pueue — Watchdog Audit

Executive summary

The system holds a strong overall standing with a 72% health score, indicating a well-engineered asset that is largely reliable and maintainable. However, the absence of documented architectural decisions creates a hidden risk to long-term agility and onboarding speed. While the code itself is robust, the lack of institutional memory around design choices could slow future delivery and increase the cost of change as the team scales.

The codebase is small, comprising roughly 12,600 lines of production code, with a rebuild cost estimated at just €24,000 for a single engineer. This low barrier to entry suggests the system is not overly complex, yet the high code health and architecture scores indicate that the existing logic is clean and well-structured. The primary value at stake is not in refactoring the code, but in preserving the knowledge required to evolve it safely without introducing regressions or architectural drift.

The most critical gap is the lack of Architectural Decision Records. Without these, new team members cannot understand the context behind key design choices, leading to potential rework and inconsistent implementations. This maturity gap poses a risk to delivery speed, as developers may spend time rediscovering why certain patterns were chosen. Addressing this is the highest-leverage action, as it stabilizes the team’s ability to make informed changes without requiring significant code modifications.

Strengths lie in the exceptional code quality and architectural coherence, which ensure that the system is easy to test and observe. The high performance and readiness scores further confirm that the system is stable and secure in its current state. To maintain this momentum, the team should immediately document recent decisions and add a testing guide to the main documentation. This small effort will secure the system’s longevity and ensure that the strong technical foundation remains accessible to all contributors.

Code Health 95% ★ Exemplary Architecture 89% Adequate · gated by D26 Maturity 68% Adequate · gated by M2 Readiness 71% Strong Security 71% Adequate · gated by D29, D36 Performance 89% Strong

How the score is built — each lens's share of the headline Width is the lens's weight in the worst-heaviest fold (the weakest area pulls hardest); colour is that lens's own band. A lens fixes the score in proportion to its width.

Maturity 68% · 46% weightReadiness 71% · 25% weightSecurity 71% · 14% weightPerformance 89% · 8% weightArchitecture 89% · 4% weightCode Health 95% · 2% weight

No single dominant problem — the weakest areas are close, so progress on any of them moves the score.

Code composition — where the lines go

Tests 100%

New since the last scan (8+)

8 finding(s) are new versus the previous scan (2026-09-13) — surfaced by this scheduled scan itself, no pull request required.

D5 · Off the main sequence: pueue-lib
D22 · Ambiguous configuration loading semantics. `read` implies loading from a specific file path, while `load_profile` implies selecting a named profile from the current configuration context. It is unclear if `load_profile` modifies the current instance or returns a new one, and how it interacts with `read`. The naming suggests two different ways to achieve similar 'get config' goals.
D22 · Inconsistent return types for accessor methods. Most path accessors return `PathBuf` directly, but `unix_socket_path` returns `Result`. This forces inconsistent error handling in client code when accessing configuration paths, despite all being derived from the same `Shared` settings struct.
D22 · Semantic type mismatch: `enqueue_at` is typed as `PathBuf` but semantically represents a timestamp or datetime for scheduling. Using `PathBuf` for time-based scheduling is confusing and likely incorrect, suggesting a copy-paste error from file path fields.
D22 · Inconsistent typing for the same semantic field `priority`. `AddRequest` uses `PathBuf` while `Task`, `EditableTask`, and `TaskToRestart` use `i32`. This is a clear data type inconsistency that will cause serialization/deserialization errors or logical bugs.
D22 · Inconsistent typing for the `label` field. It is `PathBuf` in requests and editable tasks, but `String` in the core `Task` domain model. Labels are typically human-readable strings, not file paths.
D22 · While `path` is consistently `PathBuf`, the semantic meaning varies. In `AddRequest`, it likely means 'working directory', but in `Task`, it is stored as `path`. This is less of an inconsistency and more of a naming ambiguity, but combined with the other type errors, it highlights a lack of strict domain modeling. However, since the types match, this is not a strict API inconsistency in signature, but the previous points are critical.
D30 · REDACTED

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 — €7,800–€39,000

Cost to rebuild	€7,800–€39,000 (0.1–0.2 person-years (130–413 h), ~1 engineer)
Domain complexity	Standard — harder problems cost more per line
Quality factor	1.1× (at 72% quality) — the last 20% of quality is most of the work
Size & shape	Small · effort split not classified (source measured from disk; the effort-tier breakdown is a C#-only syntax walk)

This codebase represents roughly ~0.2 person-years of build effort (about ~€24,000 to rebuild). Its weakest lens is Maturity at 68% — the part of that asset most exposed by the findings below.

How we model this: boilerplate at a scaffolding rate + logic × domain Standard (×1.0) — standard service × a 1.1× quality factor, at €60–95/h; indicative, ±~30% · size measured directly from source · effort from total production LoC as straight-line logic (the tier split is a C#-only syntax walk), a conservative lower bound. Indicative only — most sensitive to the hourly rate and the domain tier (both tunable in config).

Top priorities

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

Resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality.

+4.0 pts · Low effort · ADR Quality

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

+4.0 pts · Medium effort · Architecture documentation

Add a 'Testing' section to the root README — how to run the test suite.

+3.7 pts · Medium effort · Documentation (README)

Diagnosis — what's actually going on

Highest-leverage move · Medium · Leverage

Of everything flagged, the best return on effort is: Resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality. The rest can wait behind it.

Evidence: priority ranking: top of 5 ranked by impact/effort

→ Resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality.

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.

Architecture — module dependency matrix

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

105 modules, 186 dependencies. 2 dependency cycles across 5 modules, marked above the diagonal.

Showing the 40 most-connected modules; 65 more are not drawn.

Module dependency matrix. The row depends on the column; the number is how many type pairs create the dependency. A cell above the diagonal is part of a dependency cycle.
depends on →	1 pueue.client.cli	2 pueue_lib.message.request	3 pueue_lib.task	5 pueue_lib.message	6 pueue_lib.message.response	7 pueue_lib.network.socket	8 pueue_lib.state	9 pueue_lib.network.client	10 pueue_lib.settings	11 pueue.client.style	31 pueue.client.commands.edit	38 pueue.client.commands.state.table_builder
1 pueue.client.cli
2 pueue_lib.message.request
3 pueue_lib.task
4 pueue.client.commands.state.query			1
5 pueue_lib.message			1								1
6 pueue_lib.message.response			1
7 pueue_lib.network.socket									1
8 pueue_lib.state			1
9 pueue_lib.network.client						1
10 pueue_lib.settings								2
11 pueue.client.style									1
12 pueue.daemon.internal_state.state		1	2				4		1
13 pueue.daemon.network.message_handler		1			1				1
14 pueue.daemon.network.message_handler.add		1			1				1
15 pueue.daemon.network.message_handler.clean		1			1				1
16 pueue.daemon.network.message_handler.edit				1	1				1
17 pueue.daemon.network.message_handler.enqueue		1			1				1
18 pueue.daemon.network.message_handler.env		1			1				1
19 pueue.daemon.network.message_handler.group		1			1				1
20 pueue.daemon.network.message_handler.kill		1			1				1
21 pueue.daemon.network.message_handler.log		2			1				1
22 pueue.daemon.network.message_handler.pause		1			1				1
23 pueue.daemon.network.message_handler.reset		1			1				1
24 pueue.daemon.network.message_handler.restart		2			1				1
25 pueue.daemon.network.message_handler.start		1			1				1
26 pueue.daemon.network.message_handler.stash		1			1				1
27 pueue.daemon.network.message_handler.switch		1			1				1
28 pueue.process_helper									1
29 pueue.client.commands	1	1			1			1	1	1
30 pueue.client.commands.add								1	1	1
31 pueue.client.commands.edit				1				1	1	1
32 pueue.client.commands.env	1							1		1
33 pueue.client.commands.follow								1	1	1
34 pueue.client.commands.group	1				1			1		1
35 pueue.client.commands.kill		1						1	1	1
36 pueue.client.commands.log			1		1			1	1	1
37 pueue.client.commands.remove								1	1	1
38 pueue.client.commands.state.table_builder									1	1
39 pueue.client.commands.wait		1	2				1	1		1
40 pueue.client.commands.state			1				1	1	1	1		1

Dependency, pointing down the layeringAbove the diagonal — part of a cycleThe module itself

At a glance — Code Health · 95% · Exemplary ·

The Good

D1 · Rust Cyclomatic Complexity 9.1 D2 · Rust Cognitive Complexity 8.2 D3 · Rust God Classes 9.7 D4 · Rust Code Duplication 9.4 D17 · Rust Explicit Debt 10.0

At a glance — Architecture · 89% · Adequate · gated by D26 ·

The Good

D6 · Rust Cohesion (LCOM4) 10.0 D35 · Rust Change Coupling 9.8 AX10 · Repo Code composition 10.0 AX3 · Repo Project dependency cycles 10.0 AX4 · Repo Dependency direction 10.0 AX9 · Repo CQS / query purity 10.0

The Bad

D5 · Rust Coupling 6.0

The Ugly

D22 · Rust Internal API Consistency 3.0 D26 · Rust Project Cohesion 1.5

At a glance — Maturity · 68% · Adequate · gated by M2 ·

The Good

D15 · Rust Churn × Complexity Hotspots 10.0 D19 · Rust Documentation Quality 8.0 D21 · Rust Naming Consistency 10.0 D34 · Rust Knowledge Freshness 10.0 M1 · Repo Documentation (README) 7.8 M3 · Repo Folder & project structure 10.0 M4 · Repo Documentation accuracy 10.0

The Ugly

D20 · Rust ADR Quality 0.0 M2 · Repo Architecture documentation 2.0

At a glance — Readiness · 71% · Strong ·

The Good

D9 · Rust Test Distribution 10.0 D11 · Rust Test Reliability 10.0 D13 · Rust Secret Scanning 10.0 P1 · Repo CI/CD gates 10.0 P2 · Repo Observability 7.0 P3 · Repo Security & performance tooling 8.0 P6 · Repo Release Hygiene 10.0

The Bad

P10 · Repo Library API & versioning 6.0 P4 · Repo Deployment & Rollback 5.0

At a glance — Security · 71% · Adequate · gated by D29, D36 ·

The Good

D28 · Rust Secrets (history) 10.0 D30 · Rust Dependency Vulnerabilities 9.8 D43 · Rust Malicious Dependencies 10.0 D44 · Rust Platform End-of-Life 10.0

The Ugly

D29 · Rust Static Analysis (SAST) 2.8 D36 · Rust Supply-chain Provenance & Signing 0.0

At a glance — Performance · 89% · Strong ·

The Good

PF1 · Repo Benchmark discipline 8.0 PF3 · Repo Async & latency hygiene 10.0

Security & Compliance — OWASP Top-10 mapping

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

OWASP category	Findings	Severity
A03:2021 — Injection	45	High / Critical
A06:2021 — Vulnerable & Outdated Components	1	Medium

Roadmap

First, resolve the missing architecture decision records by documenting significant choices with context and consequences in a standard directory structure. Next, enhance the root README by adding a clear section on how to run the test suite. Then, restrict public API exposure by hiding internal implementation types to allow for safer refactoring. Finally, improve system operability by implementing OpenTelemetry tracing and adding a health-check endpoint.

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

Do this	Helps	Effort	Dimension
Resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality.	+4.0 pts	Low	ADR Quality
Record significant decisions one document per decision — dated, stating the context, the decision and its consequences — and keep them together wherever your design docs already live (a conventional `docs/adr/` tree, with each file named `NNNN-title` in whatever markup those docs already use, is the most discoverable form).	+4.0 pts	Medium	Architecture documentation
Add a 'Testing' section to the root README — how to run the test suite.	+3.7 pts	Medium	Documentation (README)
Keep implementation types off the public surface (Rust: `pub(crate)`, or keep the module private) so internals can change without breaking consumers.	+2.9 pts	Medium	Library API & versioning
Consider OpenTelemetry tracing/metrics (opentelemetry with tracing-opentelemetry) and a health-check endpoint (a /health route on your axum/actix router) for operability.	+2.9 pts	Medium	Observability
Nothing pauses a release for a human: publish as a draft release (or gate the release job on a protected tag/manual dispatch) so a bad build can be stopped before users can download it.	+2.9 pts	Medium	Deployment & Rollback
Improve Documentation Quality — currently 8.0/10.	+1.7 pts	Medium	Documentation Quality
Resolve the 4 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED (3), REDACTED.	+0.8 pts	Low	Static Analysis (SAST)

File quality

Per-file score 0–10 — a quality signature. Of 33 files carrying findings, judged against the Production bar: 3% slop · 52% mixed · 45% near-clean.

File	Score	Band	Worst signal
REDACTED	2.4	Slop	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED	4.4	Mixed	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED	4.4	Mixed	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED	4.8	Mixed	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED	4.8	Mixed	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED	5.1	Mixed	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED	5.1	Mixed	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED	5.1	Mixed	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED	5.8	Mixed	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
pueue_lib/src/network/protocol.rs	5.9	Mixed	Code Duplication: Duplicated block (38–42 lines × 2)
pueue/src/daemon/network/message_handler/enqueue.rs	7.1	Mixed	Cognitive Complexity: pueue::daemon::network::message_handler::enqueue::enqueue (cognitive 16)
REDACTED	7.2	Mixed	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
pueue/src/client/commands/state/query/filters.rs	7.4	Mixed	Cyclomatic Complexity: pueue::client::commands::state::query::filters::datetime (cyclomatic 23)
pueue/src/client/commands/state/table_builder.rs	7.8	Mixed	Cyclomatic Complexity: TableBuilder::build_task_rows (cyclomatic 23)
pueue/src/daemon/network/message_handler/log.rs	7.8	Mixed	Cyclomatic Complexity: pueue::daemon::network::message_handler::log::follow_log (cyclomatic 19)
pueue/src/client/commands/restart.rs	7.8	Mixed	Cyclomatic Complexity: pueue::client::commands::restart::restart (cyclomatic 17)
pueue/src/client/commands/wait.rs	7.8	Mixed	Cyclomatic Complexity: pueue::client::commands::wait::wait (cyclomatic 16)
REDACTED	7.9	Mixed	Dependency Vulnerabilities: Medium vulnerability: REDACTED
pueue/src/daemon/network/certificate.rs	8.0	Near-clean	Change Coupling: Boundary-crossing change coupling: certificate.rs ↔ secret.rs
pueue/src/client/commands/state/query/mod.rs	8.5	Near-clean	Cyclomatic Complexity: QueryResult::order_tasks (cyclomatic 18)

How the grades work

Every finding carries one of four grades. Three say how serious it is. The fourth says this survey could not settle it — and it is a grade, not a gap.

Critical — 45

A definite problem that already costs you something and drags the score down: a missing authorisation check, a dependency with a known exploit, a build that does not reproduce. Failure here tends to cause failures elsewhere.

Serious — 50

Likely wrong, but not failing yet. It degrades the codebase over a longer horizon and can cause failures elsewhere — not urgent this week, not something to carry for two years either.

Minor — 9

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

Could not be resolved — 42

Something this survey could not settle from the outside, and which could be critical or serious. Either a control was required and no positive evidence of it exists in the repository — a backup job that nothing shows was ever restored from proves nothing about restores — or our own analysis could not run over that part of the tree. This is not a clean result. These are excluded from the score rather than awarded a pass, so the number on the cover neither rewards nor penalises them: if you act on this survey without resolving them, you carry that risk yourself. Each one is named under Limitations.

Methodology & how to trust this report

Watchdog is a deep, periodic assessment — run each sprint, monthly, or quarterly, taking the time to go wider and deeper than a quick check and surfacing in one coherent report what you'd otherwise piece together from a dozen separate tools. It scores deterministically: the same commit yields the same score, every run. 35 of 40 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); 5 documentation/naming judgement(s) are LLM-assisted and labelled advisory. Overall confidence is 0.9 — the weighted average across measured dimensions; it falls as more of the score leans on LLM-assisted judgement and rises when it's fully tool-backed.

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

What we checked — 40 dimensions across the health lenses

D1D2D3D4D5D6D9D11D13D15D17D19D20D21D22D26D28D29D30D34D35D36D43D44AX10AX3AX4AX9M1M2M3M4P1P10P2P3P4P6PF1PF3

Each chip is a dimension scored from real signals across architecture, testing, dependencies, security & compliance, documentation, git-history and code quality — in one coherent pass. A surface report typically covers a handful.

How to trust any code-health report — three questions

Can you open the finding? Real findings cite a repo-relative file and line you can open at the cited line — never an absolute scratch path. Here, 83 of 104 do; the remainder are repo-wide signals — a dimension-level measurement, not a single line. (Every path in this report is repo-relative by construction: paths are normalized at the producer and the report is rejected if any rooted path leaks through.)
Is there a tool behind the number? Every score below names the method that produced it — Roslyn, git, a scanner, or (for a handful of documentation/naming dimensions) an LLM labelled sampled · advisory — not a narrative.
Does re-running give the same result? Run it again on the same commit and the score — and this report, byte for byte — is identical. A report whose numbers move between runs is describing the run, not the code.

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

Tools & methods

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

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

Every finding is locatable in findings.md. Run 01a0ee57-e13e-7494-a493-d0c75cb5da95.

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

Run transparency — what happened this run

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

D8 Code Coverage — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Coverage NOT READ here — but this repository measures it: a Codecov configuration (codecov.yml, target 80%) and a coverage step in CI (`cargo llvm-cov`) shows that coverage is collected and tracked in your own CI. The built-in collector has no runner for this ecosystem (.rs), so the analyzer could not read the number — a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not an unmeasured repo. Not scored. To have the real number read, produce a coverage report in a standard format (lcov — `cargo install cargo-llvm-cov`, then `cargo llvm-cov --lcov --output-path lcov.info`) and commit it — a hosted scan measures a clone of the repository, so a report that exists only in a working tree, a CI runner's or your own, never reaches it; the artefact is commonly gitignored, so `git add -f` that one file (or un-ignore its path) and commit it alongside the code it measures. You can widen what we reach: optional: produce a coverage report in a standard format (lcov — `cargo install cargo-llvm-cov`, then `cargo llvm-cov --lcov --output-path lcov.info`) and commit it — a hosted scan measures a clone of the repository, so a report that exists only in a working tree, a CI runner's or your own, never reaches it; the artefact is commonly gitignored, so `git add -f` that one file (or un-ignore its path) and commit it alongside the code it measures — then the real number is read on the next scan.
D12 Dependency Hygiene — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Not scored — 28 direct Cargo declaration(s) were read, but the outdated signal needs crates.io, which could not be reached on this run, so this dimension's own question is only partly answered. NOT a finding that these dependencies are current or healthy.
D16 Bus Factor — not measured this run — This is a true statement about the repository that carries nothing for its owner to act on, so it is reported here rather than as a defect in their code. Single-maintainer repository — bus factor is not applicable (52 contributor(s) across 2036 commit(s) sampled, automation and bot accounts excluded). One of them holds 89% of the history; the other 51 hold 0.2% each on average, below the 5% at which there is somebody to hand the work to. That is a single maintainer with drive-by contributors, not a team whose knowledge has concentrated — so the bus factor is not applicable and there is nothing here for the owner to act on.
AX1 Captive dependencies — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads Microsoft.Extensions.DependencyInjection registrations in C# and Spring beans in Java/Kotlin only, and no container it models, or knows cannot hold a captive, was found in this repository's source, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
AX6 Interface segregation — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is computed over the public interfaces this run's compilations declare, and none was loaded, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
AXB1 Runtime evidence locked — no reproducible boot — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. The Runtime Evidence tier boots an app only via docker-compose, an Aspire AppHost, or a Dockerfile. None was found, so no live runtime a11y/egress/header evidence was collected. You can widen what we reach: add a docker-compose.yml (or an Aspire AppHost) that brings the app up with its dependencies. Watchdog then boots it in an isolated sandbox and gathers real runtime evidence — you change nothing in your pipeline (no CI step, no SDK).
C1 Data Protection — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These personal data controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks personal data controls.
C2 Access Controls — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These authorization controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks authorization controls.
C3 Audit Trail — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These audit controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks audit controls.
C4 Data Retention — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These retention controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks retention controls.
C5 Data-Subject Rights — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These data-subject rights controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks data-subject rights controls.
ED5 Idempotency — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check finds retry-prone mutations by walking the repository's declared types, and NONE was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to look at. That is a limit of the analyzer's reach — it reads .NET projects — not a finding that this repository has no command handlers or message consumers.
GD1 Unfinished & placeholder code — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
IC1 Incompleteness & stubs — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
P5 DR & Backup — not measured this run — This is a true statement about the repository that carries nothing for its owner to act on, so it is reported here rather than as a defect in their code. No backup/snapshot/replication config, RTO/RPO or restore-procedure documentation was found — and no production persistence was detected either (no data-access packages, no data-store services, no database resources), so there is nothing in this repository whose loss a DR control would recover. If this system's data lives in a platform or ops repo we can't see, that's where the DR evidence belongs.
S1 Web-Security Posture — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These web-security controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks web-security controls.
X1 Async correctness — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X12 Unreachable branch — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X13 Undrained process stream — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X14 Bypassable address classification — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X15 Unvalidated length from an untrusted reader — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X16 Unfloored truncation loop — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X17 Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X18 Disposal-pattern correctness — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X19 Unrestored process-global state — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X2 Cancellation propagation — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X20 Mistyped argument guard — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X21 Side-effecting pattern guard — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X22 Contradicted release guard — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X23 Unguarded diagnostic materialisation — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X24 Document value interpolated into markup unescaped — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X25 Inert configuration knob — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X26 Unsynchronised callback handoff — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X27 Collection changed while being enumerated — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X28 Index access outside its own emptiness guard — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X29 Per-element action decided by a fixed element — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X3 Exception handling — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X30 Support guard that admits what it rejects — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X32 Type resolved by simple name across every loaded assembly — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X4 Structured logging — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X5 Nullable reference types — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X7 Silent fallback defaults — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# and Python syntax only, and no C# or Python was loaded for this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.

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

Limitations & what we did not check

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

Per-dimension blind spots

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

D1 Cyclomatic Complexity: Cyclomatic complexity counts branches statically — it cannot tell an essential decision tree from accidental tangle, nor see complexity that lives in data or configuration (large switch-case token tables, DSL lexers/parsers, data-as-code rule tables) rather than control flow: a tokenizer's many single-character cases read as high complexity though each branch is trivial.
D2 Cognitive Complexity: Cognitive-complexity heuristics approximate how hard code is to follow; genuine domain difficulty and well-named intent that eases reading are not captured.
D3 God Classes: "God class" is sized by members and responsibilities visible in the type — a deliberately broad facade over a coherent subsystem can read the same as an accidental grab-bag. For front-end JS the file-length check is cohesion-aware (a single-responsibility module — one class/IIFE — earns a 3× threshold), but cohesion is approximated from top-level declarations, not true dependency structure.
D4 Code Duplication: Duplication is token-similarity — an in-process token-stream comparison over sliding windows, with type-aware normalization — so it finds copy-paste, not semantic duplication expressed differently. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, protobuf/OpenAPI stubs, model snapshots) is EXCLUDED — its repetition is the tool's, not the team's — so the score reflects hand-written duplication only.
D5 Coupling: Coupling is measured between projects/assemblies — runtime coupling through DI, reflection, messaging or shared databases is invisible to a static reference graph.
D6 Cohesion (LCOM4): LCOM4 cohesion is syntactic — it infers connectivity from which methods touch which fields/methods by name, not from real runtime behaviour or intent.
D9 Test Distribution: The test-pyramid shape is inferred from project/folder naming and references, with a single test host bucketed per-file by its path tier and content signals — a suite that names tiers unconventionally and gives no per-file signal can still be mis-bucketed.
D11 Test Reliability: Flakiness is inferred from history/markers — Watchdog runs the suite once (for coverage), not the repeated runs under varied conditions that reveal nondeterminism, so a flaky test never recorded as failing is invisible here.
D13 Secret Scanning: Secret detection is signature- and entropy-based on the current tree — a secret that does not match a known pattern, or one already rotated, will not be flagged (a clean scan is "nothing matched", not "no secrets exist").
D15 Churn × Complexity Hotspots: Churn hotspots come from git history — a freshly imported or squashed repository has no churn signal, and recent rewrites can mask a historically risky file.
D17 Explicit Debt: Acknowledged-debt signals (TODO/FIXME, suppressions, dead code) are textual — undocumented debt that nobody marked, and debt that lives in design rather than annotations, is invisible. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, generated stubs) is excluded — it is never the team's dead code to delete.
D19 Documentation Quality: Documentation quality is judged by an LLM over a bounded sample of docs — it reads what is written, not whether the docs match the running system, and it is advisory, not a measurement. Its critique rows are drawn from a closed category vocabulary and each row means the same thing in every run, so two scans can be compared row by row; the SET that fires is still a sample, and does not repeat exactly. Measured on one frozen input, six scans at one engine SHA: 2-5 critique rows per scan, 8 distinct rows across the six, 3 of those 8 seen in only one scan. So a D19 row is evidence about the documentation, but a COUNT of D19 rows is not a quantity — never read a change in it as an improvement or a regression.
D20 ADR Quality: ADR quality is an LLM read of the decision records present — it cannot know about decisions made and never recorded, and its verdict is sampled and advisory.
D21 Naming Consistency: Naming quality is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it assesses clarity/consistency of the names it sees, not domain-correctness, and is advisory.
D22 Internal API Consistency: API-surface coherence is an LLM judgement over a sample of the public surface — consistency of intent across the whole API is approximated, not exhaustively verified.
D26 Project Cohesion: Project focus is sized from members/namespaces per project — a project that is broad by deliberate design reads the same as one that has sprawled.
D28 Secrets (history): Secret-history scanning sweeps the git log for known patterns — a secret that predates the available history, or never matched a signature, is not found (clean means "nothing matched in the history we can see").
D29 Static Analysis (SAST): SAST findings are pattern-based (semgrep) — it finds classes of bug it has rules for; logic flaws, auth/authorization gaps and issues needing runtime context are out of reach (and clean means "no rule matched").
D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities: CVE matching depends on accurate package/version metadata and on the advisory databases — a vulnerability with no published advisory, or in code not declared as a dependency, is not seen. Coverage needs a RESOLVED graph: an unpinned requirements.txt, or a pom without a resolved build, yields partial coverage rather than a clean verdict. An ecosystem the analyzer cannot scan is reported as unmeasured, never as clean.
D34 Knowledge Freshness: Freshness is decayed commit RECENCY, not comprehension — code read often but rarely committed reads as orphaned, and stable code that genuinely needs no changes is penalised the same as forgotten code; bot/squash commits distort it like the bus factor.
D35 Change Coupling: Change coupling is co-change in COMMITS — files split across separate commits, or coupled only through a shared config/build step, read as uncoupled, and a sweeping commit (rename/format) is excluded so it doesn't couple everything. It shows that files change together, not WHY: a high coupling can be a healthy cohesive pair as readily as a hidden leak.
D43 Malicious Dependencies: Only packages some vulnerability database has already NAMED as malicious are seen — a compromise published in the last hours, or never reported at all, is invisible here, and this dimension reading 10 is not evidence that a dependency is trustworthy. There is no typosquat or dependency-confusion analysis: a package nobody has reported is simply absent from the feeds. Coverage is the dependency scan's: an ecosystem that could not be scanned is disclosed as unmeasured, never as clean.
D44 Platform End-of-Life: The support table is FROZEN, so it goes out of date by losing RECALL: a release that ended support after the table was written is missed until the table is refreshed, and this dimension reading 10 is not evidence that a platform is current. Only platforms the repository DECLARES in a place this pass reads are seen — a runtime named only in a Dockerfile (D31's subject), in a CI workflow (D29's), or in a file this pass does not parse (go.mod, a Gemfile ruby directive) is invisible here, which is why a repository declaring none of them abstains rather than scoring. Only frameworks with a PUBLISHED support policy are tracked: React, Flask and Express publish none, so their age cannot be judged and their absence from a report is not a statement that they are supported.
AX10 Code composition: Role is inferred from namespace/folder convention, not semantics — a domain concept living in a folder named "Services" reads as application, and the split is lines-of-code, not business value. The business-logic-share score is a SOFT, FLOORED signal: it contributes to the Architecture lens but is floored at the Critical gate, so an infrastructure-heavy design (a gateway, an ETL, a driver) is legitimately low without being nuked to zero.
AX9 CQS / query purity: Handlers are found by interface/name convention — a query handler using neither is not seen. Mutation is a resolved write/publish invocation (SaveChanges/repository/bus), so a write hidden behind a hand-rolled wrapper, reflection, or a string-keyed service locator resolves to a non-persistence type and isn't flagged; it detects that a query writes state, not whether the write is a legitimate read-side cache update. Clean means "no resolved write/publish in a query body", not a proof of CQS purity.
M4 Documentation accuracy: Onboarding quality is an LLM read of the docs/setup present — it cannot run the onboarding or measure how long a real new joiner takes; the verdict is sampled and advisory.
P4 Deployment & Rollback: Approval/branch-protection rules live in repository settings the scan cannot see — only their in-repo evidence (config files, workflows) is checked, so a control enforced purely in the host's settings reads as "not evidenced".
P6 Release Hygiene: Rollback/observability controls are inferred from repo artefacts (pipelines, dashboards-as-code) — controls configured in external tooling, with no in-repo trace, cannot be credited.

The LLM boundary

LLM-set scores this run (5): D19, D21, D22, D26, M4 (model: Local LLM). For these, a model reads a bounded sample and sets the numeric score; each names its own sample and method on its card. They are sampled and advisory by design: they vary at the margins between runs and are never a deterministic measurement. Every other score in this report is tool-computed at confidence 1.0.

Dimensions

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity9.1 / 10Stronggated by 6 serious findings✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 9.1 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

6 function(s) exceeded the cyclomatic complexity threshold of 15; the worst was TableBuilder::build_task_rows at 23. A further 2 function(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 pueue::daemon::network::message_handler::handle_request at 22 — they are counted neither in the figure above nor in this dimension's score. 2 files carry no cyclomatic complexity row at all for this reason — every one of their over-threshold functions was excluded, so the exclusion is disclosed nowhere in the file itself: pueue/src/client/commands/mod.rs (pueue::client::commands::handle_command at 22), pueue/src/daemon/network/message_handler/mod.rs (pueue::daemon::network::message_handler::handle_request at 22). They are named here because the per-file figures other dimensions report are taken BEFORE this exclusion, so such a file can show a high maximum complexity elsewhere in this report and nothing here, with nothing to reconcile the two.

pueue::client::commands::state::query::filters::datetime (cyclomatic 23) · ×4pueue/src/client/commands/state/query/filters.rs:68

TableBuilder::build_task_rows (cyclomatic 23)pueue/src/client/commands/state/table_builder.rs:189

QueryResult::order_tasks (cyclomatic 18)pueue/src/client/commands/state/query/mod.rs:65

What to do

Resolve the 4 pueue finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with filters.rs, log.rs, restart.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 TableBuilder finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with table_builder.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 QueryResult finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with mod.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D2 · Cognitive Complexity8.2 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 8.2 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

8 function(s) exceeded the cognitive complexity threshold of 15; the worst was TableBuilder::build_task_rows at 43.

pueue::client::commands::wait::wait (cognitive 38) · ×7pueue/src/client/commands/wait.rs:46

TableBuilder::build_task_rows (cognitive 43)pueue/src/client/commands/state/table_builder.rs:189

What to do

Resolve the 7 pueue finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with wait.rs, log.rs, follow.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (7 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 TableBuilder finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with table_builder.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D3 · God Classes9.7 / 10Stronggated by 1 serious finding✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

1 over-large unit(s) detected — types, modules or files that carry too much.

FunctionTooLong: pueue::client::commands::handle_commandpueue/src/client/commands/mod.rs:153

What to do

Resolve the 1 FunctionTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with mod.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Enforce God Classes in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D4 · Code Duplication9.4 / 10Stronggated by 18 serious findings✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

17 duplicated block group(s) detected. One further row reports members as variants of one another; it aggregates block groups already counted above and is not itself counted.

Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) · ×3pueue/src/client/commands/state/query/filters.rs:229

Near-duplicate member pair (49 shared lines)pueue/src/daemon/network/message_handler/enqueue.rs:11

Duplicated block (38–42 lines × 2)pueue_lib/src/network/protocol.rs:106

Duplicated block (26–27 lines × 2)pueue_lib/src/network_blocking/socket/unix.rs:32

Duplicated block (21–22 lines × 2)pueue_lib/src/network/socket/unix.rs:40

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

What to do

Resolve the 3 Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with enqueue.rs (2), filters.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 Near-duplicate member pair (49 shared lines) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with enqueue.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 Duplicated block (38–42 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with protocol.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Enforce Code Duplication in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D5 · Coupling6.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 6.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

2 production modules (Cargo), 0 dependency cycle(s), 0 unstable depended-on module(s). Read from the build's own module declarations; 1 module(s) off the main sequence.

Off the main sequence: pueue-lib

What to do

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D6 · Cohesion (LCOM4)10.0 / 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: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

0 of 12 classes have LCOM4 above 3.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d6_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

142 test methods: 42 unit, 100 integration, 0 BDD, 0 e2e. The Rust suite contributes 142 `#[test]` function(s) across 47 file(s) declaring at least one; its unit/integration split is Cargo's own — 38 of those file(s) are integration-test targets under a crate's tests/ directory, and the rest are #[test] functions compiled into the crate they test.

Inverted test pyramid

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D11 · Test Reliability10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether the tests pass reliably, with no flakiness.

Method: Suite re-run N times within tiered wall-clock budgets (unit to e2e); tests failing non-deterministically across runs flagged; guarded tests retried when #if guards detected.

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

0 flaky across 1 measured tier(s). Rust (repository root, 47 test files): measured (0 flaky).

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d11_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

Secret scan ran and found no leaked secrets.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d13_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots10.0 / 10Stronggated by 1 serious finding✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

No churn × complexity hotspots in the window. Repeated repair below the complexity floor: pueue/src/daemon/network/socket/mod.rs (4 of 4 changes were fixes)

Repeated repair: pueue/src/daemon/network/socket/mod.rspueue/src/daemon/network/socket/mod.rs:46

What to do

Resolve the 1 Repeated repair finding(s) in Churn × Complexity Hotspots — start with mod.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

0 deducted task-comment markers across 12602 LoC (0.0/KLoC) → score 10.0. Task comments only: this repository's language is read without a compiler, so D17's suppression, dead-code and commented-out-code arms did not run and this score counts fewer marker kinds than a .NET repository's would.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d17_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D19 · Documentation QualityStrong◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

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

The repository's root README (Pueue) is clear and complete: it states what the project is (a command-line task management tool), shows a test badge, a Crates.io badge, a license badge, a downloads badge, a codecov badge, an overview image, and links to features, installation, usage, design goals, and contributing. The pueue/ README documents internal library files that should not be used by anything but `pueue` itself, while the pueue_lib/README is a standalone crate README (Pueue-lib) describing its shared library, its public API, helper functions for reading local logs, features, and links to docs.rs. Finally, an Architecture Guide document explains the project structure, two main daemon components, shared state via SharedState, and cross-compilation steps.

What to do

Improve Documentation Quality — currently 8.0/10. — The repository's root README (Pueue) is clear and complete: it states what the project is (a command-line task management tool), shows a test badge, a Crates.io badge, a license badge, a downloads badge, a codecov badge, an overview image, and links to features, installation, usage, design goals, and contributing. The pueue/ README documents internal library files that should not be used by anything but `pueue` itself, while the pueue_lib/README is a standalone crate README (Pueue-lib) describing its shared library, its public API, helper functions for reading local logs, features, and links to docs.rs. Finally, an Architecture Guide document explains the project structure, two main daemon components, shared state via SharedState, and cross-compilation steps.

Detailed fixes: d19_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

No architecture decision records were found.

No ADRs found

What to do

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D21 · Naming ConsistencyExemplary◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

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

0 naming inconsistencies across 0 sampled symbols.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d21_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D22 · Internal API ConsistencyWeak◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

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

6 API inconsistencies across 86 exposed types.

Ambiguous configuration loading semantics. `read` implies loading from a specific file path, while `load_profile` implies selecting a named profile from the current configuration context. It is unclear if `load_profile` modifies the current instance or returns a new one, and how it interacts with `read`. The naming suggests two different ways to achieve similar 'get config' goals.

Inconsistent return types for accessor methods. Most path accessors return `PathBuf` directly, but `unix_socket_path` returns `Result`. This forces inconsistent error handling in client code when accessing configuration paths, despite all being derived from the same `Shared` settings struct.

Semantic type mismatch: `enqueue_at` is typed as `PathBuf` but semantically represents a timestamp or datetime for scheduling. Using `PathBuf` for time-based scheduling is confusing and likely incorrect, suggesting a copy-paste error from file path fields.

Inconsistent typing for the same semantic field `priority`. `AddRequest` uses `PathBuf` while `Task`, `EditableTask`, and `TaskToRestart` use `i32`. This is a clear data type inconsistency that will cause serialization/deserialization errors or logical bugs.

Inconsistent typing for the `label` field. It is `PathBuf` in requests and editable tasks, but `String` in the core `Task` domain model. Labels are typically human-readable strings, not file paths.

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

What to do

Resolve the 1 Ambiguous configuration loading semantics. `read` implies loading from a… finding(s) in Internal API Consistency. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 Inconsistent return types for accessor methods. Most path accessors… finding(s) in Internal API Consistency. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 Semantic type mismatch finding(s) in Internal API Consistency. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D26 · Project Cohesion1.5 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 1.5 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

1 of 2 build units (Cargo) flagged as possibly oversized/incoherent.

Projects may be oversized for their cohesion

What to do

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D28 · Secrets (history)10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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

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

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

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

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d28_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)2.8 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 2.8 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

45 finding(s): 0 critical, 44 high, 1 medium, 0 low. 37 unpinned-GitHub-Actions row(s) are reported here but scored by D36 (supply-chain provenance), which measures that posture as `pinned_actions` — one pinning decision is charged once, not once per lens. Separately, one or more rules could not re-parse an embedded snippet in 3 file(s) (e.g. a workflow `run:` block read as shell). Those files WERE scanned and their other rows are unaffected; only those rules' view of those snippets is missing.

REDACTED

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

What to do

Resolve the 4 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED (3), REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 issue-level).
Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).
No action in Static Analysis (SAST) — all 37 REDACTED finding(s) are reported here at file:line but scored by D36 (supply-chain provenance), so none is charged to this dimension. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (37 issue-level, 0 of them charged here).

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities9.8 / 10Stronggated by 1 serious finding✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 9.8 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

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

REDACTED

What to do

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

Every significant source file has living knowledge — recently and meaningfully worked. Counted over 60 of the 111 production source files in this repository: the rest are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d34_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D35 · Change Coupling9.8 / 10Adequategated by 1 critical finding✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 9.8 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

Strongest change-coupling: protocol.rs↔unix.rs 56%; certificate.rs↔secret.rs 50%; secret.rs↔settings.rs 50%

Boundary-crossing change coupling: certificate.rs ↔ secret.rspueue/src/daemon/network/certificate.rs

Change coupling: protocol.rs ↔ unix.rs · ×2pueue_lib/src/network/protocol.rs

What to do

Resolve the 1 Boundary-crossing change coupling finding(s) in Change Coupling — start with certificate.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).
Resolve the 2 Change coupling finding(s) in Change Coupling — start with protocol.rs, secret.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether the build pipeline provides supply-chain integrity — generated provenance/attestation, signed artifacts (cosign/sigstore), an SBOM, and pinned build actions. Presence of the configuration, not a runtime guarantee.

Method: Supply-chain provenance/signing read deterministically from CI/build config (.github/workflows, .gitlab-ci.yml, azure-pipelines, Jenkinsfile, .circleci) + the release surface: four signals — generated provenance/attestation (SLSA/in-toto/actions-attest), artifact signing (cosign/sigstore/gitsign), an SBOM (syft/sbom-action/*.spdx.json/*.cdx.json), and SHA-pinned build actions — scored 10·present/denom. NotApplicable without a build pipeline. Detects configuration presence, not runtime enforcement.

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

0/4 supply-chain integrity signals present (provenance, signing, SBOM, pinned actions).

REDACTED

+ 2 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

What to do

Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).

Detailed fixes: d36_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

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

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d43_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

0 end-of-life runtime(s) and 0 end-of-life framework(s), read from 1 platform declaration(s) and 0 dependency declaration(s). This dimension reads what the repository says about ITSELF — a pinned target framework, a version file, a capped requires-python, a Rust toolchain pin, a framework major a constraint cannot move off. A FLOOR is deliberately never charged: `requires-python = ">=3.8"` states what the package SUPPORTS, not what it runs on, and a well-maintained library declares exactly that while running its own CI on a current release. The end-of-life facts are FROZEN and dated, so this dimension needs no network and answers identically inside a closed scan fence; as the table ages it loses recall and never precision, because a statement about support that ended in the past cannot become false. The OS layer of a container image is D31's question and the toolchain a CI workflow installs is D29's; this row is neither.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d44_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions

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

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

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

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

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

What to do

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

M1 · Documentation (README)7.8 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

What to do

Add a 'Testing' section to the root README — how to run the test suite.
Review the README against recent changes; refresh the parts that drifted.

Do you agree with this assessment?

M2 · Architecture documentation2.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

What to do

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

M4 · Documentation 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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

64/79 types (81%) declared in the published library are public. For a library, every public type is a stability contract — keep implementation types off the surface and expose only the intended API.

What to do

Keep implementation types off the public surface (Rust: `pub(crate)`, or keep the module private) so internals can change without breaking consumers.

Do you agree with this assessment?

P2 · Observability7.0 / 10Strong✓ 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.

What to do

Consider OpenTelemetry tracing/metrics (opentelemetry with tracing-opentelemetry) and a health-check endpoint (a /health route on your axum/actix router) for operability.

Do you agree with this assessment?

P3 · Security & performance tooling8.0 / 10Strong✓ 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.

What to do

Dependabot is configured but does not watch `cargo` — add that `package-ecosystem` entry to REDACTED so those dependencies get the same automatic update and advisory pressure as the ones it already covers.
Add gitleaks/trufflehog in CI to block PRs that introduce committed secrets.

Do you agree with this assessment?

P4 · Deployment & Rollback5.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

Readiness · Readiness — Whether releases are automated and safely reversible (probes, rolling updates, approval gates) — from manifests/pipeline files, not the live environment.

Method: Filesystem scan: deployment manifests/IaC (K8s YAML, Helm, Terraform) for rolling updates, probes, approval gates, migration hooks. Exhaustive, deterministic.

The release is automated and no gate that pauses it for a human is DECLARED IN THIS REPOSITORY'S PIPELINE FILES. What was read: every file under `.github/workflows/`, `.forgejo/workflows/`, `.gitea/workflows/`, `.azuredevops/` and `.azure-pipelines/`, plus `.gitlab-ci*` and `azure-pipelines*` — with comment text stripped, so documenting a gate is not declaring one. What would have counted: GitLab's `when: manual`, CircleCI's `type: approval`, an Azure `ManualValidation@` task or an `approvals:` block, a Jenkins `input` step, a `uses:` step naming an approval action, an `environment:` paired with `reviewers` / `required_reviewers` / `protection` / `wait-timer` / `deployment_branch_policy`, a draft-release step, a `workflow_dispatch` promotion, or a release-event gate. ★ What this cannot see, because none of it is a file: a GitHub environment whose required reviewers are configured in repo SETTINGS, a branch protection rule, or an organisation deployment policy — all of them real, enforced gates that live outside the repository. If yours is one of those, this row is wrong and nothing in the tree could have told us. Otherwise: whatever the release trigger points at is published to users unreviewed, so a mistagged or unverified commit ships and the only remedy is a follow-up release.

What to do

Nothing pauses a release for a human: publish as a draft release (or gate the release job on a protected tag/manual dispatch) so a bad build can be stopped before users can download it.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

PF1 · Benchmark discipline8.0 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

Reference — by lens

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

Lens	Score	Rating	Impact
Code Health	95%	Exemplary	Strongest area.
Architecture	89%	Adequate — gated by D26	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Maturity	68%	Adequate — gated by M2	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Readiness	71%	Strong	Solid.
Security	71%	Adequate — gated by D29, D36	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Performance	89%	Strong	Solid.

Not evidenced — 4 control(s) we could not find positive evidence for

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

C3 Audit Trail — Not assessed: these audit controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks audit controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
C4 Data Retention — Not assessed: these retention controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks retention controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
C5 Data-Subject Rights — Not assessed: these data-subject rights controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks data-subject rights controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
P5 DR & Backup — not evidenced — repo shows no backup/RTO/RPO controls; absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control

Not included — 75 check(s) not relevant to this codebase

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

AC1 Text alternatives — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC2 Forms & labels — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC3 Page structure — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC4 Keyboard semantics — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC5 ARIA correctness — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC6 Visual & motion safety — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC7 A11y enforcement — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AX1 Captive dependencies — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
AX2 Stateful singletons — Not applicable: Rust's compiler refuses unsynchronised shared mutation — a value shared across threads must be Sync — so the race this check looks for cannot be written.
AX5 Architecture & structure — not assessed — architecture style/structure is computed from a project graph (projects, types, module namespaces) that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
AX6 Interface segregation — not assessed — interface segregation is computed over a type surface that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
AX7 Slice cohesion — not applicable — not a vertical-slice architecture
AX8 Test isolation — no test/production split to check
AXB1 Runtime evidence locked — no reproducible boot — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
C1 Data Protection — Not assessed: these personal data controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks personal data controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
C2 Access Controls — Not assessed: these authorization controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks authorization controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
D10 Test Quality — ~4316 lines of test source are present (.rs) but no test cases reached the test census for this repository — no test root we could resolve declared them, or the files we read declare no cases in a test framework we recognise — so skipped/assertion-free tests couldn't be counted. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository.
D12 Dependency Hygiene — Not scored — 28 direct Cargo declaration(s) were read, but the outdated signal needs crates.io, which could not be reached on this run, so this dimension's own question is only partly answered. NOT a finding that these dependencies are current or healthy.
D14 License Compliance — Not scored — this repository's 282 shipped crate(s) were read from its REDACTED, but crates.io could not be asked for the licence of 11 of them (HTTP 429 Unknown Error), and a licence verdict over part of a dependency graph is not a licence verdict. Nothing is asserted about this repository's licensing in either direction.
D16 Bus Factor — single-maintainer repository — bus factor is not applicable
D18 Solution Shape — D18 scores the shape of a .NET solution; this repository has no .NET solution or project files, so the dimension does not apply.
D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — No bounded-context organisation was detected either — neither a context-shaped layout nor 2+ sibling source directories each declaring an aggregate root. Declaring this codebase's bounded contexts (≥2) would let cross-boundary type coupling be assessed. Declare them in `.codehealth/config.yaml` at the repository root (create it if absent), mapping each context name to the module-path or namespace prefixes that belong to it — e.g. `architecture:` → `contexts:` → `Billing: ["src/billing", "Acme.Billing"]`, `Catalog: ["src/catalog", "Acme.Catalog"]`.
D24 Comment Value — No inline comments to assess — comment value is not applicable here.
D25 ADR Conformance — no ADRs to check
D27 Navigability — symbol resolution incomplete — navigability not assessed
D31 IaC & Container Security — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Docker Compose, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation, ARM, Bicep, Ansible); nothing to scan.
D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — No personal data was found crossing a boundary the PII/GDPR ruleset checks — nothing written to a log or console sink, placed in a URL or query string, or persisted to browser storage. That is a clean result for the LEAK surface only: this ruleset detects personal data escaping, it does not inventory the personal data a repository holds, so it is not evidence that this repository has no personal-data surface. The personal-data map (Appendix C) and the C1-C5 compliance cards are what speak to that.
D37 Vulnerability-disclosure Policy — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.
D39 IL Efficiency — D39 measures the IL emitted by a .NET build; this repository has no .NET solution or project files, so the dimension does not apply.
D40 Network Egress Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.
D41 Kernel & Syscall Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.
D42 Runtime Threat Enforcement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.
D7 Architectural Integrity — no checkable ADRs, and no project-reference graph for the cycle pass to read — so this dimension makes no claim about dependency cycles in either direction (where this repository's language has an import-cycle lens, cycles are reported there). Architectural integrity not assessed
D8 Code Coverage — Coverage not included — suite not readable by the collector
DM1 Domain Modelling — not scored — this repository shows only 1 of the 3 signals this lens looks for (1 value object(s))
ED2 Event/command shape — not scored — deciding whether a command has more than one competing handler requires resolving the call graph, and a call made through an inferred or generic receiver has no resolvable owner in the source. Reported as guidance rather than measured
ED5 Idempotency — This check finds retry-prone mutations (command handlers and message/event consumers) by walking the repository's declared types, and none was loaded here, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
ES1 Event Sourcing — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this lens looks for
GD1 Unfinished & placeholder code — no source files were read — this check reads C# syntax, and none was loaded for this repository. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
IC1 Incompleteness & stubs — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
P12 CI test-gate honesty — Reported, not scored — this card publishes what the CI gate does with the test inventory rather than grading it. The findings above are its output.
P7 Outbound HTTP resilience — not applicable — no HTTP server, API framework or worker entry point was found in the Python, Rust source, so there is no service whose uptime a failing dependency could take down
P8 Schema migrations — no ORM, schema-migration tool or schema auto-create was found in this repository's dependency manifests or source, so there is no database schema for this check to judge
P9 Domain vs controller coverage — no coverage report found on disk — produce a coverage report in a standard format (lcov — `cargo install cargo-llvm-cov`, then `cargo llvm-cov --lcov --output-path lcov.info`) and commit it — a hosted scan measures a clone of the repository, so a report that exists only in a working tree, a CI runner's or your own, never reaches it; the artefact is commonly gitignored, so `git add -f` that one file (or un-ignore its path) and commit it alongside the code it measures, or wire coverage collection into CI, to enable this cross-layer check
PF2 Allocation hygiene — Not applicable: Rust spells out every heap allocation and makes borrowed slices (&[T], &str) its ordinary parameter types, so the allocation-aware style this card rewards elsewhere is the language's baseline rather than a rung to climb.
S1 Web-Security Posture — Not assessed: these web-security controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks web-security controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
X1 Async correctness — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X10 Duplicated predicate — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
X12 Unreachable branch — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X13 Undrained process stream — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X14 Bypassable address classification — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X15 Unvalidated length from an untrusted reader — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X16 Unfloored truncation loop — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X17 Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X18 Disposal-pattern correctness — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X19 Unrestored process-global state — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X2 Cancellation propagation — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X20 Mistyped argument guard — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X21 Side-effecting pattern guard — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X22 Contradicted release guard — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X23 Unguarded diagnostic materialisation — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X24 Document value interpolated into markup unescaped — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X25 Inert configuration knob — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X26 Unsynchronised callback handoff — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X27 Collection changed while being enumerated — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X28 Index access outside its own emptiness guard — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X29 Per-element action decided by a fixed element — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X3 Exception handling — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X30 Support guard that admits what it rejects — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X32 Type resolved by simple name across every loaded assembly — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X4 Structured logging — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X5 Nullable reference types — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X6 Hand-rolled structured-format parsing — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
X7 Silent fallback defaults — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X9 Subsumed condition operand — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.

Appendix A — Findings (grouped)

The findings behind the scores, grouped by severity, then by dimension and kind. The high-severity issues are enumerated in full below; items per group are capped at 25 with any overflow stated explicitly per group, never silently truncated. The complete machine-readable list of every finding (all severities) is the companion findings.md in this report's bundle.

Critical — 45 finding(s)

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
+ 12 more in this group — see findings.md.

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

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

REDACTED

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

REDACTED

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

REDACTED

D35 · Change Coupling · Boundary-crossing change coupling · ×1

Boundary-crossing change coupling: certificate.rs ↔ secret.rs pueue/src/daemon/network/certificate.rs — `pueue/src/daemon/network/certificate.rs` (context pueue) and `pueue_lib/src/secret.rs` (context pueue_lib) sit in DIFFERENT parts of the tree yet change together 50% of the time (5 of the 10 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well — a repo-wide or module-wide sweep is evidence about the sweep rather than about any pair inside it and is left out of BOTH sides of this ratio, while a dependency bump, a formatter/rename sweep, or a commit whose edit to one of the two files was a tool directive such as //go:generate or whitespace only is left out of the shared count ONLY, so the two sides are not taken over identical commit sets) — the bounded-context boundary may be in the wrong place, or one context is leaking into the other. This is the behavioural boundary violation a static scan can't see. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 5 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are `9f458e82` chore: Introduce io error helper trait; `47d4c14f` fix: Create secret files with correct permissions; `ea8df0df` change: Add text to IoError and add IoPathError (at that commit the files were still `lib/src/network/certificate.rs` and `lib/src/network/secret.rs`) — run `git show` on any of them.

Serious — 50 finding(s)

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · pueue · ×7

pueue::client::commands::wait::wait (cognitive 38) pueue/src/client/commands/wait.rs:46 — pueue::client::commands::wait::wait has cognitive complexity 38 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 11 (32 pts), loops 3 (5 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 23). 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.
pueue::daemon::network::message_handler::log::follow_log (cognitive 28) pueue/src/daemon/network/message_handler/log.rs:62 — pueue::daemon::network::message_handler::log::follow_log has cognitive complexity 28 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 12 (20 pts), match/switch 3 (4 pts), boolean chains 2, loops 2 (nesting depth added 9). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
pueue::client::commands::follow::follow_local_task_logs (cognitive 24) pueue/src/client/commands/follow.rs:143 — pueue::client::commands::follow::follow_local_task_logs has cognitive complexity 24 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (19 pts), boolean chains 2, loops 2, match/switch 1 (nesting depth added 10). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
pueue::client::commands::restart::restart (cognitive 24) pueue/src/client/commands/restart.rs:23 — pueue::client::commands::restart::restart has cognitive complexity 24 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 14 (18 pts), boolean chains 3, loops 2 (3 pts) (nesting depth added 5). 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.
pueue::client::commands::state::query::filters::datetime (cognitive 19) pueue/src/client/commands/state/query/filters.rs:68 — pueue::client::commands::state::query::filters::datetime has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: match/switch 7 (11 pts), if/else 3 (6 pts), boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 7). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.
pueue::daemon::network::message_handler::group::group (cognitive 17) pueue/src/daemon/network/message_handler/group.rs:21 — pueue::daemon::network::message_handler::group::group has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (16 pts), match/switch 1 (nesting depth added 7). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
pueue::daemon::network::message_handler::enqueue::enqueue (cognitive 16) pueue/src/daemon/network/message_handler/enqueue.rs:11 — pueue::daemon::network::message_handler::enqueue::enqueue has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (11 pts), match/switch 3 (4 pts), loops 1 (nesting depth added 4). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · pueue · ×4

pueue::client::commands::state::query::filters::datetime (cyclomatic 23) pueue/src/client/commands/state/query/filters.rs:68 — pueue::client::commands::state::query::filters::datetime has cyclomatic complexity 23 (threshold 15). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Where every arm is uniform — the same kind of value, with no behaviour of its own — a table keyed by the case is the shorter form; wherever the arms carry different data or different behaviour, keep them as cases, because collapsing those trades an explicit, reviewable set of cases for nothing.
pueue::daemon::network::message_handler::log::follow_log (cyclomatic 19) pueue/src/daemon/network/message_handler/log.rs:62 — pueue::daemon::network::message_handler::log::follow_log has cyclomatic complexity 19 (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.
pueue::client::commands::restart::restart (cyclomatic 17) pueue/src/client/commands/restart.rs:23 — pueue::client::commands::restart::restart 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.
pueue::client::commands::wait::wait (cyclomatic 16) pueue/src/client/commands/wait.rs:46 — pueue::client::commands::wait::wait 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.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) · ×3

Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) pueue/src/client/commands/state/query/filters.rs:229 — pueue/src/client/commands/state/query/filters.rs:229-241 | pueue/src/client/commands/state/query/filters.rs:263-275 — 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 (13 lines × 2) pueue/src/daemon/network/message_handler/enqueue.rs:12 — pueue/src/daemon/network/message_handler/enqueue.rs:12-24 | pueue/src/daemon/network/message_handler/stash.rs:12-24 — before extracting anything, compare `pueue/src/daemon/network/message_handler/enqueue.rs` and `pueue/src/daemon/network/message_handler/stash.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 49 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) pueue/src/daemon/network/message_handler/enqueue.rs:26 — pueue/src/daemon/network/message_handler/enqueue.rs:26-38 | pueue/src/daemon/network/message_handler/stash.rs:26-38 — before extracting anything, compare `pueue/src/daemon/network/message_handler/enqueue.rs` and `pueue/src/daemon/network/message_handler/stash.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 49 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.

D35 · Change Coupling · Change coupling · ×2

Change coupling: protocol.rs ↔ unix.rs pueue_lib/src/network/protocol.rs — `pueue_lib/src/network/protocol.rs` and `pueue_lib/src/network/socket/unix.rs` change together 56% of the time (9 of the 16 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well — a repo-wide or module-wide sweep is evidence about the sweep rather than about any pair inside it and is left out of BOTH sides of this ratio, while a dependency bump, a formatter/rename sweep, or a commit whose edit to one of the two files was a tool directive such as //go:generate or whitespace only is left out of the shared count ONLY, so the two sides are not taken over identical commit sets) with no explicit dependency — the edge is real but nothing declares it. Read the pair before acting: if one registers itself into the other through a hook or an initialiser, the missing dependency is DELIBERATE — the registration is the link, and it is meant not to be an import — and the thing to add is a comment on each side naming the other, not a merge; if they simply belong together, co-locate them; if neither holds, the coupling is hidden and worth breaking. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 9 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are `9f458e82` chore: Introduce io error helper trait; `b47d0219` fix: DOS via incomplete TLS handshake; `0faac3a4` refactor: Simplify platform specific network modules (at that commit the files were still `lib/src/network/protocol.rs` and `lib/src/network/socket/unix.rs`) — run `git show` on any of them.
Change coupling: secret.rs ↔ settings.rs pueue_lib/src/secret.rs — `pueue_lib/src/secret.rs` and `pueue_lib/src/settings.rs` change together 50% of the time (5 of the 10 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well — a repo-wide or module-wide sweep is evidence about the sweep rather than about any pair inside it and is left out of BOTH sides of this ratio, while a dependency bump, a formatter/rename sweep, or a commit whose edit to one of the two files was a tool directive such as //go:generate or whitespace only is left out of the shared count ONLY, so the two sides are not taken over identical commit sets) with no explicit dependency between them. They sit in the same directory, but in this ecosystem each file is its own module — a sibling reference still needs an import — so the missing import edge is real: the coupling runs through shared behaviour, not a declared dependency. If they duplicate structure, extract the common part into one unit; otherwise the coupling is hidden and worth breaking. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 5 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are `9f458e82` chore: Introduce io error helper trait; `f096e52e` chore: Bump all dependencies; `fc7e3624` Address warnings issued by new rust release. (at that commit the files were still `lib/src/network/secret.rs` and `lib/src/settings.rs`) — run `git show` on any of them.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · TableBuilder · ×1

TableBuilder::build_task_rows (cyclomatic 23) pueue/src/client/commands/state/table_builder.rs:189 — TableBuilder::build_task_rows has cyclomatic complexity 23 (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 · QueryResult · ×1

QueryResult::order_tasks (cyclomatic 18) pueue/src/client/commands/state/query/mod.rs:65 — QueryResult::order_tasks has cyclomatic complexity 18 (threshold 15). Of this number, 11 points are the body's own statements and 7 belong to 2 function items inside it that branch. To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Where every arm is uniform — the same kind of value, with no behaviour of its own — a table keyed by the case is the shorter form; wherever the arms carry different data or different behaviour, keep them as cases, because collapsing those trades an explicit, reviewable set of cases for nothing.

D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots · Repeated repair · ×1

Repeated repair: pueue/src/daemon/network/socket/mod.rs pueue/src/daemon/network/socket/mod.rs:46 — pueue/src/daemon/network/socket/mod.rs changed 4 times in last 90 days and 4 of those changes were fix/bug commits, so repair is the majority of this file's churn. Its max cyclomatic complexity is 6 (its worst body is pueue::daemon::network::socket::accept_incoming at line 46), UNDER the 15 threshold, so this is deliberately not filed as a churn × complexity hotspot — the difficulty here is in the behaviour the file has to get right, not in its control flow, and refactoring it for complexity would be the wrong move. The repairs counted were: “fix: Timeout new connections”; “fix: DOS via incomplete TLS handshake”; “fix: Panic while delaying the response to a wrong secret”; “fix: Don't log secret authentication payload”. Each one is a case this code did not handle. Before the next change lands here, check that every one of them is pinned by a test that fails without its fix; where the same area keeps coming back, the durable fix is usually at the interface that keeps being misused rather than at the line that was last corrected. Counted over 2026-06-11..2026-09-09, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-06-11 12:57:14 +02:00' --until='2026-09-09 12:57:14 +02:00' --full-history --no-merges -- pueue/src/daemon/network/socket/mod.rs`: merges are excluded because a merge re-states changes already counted at their own commits, and history is NOT path-simplified because a change that reached the file through a merged branch is still a change to it. That command counts raw commits and can read HIGHER than this row, which counts a cherry-picked re-land, and a revert together with the commit it undoes, once each — a difference of several commits on a file whose history was re-landed or reverted inside the window.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · TableBuilder · ×1

TableBuilder::build_task_rows (cognitive 43) pueue/src/client/commands/state/table_builder.rs:189 — TableBuilder::build_task_rows has cognitive complexity 43 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 17 (35 pts), match/switch 2 (7 pts), loops 1 (nesting depth added 23). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D22 · Internal API Consistency · Ambiguous configuration loading semantics. `read` implies loading from a specific file path, while `load_profile` implies selecting a named profile from the current configuration context. It is unclear if `load_profile` modifies the current instance or returns a new one, and how it interacts with `read`. The naming suggests two different ways to achieve similar 'get config' goals. · ×1

Ambiguous configuration loading semantics. `read` implies loading from a specific file path, while `load_profile` implies selecting a named profile from the current configuration context. It is unclear if `load_profile` modifies the current instance or returns a new one, and how it interacts with `read`. The naming suggests two different ways to achieve similar 'get config' goals. — Rename `read` to `load_from_file` or `parse` to clearly distinguish it from profile selection. Ensure `load_profile` clearly indicates it operates on the already-loaded settings or returns a derived instance. (signatures: pueue_lib.settings.Settings.load_profile(profile: str): Result | pueue_lib.settings.Settings.read(from_file: PathBuf): Result)

D22 · Internal API Consistency · Inconsistent return types for accessor methods. Most path accessors return `PathBuf` directly, but `unix_socket_path` returns `Result`. This forces inconsistent error handling in client code when accessing configuration paths, despite all being derived from the same `Shared` settings struct. · ×1

Inconsistent return types for accessor methods. Most path accessors return `PathBuf` directly, but `unix_socket_path` returns `Result`. This forces inconsistent error handling in client code when accessing configuration paths, despite all being derived from the same `Shared` settings struct. — Standardize all path accessors to return `PathBuf` (if they cannot fail) or `Result<PathBuf>` (if they can). If `unix_socket_path` can fail, others should likely also return `Result` or the failure mode should be documented as impossible for the others. (signatures: pueue_lib.settings.Shared.unix_socket_path(): Result | pueue_lib.settings.Shared.pueue_directory(): PathBuf | pueue_lib.settings.Shared.runtime_directory(): PathBuf)

D22 · Internal API Consistency · Semantic type mismatch · ×1

Semantic type mismatch: `enqueue_at` is typed as `PathBuf` but semantically represents a timestamp or datetime for scheduling. Using `PathBuf` for time-based scheduling is confusing and likely incorrect, suggesting a copy-paste error from file path fields. — Change the type of `enqueue_at` in request and response structs to `Option<DateTime<Local>>` or a dedicated `ScheduledTime` type to accurately reflect its purpose. (signatures: pueue_lib.message.request.AddRequest.enqueue_at: PathBuf | pueue_lib.message.request.StashRequest.enqueue_at: PathBuf | pueue_lib.message.request.EnqueueRequest.enqueue_at: PathBuf | pueue_lib.message.response.AddedTaskResponse.enqueue_at: PathBuf)

D22 · Internal API Consistency · Inconsistent typing for the same semantic field `priority`. `AddRequest` uses `PathBuf` while `Task`, `EditableTask`, and `TaskToRestart` use `i32`. This is a clear data type inconsistency that will cause serialization/deserialization errors or logical bugs. · ×1

Inconsistent typing for the same semantic field `priority`. `AddRequest` uses `PathBuf` while `Task`, `EditableTask`, and `TaskToRestart` use `i32`. This is a clear data type inconsistency that will cause serialization/deserialization errors or logical bugs. — Change `AddRequest.priority` to `i32` to match the rest of the domain model. (signatures: pueue_lib.message.request.AddRequest.priority: PathBuf | pueue_lib.message.request.TaskToRestart.priority: i32 | pueue_lib.message.request.EditableTask.priority: i32 | pueue_lib.task.Task.priority: i32)

D22 · Internal API Consistency · Inconsistent typing for the `label` field. It is `PathBuf` in requests and editable tasks, but `String` in the core `Task` domain model. Labels are typically human-readable strings, not file paths. · ×1

Inconsistent typing for the `label` field. It is `PathBuf` in requests and editable tasks, but `String` in the core `Task` domain model. Labels are typically human-readable strings, not file paths. — Change `label` in `AddRequest`, `TaskToRestart`, and `EditableTask` to `String` to align with the `Task` domain model. (signatures: pueue_lib.message.request.AddRequest.label: PathBuf | pueue_lib.message.request.TaskToRestart.label: PathBuf | pueue_lib.message.request.EditableTask.label: PathBuf | pueue_lib.task.Task.label: String)

D22 · Internal API Consistency · While `path` is consistently `PathBuf`, the semantic meaning varies. In `AddRequest`, it likely means 'working directory', but in `Task`, it is stored as `path`. This is less of an inconsistency and more of a naming ambiguity, but combined with the other type errors, it highlights a lack of strict domain modeling. However, since the types match, this is not a strict API inconsistency in signature, but the previous points are critical. · ×1

While `path` is consistently `PathBuf`, the semantic meaning varies. In `AddRequest`, it likely means 'working directory', but in `Task`, it is stored as `path`. This is less of an inconsistency and more of a naming ambiguity, but combined with the other type errors, it highlights a lack of strict domain modeling. However, since the types match, this is not a strict API inconsistency in signature, but the previous points are critical. — No action required for signature consistency, but consider renaming to `working_directory` in requests for clarity. (signatures: pueue_lib.message.request.AddRequest.path: PathBuf | pueue_lib.message.request.TaskToRestart.path: PathBuf | pueue_lib.message.request.EditableTask.path: PathBuf | pueue_lib.task.Task.path: PathBuf)

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

REDACTED

D3 · God Classes · FunctionTooLong · ×1

FunctionTooLong: pueue::client::commands::handle_command pueue/src/client/commands/mod.rs:153 — FunctionTooLong — pueue::client::commands::handle_command runs 132 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 32 over it, 1.32× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.

D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities · Medium vulnerability · ×1

REDACTED

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

REDACTED

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

REDACTED

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

REDACTED

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

REDACTED

D4 · Code Duplication · Near-duplicate member pair (49 shared lines) · ×1

Near-duplicate member pair (49 shared lines) pueue/src/daemon/network/message_handler/enqueue.rs:11 — pueue/src/daemon/network/message_handler/enqueue.rs:11-116 | pueue/src/daemon/network/message_handler/stash.rs:11-105 — These two members are variants of one another: 49 of their lines are already reported as duplicated blocks below, spread through both bodies rather than gathered into one. Read them as a single construct written twice. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared pipeline into one implementation the two call with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic (sync against async, one transport against another), generate one from the other. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves the two bodies in place and the next edit still has to be made twice.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (38–42 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (38–42 lines × 2) pueue_lib/src/network/protocol.rs:106 — pueue_lib/src/network/protocol.rs:106-147 | pueue_lib/src/network_blocking/protocol.rs:104-141 — `pueue_lib/src/network/protocol.rs` and `pueue_lib/src/network_blocking/protocol.rs` are one unit implemented once per sibling directory, so they are most likely parallel implementations of one contract rather than a copy of each other — this scan matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 69 lines. If both are selected at run time, neither can be retired in favour of the other, and the lines that DIFFER between them are the reason both exist. The move that pays here is to hoist the identical part into a shared location the whole family can reach and give what differs a parameter or a seam, so a change lands once instead of once per sibling; extracting one helper per block leaves every sibling to drift on its own.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (26–27 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (26–27 lines × 2) pueue_lib/src/network_blocking/socket/unix.rs:32 — pueue_lib/src/network_blocking/socket/unix.rs:32-57 | pueue_lib/src/network_blocking/socket/windows.rs:10-36 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (21–22 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (21–22 lines × 2) pueue_lib/src/network/socket/unix.rs:40 — pueue_lib/src/network/socket/unix.rs:40-60 | pueue_lib/src/network/socket/windows.rs:11-32 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once.

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

Duplicated block (19 lines × 2) pueue_lib/src/network/protocol.rs:180 — pueue_lib/src/network/protocol.rs:180-198 | pueue_lib/src/network_blocking/protocol.rs:175-193 — `pueue_lib/src/network/protocol.rs` and `pueue_lib/src/network_blocking/protocol.rs` are one unit implemented once per sibling directory, so they are most likely parallel implementations of one contract rather than a copy of each other — this scan matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 69 lines. If both are selected at run time, neither can be retired in favour of the other, and the lines that DIFFER between them are the reason both exist. The move that pays here is to hoist the identical part into a shared location the whole family can reach and give what differs a parameter or a seam, so a change lands once instead of once per sibling; extracting one helper per block leaves every sibling to drift on its own.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (18 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (18 lines × 2) pueue_lib/src/network/client.rs:97 — pueue_lib/src/network/client.rs:97-114 | pueue_lib/src/network_blocking/client.rs:90-107 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (16 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (16 lines × 2) pueue_lib/src/network/socket/mod.rs:72 — pueue_lib/src/network/socket/mod.rs:72-87 | pueue_lib/src/network_blocking/socket/mod.rs:55-70 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (10–11 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (10–11 lines × 2) pueue/src/daemon/network/message_handler/pause.rs:8 — pueue/src/daemon/network/message_handler/pause.rs:8-18 | pueue/src/daemon/network/message_handler/start.rs:8-17 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) pueue/src/client/commands/state/mod.rs:237 — pueue/src/client/commands/state/mod.rs:237-250 | pueue/src/client/commands/state/mod.rs:256-266 — 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.

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

Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) pueue/src/process_helper/unix.rs:65 — pueue/src/process_helper/unix.rs:65-74 | pueue/src/process_helper/windows.rs:96-105 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once.

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

Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) pueue/src/daemon/network/message_handler/enqueue.rs:40 — pueue/src/daemon/network/message_handler/enqueue.rs:40-48 | pueue/src/daemon/network/message_handler/stash.rs:40-48 — before extracting anything, compare `pueue/src/daemon/network/message_handler/enqueue.rs` and `pueue/src/daemon/network/message_handler/stash.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 49 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (6–8 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (6–8 lines × 2) pueue_lib/src/network/protocol.rs:48 — pueue_lib/src/network/protocol.rs:48-53 | pueue_lib/src/network_blocking/protocol.rs:48-55 — `pueue_lib/src/network/protocol.rs` and `pueue_lib/src/network_blocking/protocol.rs` are one unit implemented once per sibling directory, so they are most likely parallel implementations of one contract rather than a copy of each other — this scan matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 69 lines. If both are selected at run time, neither can be retired in favour of the other, and the lines that DIFFER between them are the reason both exist. The move that pays here is to hoist the identical part into a shared location the whole family can reach and give what differs a parameter or a seam, so a change lands once instead of once per sibling; extracting one helper per block leaves every sibling to drift on its own.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) pueue/src/client/commands/clean.rs:14 — pueue/src/client/commands/clean.rs:14-25 | pueue/src/client/commands/switch.rs:12-23 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) pueue/src/daemon/network/message_handler/enqueue.rs:91 — pueue/src/daemon/network/message_handler/enqueue.rs:91-104 | pueue/src/daemon/network/message_handler/stash.rs:75-88 — before extracting anything, compare `pueue/src/daemon/network/message_handler/enqueue.rs` and `pueue/src/daemon/network/message_handler/stash.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 49 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) pueue_lib/src/settings.rs:383 — pueue_lib/src/settings.rs:383-387 | pueue_lib/src/settings.rs:403-408 — 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.

D5 · Coupling · Off the main sequence · ×1

Off the main sequence: pueue-lib — pueue-lib: abstractness 0.14, instability 0.00, distance 0.86 — zone of pain — concrete and depended on by 1 project(s), so it's rigid to change.

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

README may be stale — 30 code files changed in the last 6 months but the README was not touched — it may no longer reflect the system.

Minor — 9 finding(s)

D20 · ADR Quality · No ADRs found · ×1

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

D26 · Project Cohesion · Projects may be oversized for their cohesion · ×1

Projects may be oversized for their cohesion — 1 of 2 project(s) overshoot their size bounds, lowering Project Cohesion to 1.5/10. The most over is `pueue` (9706 LoC, 99 public types across 14 directories). Review these for cohesion — draw the boundary inside the module first (group each responsibility into its own package or directory and keep the cross-boundary members non-public), since splitting a published package moves types between packages and breaks consumers.

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

REDACTED

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

REDACTED

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

REDACTED

D9 · Test Distribution · Inverted test pyramid · ×1

Inverted test pyramid — Only 30 % of tests are unit tests (42 unit vs 100 integration, 0 BDD); a broader unit base gives faster, more localised feedback.

M2 · Architecture documentation · No ADRs · ×1

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

P10 · Library API & versioning · Large public API surface · ×1

Large public API surface — 64/79 types (81%) declared in the published library are public. For a library, every public type is a stability contract — keep implementation types off the surface and expose only the intended API.

P4 · Deployment & Rollback · No release approval gate · ×1

No release approval gate — The release is automated and no gate that pauses it for a human is DECLARED IN THIS REPOSITORY'S PIPELINE FILES. What was read: every file under `.github/workflows/`, `.forgejo/workflows/`, `.gitea/workflows/`, `.azuredevops/` and `.azure-pipelines/`, plus `.gitlab-ci*` and `azure-pipelines*` — with comment text stripped, so documenting a gate is not declaring one. What would have counted: GitLab's `when: manual`, CircleCI's `type: approval`, an Azure `ManualValidation@` task or an `approvals:` block, a Jenkins `input` step, a `uses:` step naming an approval action, an `environment:` paired with `reviewers` / `required_reviewers` / `protection` / `wait-timer` / `deployment_branch_policy`, a draft-release step, a `workflow_dispatch` promotion, or a release-event gate. ★ What this cannot see, because none of it is a file: a GitHub environment whose required reviewers are configured in repo SETTINGS, a branch protection rule, or an organisation deployment policy — all of them real, enforced gates that live outside the repository. If yours is one of those, this row is wrong and nothing in the tree could have told us. Otherwise: whatever the release trigger points at is published to users unreviewed, so a mistagged or unverified commit ships and the only remedy is a follow-up release.

Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail

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

Dimension	Tool	Version	Command	Findings	Raw output
D28 · Secrets (history)	gitleaks	—	gitleaks detect --no-banner --config /opt/gitleaks-rules/watchdog-gitleaks.toml --report-format json --report-path /tmp/watchdog-gitleaks-e82274d1145e4dd9b006f52af0343e5c/history.json --exit-code 0 --source .	0	artifacts/raw/gitleaks-history.json
D28 · Secrets (history)	gitleaks	—	gitleaks detect --no-git --no-banner --config /opt/gitleaks-rules/watchdog-gitleaks.toml --report-format json --report-path /tmp/watchdog-gitleaks-e82274d1145e4dd9b006f52af0343e5c/tree.json --exit-code 0 --source .	0	artifacts/raw/gitleaks-tree.json
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)	semgrep	—	semgrep --config /opt/semgrep-rules/security-audit.yml --config /opt/semgrep-rules/owasp-top-ten.yml --config /opt/semgrep-rules/watchdog-sast.yml --json --quiet --timeout 10 --timeout-threshold 3 --metrics off .	45	artifacts/raw/semgrep.json
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities	osv-scanner	—	osv-scanner --format json --recursive .	1	artifacts/raw/osv-scanner.json
D31 · IaC & Container Security	trivy	—	trivy: not applicable — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Docker Compose, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation, ARM, Bicep, Ansible); nothing to scan.	0	—
D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR)	semgrep	—	semgrep: not applicable — No personal data was found crossing a boundary the PII/GDPR ruleset checks — nothing written to a log or console sink, placed in a URL or query string, or persisted to browser storage. That is a clean result for the LEAK surface only: this ruleset detects personal data escaping, it does not inventory the personal data a repository holds, so it is not evidence that this repository has no personal-data surface. The personal-data map (Appendix C) and the C1-C5 compliance cards are what speak to that.	0	—
D37 · Vulnerability-disclosure Policy	disclosure	—	disclosure: not applicable — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.	0	—
D40 · Network Egress Confinement	runtime-hardening	—	runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.	0	—
D41 · Kernel & Syscall Confinement	runtime-hardening	—	runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.	0	—
D42 · Runtime Threat Enforcement	runtime-hardening	—	runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.	0	—
D43 · Malicious Dependencies	osv-scanner	—	osv-scanner --format json --recursive .	0	artifacts/raw/osv-scanner.json

Run 01a0ee57-e13e-7494-a493-d0c75cb5da95 · every finding is also locatable in findings.md, and the complete scoring record (with exit codes + durations) in sidecar.json.

Nukesor/pueue

Findings by grade

This survey was produced by

Executive summary

Top priorities

Diagnosis — what's actually going on

Architecture — module dependency graph

Architecture — module dependency matrix

At a glance — Code Health · 95% · Exemplary ·

At a glance — Architecture · 89% · Adequate · gated by D26 ·

At a glance — Maturity · 68% · Adequate · gated by M2 ·

At a glance — Readiness · 71% · Strong ·

At a glance — Security · 71% · Adequate · gated by D29, D36 ·

At a glance — Performance · 89% · Strong ·

Security & Compliance — OWASP Top-10 mapping

Roadmap

File quality

How the grades work

Methodology & how to trust this report

Tools & methods

Run transparency — what happened this run

Limitations & what we did not check

Per-dimension blind spots

The LLM boundary

Dimensions

Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions

Reference — by lens

Appendix A — Findings (grouped)

Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail

Downloadable artifacts