as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — write down WHY in a comment on the catch. The comment has to give the reason: a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all and leaves this row in place. Any of the three makes the decision reviewable; all three clear this row.
D8 · Code Coverage · No automated tests · ×1
  • No automated tests — No automated tests — no test code was found in this repository. Untested code is the largest single risk to changing it safely.
Warning — 48 finding(s)
D35 · Change Coupling · Change coupling · ×9
  • Change coupling: HistoryService.cs ↔ RecoveryService.cs Nickvision.Parabolic.Shared/Services/HistoryService.cs — `Nickvision.Parabolic.Shared/Services/HistoryService.cs` and `Nickvision.Parabolic.Shared/Services/RecoveryService.cs` change together 64% of the time (7 of the 11 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well). They sit in the same directory, and in this ecosystem sibling files there normally share one namespace/package — so a direct reference between them needs no import and this pass cannot see whether one exists. Read the pair before acting: if one file only DECLARES what the other consumes (a constants/types file beside its user), the co-change is definitional and the question is whether the split earns its keep; if they duplicate structure, extract the common part into a shared function or type they both call; if neither holds, the coupling is hidden and worth breaking.
  • Change coupling: HistoryService.cs ↔ IDownloadService.cs Nickvision.Parabolic.Shared/Services/HistoryService.cs — `Nickvision.Parabolic.Shared/Services/HistoryService.cs` and `Nickvision.Parabolic.Shared/Services/IDownloadService.cs` 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). They sit in the same directory, and in this ecosystem sibling files there normally share one namespace/package — so a direct reference between them needs no import and this pass cannot see whether one exists. Read the pair before acting: if one file only DECLARES what the other consumes (a constants/types file beside its user), the co-change is definitional and the question is whether the split earns its keep; if they duplicate structure, extract the common part into a shared function or type they both call; if neither holds, the coupling is hidden and worth breaking.
  • Change coupling: MainWindowController.cs ↔ PreferencesViewController.cs Nickvision.Parabolic.Shared/Controllers/MainWindowController.cs — `Nickvision.Parabolic.Shared/Controllers/MainWindowController.cs` and `Nickvision.Parabolic.Shared/Controllers/PreferencesViewController.cs` change together 57% of the time (13 of the 23 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well). They sit in the same directory, and in this ecosystem sibling files there normally share one namespace/package — so a direct reference between them needs no import and this pass cannot see whether one exists. Read the pair before acting: if one file only DECLARES what the other consumes (a constants/types file beside its user), the co-change is definitional and the question is whether the split earns its keep; if they duplicate structure, extract the common part into a shared function or type they both call; if neither holds, the coupling is hidden and worth breaking.
  • Change coupling: DownloadService.cs ↔ RecoveryService.cs Nickvision.Parabolic.Shared/Services/DownloadService.cs — `Nickvision.Parabolic.Shared/Services/DownloadService.cs` and `Nickvision.Parabolic.Shared/Services/RecoveryService.cs` change together 55% of the time (6 of the 11 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well). They sit in the same directory, and in this ecosystem sibling files there normally share one namespace/package — so a direct reference between them needs no import and this pass cannot see whether one exists. Read the pair before acting: if one file only DECLARES what the other consumes (a constants/types file beside its user), the co-change is definitional and the question is whether the split earns its keep; if they duplicate structure, extract the common part into a shared function or type they both call; if neither holds, the coupling is hidden and worth breaking.
  • Change coupling: MainWindowController.cs ↔ DiscoveryResult.cs Nickvision.Parabolic.Shared/Controllers/MainWindowController.cs — `Nickvision.Parabolic.Shared/Controllers/MainWindowController.cs` and `Nickvision.Parabolic.Shared/Models/DiscoveryResult.cs` change together 55% of the time (6 of the 11 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well). 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.
  • Change coupling: MainWindowController.cs ↔ HistoryService.cs Nickvision.Parabolic.Shared/Controllers/MainWindowController.cs — `Nickvision.Parabolic.Shared/Controllers/MainWindowController.cs` and `Nickvision.Parabolic.Shared/Services/HistoryService.cs` change together 54% of the time (7 of the 13 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well). 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.
  • Change coupling: DownloadService.cs ↔ HistoryService.cs Nickvision.Parabolic.Shared/Services/DownloadService.cs — `Nickvision.Parabolic.Shared/Services/DownloadService.cs` and `Nickvision.Parabolic.Shared/Services/HistoryService.cs` change together 54% of the time (7 of the 13 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well). They sit in the same directory, and in this ecosystem sibling files there normally share one namespace/package — so a direct reference between them needs no import and this pass cannot see whether one exists. Read the pair before acting: if one file only DECLARES what the other consumes (a constants/types file beside its user), the co-change is definitional and the question is whether the split earns its keep; if they duplicate structure, extract the common part into a shared function or type they both call; if neither holds, the coupling is hidden and worth breaking.
  • Change coupling: MainWindowController.cs ↔ DownloadService.cs Nickvision.Parabolic.Shared/Controllers/MainWindowController.cs — `Nickvision.Parabolic.Shared/Controllers/MainWindowController.cs` and `Nickvision.Parabolic.Shared/Services/DownloadService.cs` 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). 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.
  • Change coupling: IDownloadService.cs ↔ RecoveryService.cs Nickvision.Parabolic.Shared/Services/IDownloadService.cs — `Nickvision.Parabolic.Shared/Services/IDownloadService.cs` and `Nickvision.Parabolic.Shared/Services/RecoveryService.cs` 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). They sit in the same directory, and in this ecosystem sibling files there normally share one namespace/package — so a direct reference between them needs no import and this pass cannot see whether one exists. Read the pair before acting: if one file only DECLARES what the other consumes (a constants/types file beside its user), the co-change is definitional and the question is whether the split earns its keep; if they duplicate structure, extract the common part into a shared function or type they both call; if neither holds, the coupling is hidden and worth breaking.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) · ×2
  • Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) Nickvision.Parabolic.Shared/Services/ConfigurationMigrationService.cs:40 — Nickvision.Parabolic.Shared/Services/ConfigurationMigrationService.cs:40-47 | Nickvision.Parabolic.Shared/Services/ConfigurationMigrationService.cs:48-55 — 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 (8 lines × 2) Nickvision.Parabolic.Shared/Services/DownloadService.cs:297 — Nickvision.Parabolic.Shared/Services/DownloadService.cs:297-304 | Nickvision.Parabolic.Shared/Services/DownloadService.cs:307-314 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Nickvision.Parabolic.Shared/Services/DownloadService.cs:297` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · YtdlpExecutableService.GetDownloadProcess (cyclomatic 128) · ×1
  • YtdlpExecutableService.GetDownloadProcess (cyclomatic 128) Nickvision.Parabolic.Shared/Services/YtdlpExecutableService.cs:125 — YtdlpExecutableService.GetDownloadProcess has cyclomatic complexity 128 (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 · Media.Media.ctor (cyclomatic 102) · ×1
  • Media.Media.ctor (cyclomatic 102) Nickvision.Parabolic.Shared/Models/Media.cs:38 — Media.Media.ctor has cyclomatic complexity 102 (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 · Format.Format.ctor (cyclomatic 53) · ×1
  • Format.Format.ctor (cyclomatic 53) Nickvision.Parabolic.Shared/Models/Format.cs:59 — Format.Format.ctor has cyclomatic complexity 53 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Format.ToString (cyclomatic 53) · ×1
  • Format.ToString (cyclomatic 53) Nickvision.Parabolic.Shared/Models/Format.cs:224 — Format.ToString has cyclomatic complexity 53 (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 · Download.Process_OutputDataReceived (cyclomatic 30) · ×1
  • Download.Process_OutputDataReceived (cyclomatic 30) Nickvision.Parabolic.Shared/Models/Download.cs:233 — Download.Process_OutputDataReceived has cyclomatic complexity 30 (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 · AddDownloadDialogController.DiscoverAsync (cyclomatic 29) · ×1
  • AddDownloadDialogController.DiscoverAsync (cyclomatic 29) Nickvision.Parabolic.Shared/Controllers/AddDownloadDialogController.cs:253 — AddDownloadDialogController.DiscoverAsync has cyclomatic complexity 29 (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 · AddDownloadDialogController.AddPlaylistDownloadsAsync (cyclomatic 28) · ×1
  • AddDownloadDialogController.AddPlaylistDownloadsAsync (cyclomatic 28) Nickvision.Parabolic.Shared/Controllers/AddDownloadDialogController.cs:69 — AddDownloadDialogController.AddPlaylistDownloadsAsync has cyclomatic complexity 28 (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 · Download.Process_Exited (cyclomatic 24) · ×1
  • Download.Process_Exited (cyclomatic 24) Nickvision.Parabolic.Shared/Models/Download.cs:141 — Download.Process_Exited has cyclomatic complexity 24 (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 · DiscoveryService.GetForUrlAsync (cyclomatic 17) · ×1
  • DiscoveryService.GetForUrlAsync (cyclomatic 17) Nickvision.Parabolic.Shared/Services/DiscoveryService.cs:64 — DiscoveryService.GetForUrlAsync 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 · MainWindow.UpdateDownloadsList (cyclomatic 17) · ×1
  • MainWindow.UpdateDownloadsList (cyclomatic 17) Nickvision.Parabolic.WinUI/Views/MainWindow.xaml.cs:550 — MainWindow.UpdateDownloadsList has cyclomatic complexity 17 (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 · AddDownloadDialog.DiscoverUrlButton_OnClicked (cyclomatic 16) · ×1
  • AddDownloadDialog.DiscoverUrlButton_OnClicked (cyclomatic 16) Nickvision.Parabolic.GNOME/Views/AddDownloadDialog.cs:329 — AddDownloadDialog.DiscoverUrlButton_OnClicked has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). Of this number, 14 points are the body's own statements and 2 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 · MainWindowController.CheckForUpdatesAsync (cyclomatic 16) · ×1
  • MainWindowController.CheckForUpdatesAsync (cyclomatic 16) Nickvision.Parabolic.Shared/Controllers/MainWindowController.cs:123 — MainWindowController.CheckForUpdatesAsync 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.
D12 · Dependency Hygiene · Prerelease dependency · ×1
  • Prerelease dependency: CommunityToolkit.Labs.WinUI.Controls.TokenView — CommunityToolkit.Labs.WinUI.Controls.TokenView resolves to 0.1.251217-build.2433, a prerelease build. Prerelease packages carry no support policy, may change breaking between previews and can be unlisted — pin a stable release before shipping, or record the reason this preview is required.
D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots · Hotspot · ×1
  • Hotspot: Nickvision.Parabolic.Shared/Services/YtdlpExecutableService.cs Nickvision.Parabolic.Shared/Services/YtdlpExecutableService.cs — Nickvision.Parabolic.Shared/Services/YtdlpExecutableService.cs changed 2 times in last 90 days, max complexity 128. 1 of those changes was a fix/bug commit, so the churn is repair rather than feature work. Before the next change lands here, cover the area it touches with tests, 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.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Media.Media.ctor (cognitive 177) · ×1
  • Media.Media.ctor (cognitive 177) Nickvision.Parabolic.Shared/Models/Media.cs:38 — Media.Media.ctor has cognitive complexity 177 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · YtdlpExecutableService.GetDownloadProcess (cognitive 132) · ×1
  • YtdlpExecutableService.GetDownloadProcess (cognitive 132) Nickvision.Parabolic.Shared/Services/YtdlpExecutableService.cs:125 — YtdlpExecutableService.GetDownloadProcess has cognitive complexity 132 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Download.Process_Exited (cognitive 65) · ×1
  • Download.Process_Exited (cognitive 65) Nickvision.Parabolic.Shared/Models/Download.cs:141 — Download.Process_Exited has cognitive complexity 65 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · AddDownloadDialogController.DiscoverAsync (cognitive 47) · ×1
  • AddDownloadDialogController.DiscoverAsync (cognitive 47) Nickvision.Parabolic.Shared/Controllers/AddDownloadDialogController.cs:253 — AddDownloadDialogController.DiscoverAsync has cognitive complexity 47 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Download.Process_OutputDataReceived (cognitive 45) · ×1
  • Download.Process_OutputDataReceived (cognitive 45) Nickvision.Parabolic.Shared/Models/Download.cs:233 — Download.Process_OutputDataReceived has cognitive complexity 45 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · AddDownloadDialogController.AddPlaylistDownloadsAsync (cognitive 44) · ×1
  • AddDownloadDialogController.AddPlaylistDownloadsAsync (cognitive 44) Nickvision.Parabolic.Shared/Controllers/AddDownloadDialogController.cs:69 — AddDownloadDialogController.AddPlaylistDownloadsAsync has cognitive complexity 44 (threshold 15). 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 · Format.ToString (cognitive 38) · ×1
  • Format.ToString (cognitive 38) Nickvision.Parabolic.Shared/Models/Format.cs:224 — Format.ToString has cognitive complexity 38 (threshold 15). 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 · Format.Format.ctor (cognitive 34) · ×1
  • Format.Format.ctor (cognitive 34) Nickvision.Parabolic.Shared/Models/Format.cs:59 — Format.Format.ctor has cognitive complexity 34 (threshold 15). 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 · KeyringDialog.ShowAsync (cognitive 33) · ×1
  • KeyringDialog.ShowAsync (cognitive 33) Nickvision.Parabolic.WinUI/Views/KeyringDialog.xaml.cs:58 — KeyringDialog.ShowAsync has cognitive complexity 33 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · AddDownloadDialog.DiscoverUrlButton_OnClicked (cognitive 31) · ×1
  • AddDownloadDialog.DiscoverUrlButton_OnClicked (cognitive 31) Nickvision.Parabolic.GNOME/Views/AddDownloadDialog.cs:329 — AddDownloadDialog.DiscoverUrlButton_OnClicked has cognitive complexity 31 (threshold 15). Of this number, 24 points are the body's own statements and 7 belong to one function literal inside it that branches. To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · DiscoveryService.ParseBatchFileAsync (cognitive 29) · ×1
  • DiscoveryService.ParseBatchFileAsync (cognitive 29) Nickvision.Parabolic.Shared/Services/DiscoveryService.cs:117 — DiscoveryService.ParseBatchFileAsync has cognitive complexity 29 (threshold 15). 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 · DiscoveryService.GetForUrlAsync (cognitive 24) · ×1
  • DiscoveryService.GetForUrlAsync (cognitive 24) Nickvision.Parabolic.Shared/Services/DiscoveryService.cs:64 — DiscoveryService.GetForUrlAsync has cognitive complexity 24 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · DiscoveryResult.DiscoveryResult.ctor (cognitive 22) · ×1
  • DiscoveryResult.DiscoveryResult.ctor (cognitive 22) Nickvision.Parabolic.Shared/Models/DiscoveryResult.cs:36 — DiscoveryResult.DiscoveryResult.ctor has cognitive complexity 22 (threshold 15). 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 · MainWindowController.CheckForUpdatesAsync (cognitive 20) · ×1
  • MainWindowController.CheckForUpdatesAsync (cognitive 20) Nickvision.Parabolic.Shared/Controllers/MainWindowController.cs:123 — MainWindowController.CheckForUpdatesAsync has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). 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 · Format.CompareTo (cognitive 18) · ×1
  • Format.CompareTo (cognitive 18) Nickvision.Parabolic.Shared/Models/Format.cs:168 — Format.CompareTo has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). 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 · AddDownloadDialog.DiscoverMediaAsync (cognitive 16) · ×1
  • AddDownloadDialog.DiscoverMediaAsync (cognitive 16) Nickvision.Parabolic.WinUI/Views/AddDownloadDialog.xaml.cs:204 — AddDownloadDialog.DiscoverMediaAsync has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). 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.
D3 · God Classes · TooManyMethods · ×1
  • TooManyMethods: MainWindow Nickvision.Parabolic.WinUI/Views/MainWindow.xaml.cs:0 — TooManyMethods — 359 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 38 methods. 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.
D3 · God Classes · ClassTooLong · ×1
  • ClassTooLong: AddDownloadDialog Nickvision.Parabolic.GNOME/Views/AddDownloadDialog.cs:0 — ClassTooLong — 450 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 22 methods. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (19 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (19 lines × 2) Nickvision.Parabolic.WinUI/Views/SettingsPage.xaml.cs:219 — Nickvision.Parabolic.WinUI/Views/SettingsPage.xaml.cs:219-237 | Nickvision.Parabolic.WinUI/Views/SettingsPage.xaml.cs:282-300 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Nickvision.Parabolic.WinUI/Views/SettingsPage.xaml.cs:219` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) Nickvision.Parabolic.Shared/Models/Format.cs:273 — Nickvision.Parabolic.Shared/Models/Format.cs:273-284 | Nickvision.Parabolic.Shared/Models/Format.cs:306-317 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Nickvision.Parabolic.Shared/Models/Format.cs:273` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) Nickvision.Parabolic.Shared/Controllers/PreferencesViewController.cs:366 — Nickvision.Parabolic.Shared/Controllers/PreferencesViewController.cs:366-376 | Nickvision.Parabolic.Shared/Controllers/PreferencesViewController.cs:398-408 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Nickvision.Parabolic.Shared/Controllers/PreferencesViewController.cs:366` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
D5 · Coupling · Off the main sequence · ×1
  • Off the main sequence: Nickvision.Parabolic.Shared — Nickvision.Parabolic.Shared: abstractness 0.16, instability 0.00, distance 0.84 — the shape a shared-kernel / building-block library has BY DESIGN — concrete and widely depended-on is what makes it useful, and this dimension does not penalise it (the distance is reported for completeness, not as a defect). Worth a look only if it has grown past one coherent kernel into an everything-bucket.
D6 · Cohesion (LCOM4) · Low cohesion · ×1
  • Low cohesion: AddDownloadDialog (LCOM4 7) Nickvision.Parabolic.WinUI/Views/AddDownloadDialog.xaml.cs:24 — AddDownloadDialog's methods form 7 groups that share no state and don't call each other — a sign it may have several responsibilities. Review whether it splits into focused classes.
Recommendation — 12 finding(s)
D24 · Comment Value · redundant comment · ×3
  • redundant comment Nickvision.Parabolic.GNOME/Controls/DownloadRow.cs:77 — "Events" — delete - the 'Events' comment restates OnClosed/OnShow and is repeated elsewhere
  • redundant comment Nickvision.Parabolic.GNOME/Views/AddDownloadDialog.cs:172 — "Load" — delete - load is self-evident; only keep Load on rows, not everywhere
  • redundant comment Nickvision.Parabolic.WinUI/Views/MainWindow.xaml.cs:48 — "Config" — delete - 'AppWindow' is a concrete type name
D11 · Test Reliability · Test reliability not included · ×1
  • Test reliability not included — No test suite was found, so reliability couldn't be assessed.
D16 · Bus Factor · Off-boarding risk · ×1
  • Off-boarding risk: anonymized user #1 — If anonymized user #1 becomes unavailable, 31 significant file(s) lose their only recent owner: Nickvision.Parabolic.GNOME/Views/AddDownloadDialog.cs, Nickvision.Parabolic.WinUI/Views/AddDownloadDialog.xaml.cs, Nickvision.Parabolic.WinUI/Views/MainWindow.xaml.cs, Nickvision.Parabolic.Shared/Controllers/AddDownloadDialogController.cs, Nickvision.Parabolic.WinUI/Views/SettingsPage.xaml.cs, Nickvision.Parabolic.GNOME/Views/MainWindow.cs, Nickvision.Parabolic.Shared/Controllers/MainWindowController.cs, Nickvision.Parabolic.Shared/Controllers/PreferencesViewController.cs (+23 more). Pair on, review, or document these before any departure.
D19 · Documentation Quality · The legal copyright disclaimer is a CAUTION heading with no actionable links to DMCA policy or reporting channels. · ×1
  • The legal copyright disclaimer is a CAUTION heading with no actionable links to DMCA policy or reporting channels. README.md — Add a link to the official YouTube DMCA policy and an option to file a complaint directly from the page.
D20 · ADR Quality · No ADRs found · ×1
  • No ADRs found — No ADRs found at common paths; consider documenting architectural decisions in Docs/ADL/ or similar.
D21 · Naming Consistency · The concept of 'History Length' is named inconsistently. The service interface and implementation use the property name 'Length', while the view controller uses 'HistoryLength'. · ×1
  • The concept of 'History Length' is named inconsistently. The service interface and implementation use the property name 'Length', while the view controller uses 'HistoryLength'. — Standardize on 'HistoryLength' or 'Length' across all layers. (symbols: Nickvision.Parabolic.Shared.Services.HistoryService.Length, Nickvision.Parabolic.Shared.Services.IHistoryService.Length, Nickvision.Parabolic.Shared.Controllers.PreferencesViewController.HistoryLength)
D21 · Naming Consistency · The action of clearing/cleaning up data is named inconsistently. 'ClearAsync' is used for recovery, 'ClearCompleted' for downloads, and 'Clear...' for controllers. The verb choice (Clear vs Remove) and scope (Completed vs All) vary. · ×1
  • The action of clearing/cleaning up data is named inconsistently. 'ClearAsync' is used for recovery, 'ClearCompleted' for downloads, and 'Clear...' for controllers. The verb choice (Clear vs Remove) and scope (Completed vs All) vary. — Standardize on 'Clear' for bulk removal operations, e.g., 'ClearCompletedAsync' or 'RemoveCompleted'. (symbols: Nickvision.Parabolic.Shared.Services.RecoveryService.ClearAsync(), Nickvision.Parabolic.Shared.Services.DownloadService.ClearCompleted(), Nickvision.Parabolic.Shared.Controllers.MainWindowController.ClearQueuedDownloads(), Nickvision.Parabolic.Shared.Controllers.MainWindowController.ClearRecoverableDownloadsAsync())
D21 · Naming Consistency · Inconsistent naming for adding/starting operations. 'AddAsync' is used for History and Recovery, while 'Resume' is used for Download. 'Start' or 'Begin' might be more consistent with 'Add' or 'Create'. · ×1
  • Inconsistent naming for adding/starting operations. 'AddAsync' is used for History and Recovery, while 'Resume' is used for Download. 'Start' or 'Begin' might be more consistent with 'Add' or 'Create'. — Use 'Add' for creating new entities (History, Recovery) and 'Start' or 'Resume' for existing ones (Download). (symbols: Nickvision.Parabolic.Shared.Services.HistoryService.AddAsync(System.Collections.Generic.IReadOnlyList<Nickvision.Parabolic.Shared.Models.HistoricDownload>), Nickvision.Parabolic.Shared.Services.HistoryService.AddAsync(Nickvision.Parabolic.Shared.Models.HistoricDownload), Nickvision.Parabolic.Shared.Services.IHistoryService.RemoveAsync(Nickvision.Parabolic.Shared.Models.HistoricDownload), Nickvision.Parabolic.Shared.Services.RecoveryService.AddAsync(System.Collections.Generic.IReadOnlyList<Nickvision.Parabolic.Shared.Models.RecoverableDownload>), Nickvision.Parabolic.Shared.Services.RecoveryService.RemoveAsync(int), Nickvision.Parabolic.Shared.Services.DownloadService.AddAsync(Nickvision.Parabolic.Shared.Models.DownloadOptions, bool), Nickvision.Parabolic.Shared.Services.DownloadService.Resume(int), Nickvision.Parabolic.Shared.Services.DownloadService.StopAsync(int), Nickvision.Parabolic.Shared.Services.DownloadService.RetryAsync(int))
D21 · Naming Consistency · The identifier for a download is named 'Id' in the model and event args, which is consistent, but the parameter name in 'DownloadService.RetryAsync' and 'DownloadService.StopAsync' uses 'int' (likely an ID), while other services use specific types. · ×1
  • The identifier for a download is named 'Id' in the model and event args, which is consistent, but the parameter name in 'DownloadService.RetryAsync' and 'DownloadService.StopAsync' uses 'int' (likely an ID), while other services use specific types. — Ensure the 'int' parameter in DownloadService methods is explicitly typed or named 'downloadId' for clarity. (symbols: Nickvision.Parabolic.Shared.Models.Download.Id, Nickvision.Parabolic.Shared.Events.DownloadEventArgs.Id)
D9 · Test Distribution · No tests found · ×1
  • No tests found — No test suite could be collected — nothing here references a test framework (xUnit, NUnit or MSTest), so there were no discoverable tests to count. Tests written as plain executables or shell/PowerShell harnesses are not collectible this way and are not scored here.
Info — 12 finding(s)
D12 · Dependency Hygiene · Outdated · ×7
  • Outdated: GirCore.Adw-1 — GirCore.Adw-1 0.7.0 → 0.8.1 available (referenced by Nickvision.Parabolic.GNOME).
  • Outdated: NReco.Logging.File — NReco.Logging.File 1.3.1 → 1.4.0 available (referenced by Nickvision.Parabolic.Shared).
  • Outdated: System.Management — System.Management 10.0.8 → 10.0.10 available (referenced by Nickvision.Parabolic.Shared).
  • Outdated: z440.atl.core — z440.atl.core 7.13.0 → 7.15.3 available (referenced by Nickvision.Parabolic.Shared).
  • Outdated: Microsoft.Windows.CsWinRT — Microsoft.Windows.CsWinRT 2.2.0 → 2.3.1 available (referenced by Nickvision.Parabolic.WinUI).
  • Outdated: Microsoft.Windows.SDK.BuildTools — Microsoft.Windows.SDK.BuildTools 10.0.28000.1839 → 10.0.28000.2526 available (referenced by Nickvision.Parabolic.WinUI).
  • Outdated: Microsoft.WindowsAppSDK — Microsoft.WindowsAppSDK 2.0.1 → 2.3.1 available (referenced by Nickvision.Parabolic.WinUI).
D19 · Documentation Quality · XML-doc coverage · ×3
  • XML-doc coverage: Nickvision.Parabolic.GNOME Nickvision.Parabolic.GNOME/Nickvision.Parabolic.GNOME.csproj — Nickvision.Parabolic.GNOME: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/44).
  • XML-doc coverage: Nickvision.Parabolic.Shared Nickvision.Parabolic.Shared/Nickvision.Parabolic.Shared.csproj — Nickvision.Parabolic.Shared: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/537).
  • XML-doc coverage: Nickvision.Parabolic.WinUI Nickvision.Parabolic.WinUI/Nickvision.Parabolic.WinUI.csproj — Nickvision.Parabolic.WinUI: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/78).
D18 · Solution Shape · Build did not complete in the analyzer · ×1
  • Build did not complete in the analyzer — `dotnet build` reported 2 error(s) but no C# compiler diagnostic, so this is a build-environment gap rather than a code defect. The usual causes are a project that targets a platform this run cannot build (a Windows-only target framework on a Linux worker) or a build step that shells out to a tool the image does not carry. Solution Shape is scored on structure and is NOT capped. Semantic analysis is independent of this build and covers every project that loaded — but a project whose restore did not complete has no resolved references, so treat its results as absent rather than clean. Worth checking on your side too: a build that needs undeclared host tooling, or that cannot run off its own platform, is the same wall a new contributor hits.
D22 · Internal API Consistency · No exposed public API · ×1
  • No exposed public API — No intentionally-exposed types (IsPackable or .Contracts) to evaluate.

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)gitleaksgitleaks detect --no-banner --report-format json --report-path /dev/stdout --exit-code 0 --source .0artifacts/raw/gitleaks-history.json
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)semgrepsemgrep --config /opt/semgrep-rules/security-audit.yml --config /opt/semgrep-rules/owasp-top-ten.yml --json --quiet --timeout 0 --metrics off .12artifacts/raw/semgrep.json
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilitiesdotnetdotnet: not applicable — the solution did not restore on the analyzer's .NET SDK (an SDK/target-framework/restore mismatch, common for an older codebase), so there was no restored dependency graph to scan for NuGet CVEs — excluded rather than scored; re-run on an SDK that can restore this solution0
D31 · IaC & Container Securitytrivytrivy: not applicable — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation); nothing to scan.0
D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR)semgrepsemgrep: not applicable — No PII/GDPR-handling patterns detected (p/gdpr ruleset) — no data-compliance surface to assess.0
D33 · JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilitiestrivytrivy: not applicable — No JS/npm manifest or lockfile found outside build output (package.json, package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); no JS dependencies to scan.0
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signingprovenanceprovenance: not applicable — 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).0
D37 · Vulnerability-disclosure Policydisclosuredisclosure: 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 Vulnerabilitiesosv-scannerosv-scanner: not applicable — No supported non-.NET dependency lockfile found outside build output (npm package-lock/yarn/pnpm/bun, Go go.mod, Rust Cargo.lock, Maven pom.xml, Gradle lockfiles, Python requirements.txt/poetry.lock/Pipfile.lock/pdm.lock, PHP composer.lock, Ruby Gemfile.lock, Elixir mix.lock, Dart pubspec.lock, Swift Package.resolved); nothing for OSV to scan. A NuGet-only repo stays NotApplicable — .NET CVEs are D30's domain.0
D40 · Network Egress Confinementruntime-hardeningruntime-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-hardeningruntime-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-hardeningruntime-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

Run 019fd2c5-896c-7322-b3e9-c35e8a0b9b58 · every finding is also locatable in findings.md, and the complete scoring record (with exit codes + durations) in sidecar.json.

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