snarkOS — Watchdog Audit

Executive summary

This system presents a fragile operational standing with an overall health score of 49%. While the underlying code is well-structured and architecturally sound, the platform is carrying significant risk due to poor operational readiness. For the business, this means the asset is stable in theory but dangerous in practice, where minor changes or external failures could lead to outages or data exposure.

The value at stake is moderate, representing a medium-sized asset with approximately 50,000 lines of production code. Rebuilding this from scratch would require roughly 0.4 person-years, costing around €51,000. This is not a legacy monolith requiring a massive overhaul, but a focused system where targeted improvements can yield high returns. The low boilerplate content indicates that the codebase is largely custom logic, making it sensitive to specific operational gaps rather than generic maintenance burdens.

The primary theme is operational fragility. With a readiness score of 39%, the system lacks the safety nets required for reliable production use. There are no enforced request timeouts, meaning a single slow dependency can hang threads and degrade service for all users. Without automated dependency updates, the system is vulnerable to known security flaws in third-party libraries. This directly threatens delivery speed and reliability, as incidents will likely require manual intervention rather than graceful degradation.

A secondary, more urgent theme is critical security exposure. The most immediate risk is the presence of three leaked secrets in backup scripts. This is not a theoretical vulnerability but a confirmed breach of trust boundaries that could expose sensitive data. While the architecture is strong (96%) and code quality is high (87%), these strengths are negated if attackers can access credentials. The lack of measured domain modeling and event-driven patterns suggests some areas are not fully understood, but the security risk is concrete and actionable.

What is genuinely good is the architectural integrity and code health. The system is well-organized, making it easier for new engineers to understand and maintain compared to typical technical debt. The high performance score (94%) indicates that speed is not a bottleneck. These strengths provide a solid foundation for remediation, ensuring that fixes will not introduce new structural problems.

Focus first on resolving the leaked secrets and implementing request timeouts. These actions have the highest leverage: they address the most severe security risk and the most common cause of operational instability with minimal effort. Fixing the secrets protects the business from immediate liability, while adding timeouts stabilizes the system for future changes. This approach balances urgent risk reduction with long-term operational health.

Code Health 87% Strong Architecture 96% ★ Exemplary Maturity 62% Adequate · gated by M2 Readiness 39% Weak · gated by D13, P7 Security 51% Adequate · gated by D28, D29, D36 Event Sourcing 49% Weak · gated by ES2 Performance 94% ★ Exemplary

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

Readiness 39% · 46% weightEvent Sourcing 49% · 25% weightSecurity 51% · 14% weightMaturity 62% · 8% weightCode Health 87% · 4% weightPerformance 94% · 2% weightArchitecture 96% · 1% weight

Raise Readiness 39 → 70 (the Healthy floor) ⇒ headline 49 → ~56.

Code composition — where the lines go

Tests 100%

New since the last scan (34+)

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

D4 · Members sharing a duplicated core (5 members, 50+ identical tokens) node/rest/src/routes.rs
D4 · Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) node/bft/src/gateway.rs
D4 · Duplicated block (18 lines × 2) node/src/client/mod.rs
D4 · Duplicated block (16–17 lines × 2) node/consensus/src/lib.rs
D4 · Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) node/bft/src/gateway.rs
D4 · Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) cli/src/commands/developer/deploy.rs
D4 · Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) node/src/client/mod.rs
D5 · Off the main sequence: snarkos-account
D5 · Off the main sequence: snarkos-node-sync-locators
D5 · Off the main sequence: snarkos-utilities
D5 · Off the main sequence: snarkos-node-network
D6 · Low cohesion: MockLedgerService (LCOM4 7) node/bft/ledger-service/src/mock.rs
D6 · Low cohesion: Storage (LCOM4 6) node/bft/src/helpers/storage.rs
D6 · Low cohesion: Gateway (LCOM4 4) node/bft/src/gateway.rs
D6 · Low cohesion: Client (LCOM4 4) node/src/client/mod.rs
D6 · Low cohesion: Prover (LCOM4 4) node/src/prover/mod.rs
D15 · Hotspot: cli/src/commands/start.rs cli/src/commands/start.rs
D17 · TodoComment node/rest/src/routes.rs
D22 · Inconsistent naming convention for data type variants. 'sign_bytes' uses the type name, while 'sign_bits' uses the pluralized type name. 'sign' is ambiguous as it takes a generic Field array but lacks a suffix.
D22 · Same inconsistency as sign: 'verify_bytes' vs 'verify_bits'. The generic 'verify' for Fields is inconsistent with the explicit suffixes used for other types.
D22 · Duplicate function signatures with different parameter names (one named 'path', one '_path'). This suggests an overload or a copy-paste error in the API surface, which is confusing for consumers.
D22 · While these are inverse operations, the naming is slightly asymmetric. 'get_block_height' implies getting the height of a block (given a hash), but 'get_block_hash' implies getting the hash of a block (given a height). This is acceptable but could be clearer.
D22 · Inconsistent return types for 'contains' operations. 'Storage' returns a boolean, while 'LedgerService' returns a Result. This forces callers to handle errors differently for similar existence checks.
D22 · Two methods with similar names and signatures that check for different states of the same entity. This can be confusing.
D29 · REDACTED
D30 · REDACTED
D30 · REDACTED
D30 · REDACTED
D30 · REDACTED
D44 · End-of-life runtime: Rust 1.96
P7 · Outbound HTTP without resilience cli/src/commands/developer/mod.rs
P7 · Outbound HTTP without resilience cli/src/commands/developer/scan.rs
P7 · Outbound HTTP without resilience node/cdn/src/blocks.rs
P7 · Outbound HTTP without resilience node/src/bootstrap_client/mod.rs

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 — €17,000–€85,000

Cost to rebuild	€17,000–€85,000 (0.2–0.5 person-years (283–899 h), ~1 engineer)
Domain complexity	Standard — harder problems cost more per line
Quality factor	0.7× (at 49% quality) — the last 20% of quality is most of the work
Size & shape	Medium · effort split not classified (source measured from disk; the effort-tier breakdown is a C#-only syntax walk)

This codebase represents roughly ~0.4 person-years of build effort (about ~€51,000 to rebuild). Its weakest lens is Readiness at 39% — the part of that asset most exposed by the findings below.

How we model this: boilerplate at a scaffolding rate + logic × domain Standard (×1.0) — standard service × a 0.7× 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 3 Leaked secret finding(s) in REDACTED Scanning — start with REDACTED (2), REDACTED.

+8.8 pts · Low effort · REDACTED Scanning

Give every client a whole-request bound: `reqwest::Client::builder().timeout(Duration::from_secs(10))` (never `reqwest::get` or `Client::new()`, which have none), ureq's `timeout_global`, or wrap the call in `tokio::time::timeout`; add retry with back-off (`reqwest-retry`'s `RetryTransientMiddleware`, `backoff`) around dependencies that fail.

+8.8 pts · Medium effort · Outbound HTTP resilience

Enable Dependabot/Renovate or a dependency-review gate.

+8.5 pts · Medium effort · Security & performance tooling

Diagnosis — what's actually going on

Value concentrated against a weak lens · High · Value at risk

This is a Medium asset (~0.4 person-years to rebuild), and its weakest lens is Readiness at 39%. The operational and business risk on an asset this size concentrates there — that's where remediation buys the most protection.

Evidence: valuation: Medium, ~0.4 person-years rebuild (50,225 LoC) · weakest lens: Readiness 39%

→ Direct remediation budget at Readiness first — highest risk-reduction per euro on an asset this size.

Highest-leverage move · Medium · Leverage

Of everything flagged, the best return on effort is: Resolve the 3 Leaked secret finding(s) in REDACTED Scanning — start with REDACTED (2), REDACTED. The rest can wait behind it.

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

→ Resolve the 3 Leaked secret finding(s) in REDACTED Scanning — start with REDACTED (2), REDACTED.

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.)

152 modules, 373 dependencies. 1 dependency cycle across 49 modules, marked above the diagonal.

Showing the 40 most-connected modules; 112 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 snarkos_node_rest.helpers.path	2 snarkos_node_sync_locators.block_locators	3 snarkos_node_bft.helpers.channels	4 snarkos_node_bft_events	5 snarkos_node_network.node_type	6 snarkos_node_sync.block_sync	7 snarkos_node_tcp.helpers.connections	8 snarkos_utilities.node_data	9 snarkos_node_tcp.tcp	10 snarkos_node_bft_events.disconnect	11 snarkos_node_tcp	12 snarkos_node_network.peering	13 snarkos_node_router_messages	14 snarkos_node_tcp.protocols.handshake	15 snarkos_node_tcp.protocols.on_connect	16 snarkos_node_bft_events.block_request	17 snarkos_node_router_messages.ping	18 snarkos_node_tcp.protocols.reading	19 snarkos_node_tcp.protocols.writing	20 snarkos_node_bft.sync	21 snarkos_node_router	22 snarkos_node_bft.gateway	23 snarkos_node_router.outbound	24 snarkos_utilities.signals	25 snarkos_node_bft.primary	27 snarkos_node_router.heartbeat	28 snarkos_node_router.inbound	29 snarkos_node_bft.bft	30 snarkos_node_router.routing	31 snarkos_node_consensus	32 snarkos_node_rest	33 snarkos_node.node	34 snarkos_display	35 snarkos_account	36 snarkos_node.client
1 snarkos_node_rest.helpers.path
2 snarkos_node_sync_locators.block_locators
3 snarkos_node_bft.helpers.channels		1
4 snarkos_node_bft_events										1
5 snarkos_node_network.node_type																																	1
6 snarkos_node_sync.block_sync		1
7 snarkos_node_tcp.helpers.connections																				2
8 snarkos_utilities.node_data	1
9 snarkos_node_tcp.tcp							4													1													1
10 snarkos_node_bft_events.disconnect				1					2																								1
11 snarkos_node_tcp									1
12 snarkos_node_network.peering	1				1				1		1																						1
13 snarkos_node_router_messages										1
14 snarkos_node_tcp.protocols.handshake							1				1
15 snarkos_node_tcp.protocols.on_connect											1
16 snarkos_node_bft_events.block_request				1									1
17 snarkos_node_router_messages.ping		1			1								1
18 snarkos_node_tcp.protocols.reading							2		1		1		1
19 snarkos_node_tcp.protocols.writing							1				1		2
20 snarkos_node_bft.sync		1	1			1											1					1
21 snarkos_node_router		1			2		1	2	2	1	1	1	1						1															2
22 snarkos_node_bft.gateway			3	3	1		3	2	2	3	1	1	1	1	1			1	1	1														2
23 snarkos_node_router.outbound													1								1
24 snarkos_utilities.signals																				1
25 snarkos_node_bft.primary			2			1		1									1			2		1												1
26 snarkos_node_bft.worker			1																			1
27 snarkos_node_router.heartbeat																							1
28 snarkos_node_router.inbound													1			1	1	1					1
29 snarkos_node_bft.bft			3			1		1									1			1					2									1
30 snarkos_node_router.routing										1	1			1	1								1			1	1
31 snarkos_node_consensus			2			1		1									1											1						1
32 snarkos_node_rest	1					1															1									1
33 snarkos_node.node	1				1			1																1							1			1
34 snarkos_display																																1
35 snarkos_account																																	1
36 snarkos_node.client						1	3	1	1	1	1		1	1	1	1	1	1			1		1	1		1	1		1		2			1
37 snarkos_node.prover						1	3	1	1	1	1		1	1	1	1	1	1			1		1	1		1	1		1					1
38 snarkos_node.validator						1	3	1	1	1	1		1	1	1	1	1	1			1		1	1		1	1		1	1	2			1
39 snarkos_node_router.test_helpers					2		3		1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1		1		1			1	1		1					1
40 snarkos_node.bootstrap_client					1		3		2	2	1	1	1	1	1			1	1					1										2	1

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

At a glance — Code Health · 87% · Strong ·

The Good

D1 · Rust Cyclomatic Complexity 7.4 D3 · Rust God Classes 8.9 D4 · Rust Code Duplication 9.6 D17 · Rust Explicit Debt 9.7

The Bad

D2 · Rust Cognitive Complexity 5.8

At a glance — Architecture · 96% · Exemplary ·

The Good

D5 · Rust Coupling 8.5 D6 · Rust Cohesion (LCOM4) 9.3 D26 · Rust Project Cohesion 10.0 D35 · Rust Change Coupling 9.5 AX10 · Repo Code composition 9.5 AX3 · Repo Project dependency cycles 10.0 AX4 · Repo Dependency direction 10.0 AX9 · Repo CQS / query purity 10.0

The Ugly

D22 · Rust Internal API Consistency 3.0

At a glance — Maturity · 62% · Adequate · gated by M2 ·

The Good

D15 · Rust Churn × Complexity Hotspots 9.1 D16 · Rust Bus Factor 9.0 D19 · Rust Documentation Quality 8.9 D21 · Rust Naming Consistency 10.0 D34 · Rust Knowledge Freshness 9.3 M1 · Repo Documentation (README) 8.7 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 0.0

At a glance — Readiness · 39% · Weak · gated by D13, P7 ·

The Good

D9 · Rust Test Distribution 9.6 P1 · Repo CI/CD gates 10.0 P10 · Repo Library API & versioning 10.0 P2 · Repo Observability 7.0

The Bad

P3 · Repo Security & performance tooling 5.0 P4 · Repo Deployment & Rollback 5.0 P6 · Repo Release Hygiene 5.0

The Ugly

D13 · Rust REDACTED Scanning 0.0 P7 · Repo Outbound HTTP resilience 3.0

At a glance — Security · 51% · Adequate · gated by D28, D29, D36 ·

The Good

D30 · Rust Dependency Vulnerabilities 9.1 D31 · Rust IaC & Container Security 9.6 D43 · Rust Malicious Dependencies 10.0

The Bad

D44 · Rust Platform End-of-Life 6.0

The Ugly

D28 · Rust Secrets (history) 0.0 D29 · Rust Static Analysis (SAST) 1.0 D36 · Rust Supply-chain Provenance & Signing 0.0

At a glance — Event Sourcing · 49% · Weak · gated by ES2 ·

The Good

ES1 · Repo Fold determinism 10.0

The Ugly

ES2 · Repo Immutable events 1.0

At a glance — Performance · 94% · Exemplary ·

The Good

PF1 · Repo Benchmark discipline 9.0 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	32	High / Critical
A02:2021 — Cryptographic Failures	19	High / Critical
A06:2021 — Vulnerable & Outdated Components	5	Medium
A05:2021 — Security Misconfiguration	2	High / Critical

Roadmap

Immediately resolve the three leaked secrets in REDACTED and REDACTED to secure the codebase. Strengthen system resilience by enforcing request timeouts on all HTTP clients and implementing retry logic for transient failures. Finally, enable automated dependency scanning, add health checks to the deployment configuration for reliable rollbacks, and maintain a changelog to track release history.

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

Do this	Helps	Effort	Dimension
Resolve the 3 Leaked secret finding(s) in REDACTED Scanning — start with REDACTED (2), REDACTED.	+8.8 pts	Low	REDACTED Scanning
Give every client a whole-request bound: `reqwest::Client::builder().timeout(Duration::from_secs(10))` (never `reqwest::get` or `Client::new()`, which have none), ureq's `timeout_global`, or wrap the call in `tokio::time::timeout`; add retry with back-off (`reqwest-retry`'s `RetryTransientMiddleware`, `backoff`) around dependencies that fail.	+8.8 pts	Medium	Outbound HTTP resilience
Enable Dependabot/Renovate or a dependency-review gate.	+8.5 pts	Medium	Security & performance tooling
Add a `healthcheck:` to the served compose service — probing the endpoint it already answers on where it has one — with `depends_on: condition: service_healthy` on whatever waits for it, and keep the deployed image tag immutable and recorded so rolling back is re-pointing at the previous tag rather than rebuilding.	+8.5 pts	Medium	Deployment & Rollback
Keep a changelog (e.g. Keep-a-Changelog) recording what shipped in each release.	+8.5 pts	Medium	Release Hygiene
Consider OpenTelemetry tracing/metrics (opentelemetry with tracing-opentelemetry) and a health-check endpoint (a /health route on your axum/actix router) for operability.	+7.0 pts	Medium	Observability
Improve Immutable events (currently 1.0/10).	+4.4 pts	Medium	Immutable events
Resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality.	+2.2 pts	Low	ADR Quality

File quality

Per-file score 0–10 — a quality signature. Of 75 files carrying findings, judged against the Production bar: 3% slop · 61% mixed · 36% near-clean.

File	Score	Band	Worst signal
REDACTED	1.3	Slop	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED	2.3	Slop	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED	4.4	Mixed	REDACTED Scanning: Leaked secret: REDACTED
REDACTED	4.4	Mixed	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED	4.6	Mixed	Secrets (history): REDACTED: REDACTED
REDACTED	4.6	Mixed	Secrets (history): REDACTED: REDACTED
node/src/client/mod.rs	4.8	Mixed	Cognitive Complexity: Client::initialize_solution_verification (cognitive 28)
REDACTED	5.1	Mixed	IaC & Container Security: High IaC: REDACTED
REDACTED	5.8	Mixed	REDACTED Scanning: Leaked secret: REDACTED
REDACTED	5.8	Mixed	Secrets (history): REDACTED: REDACTED
REDACTED	5.9	Mixed	Dependency Vulnerabilities: Medium CVE: REDACTED
node/bft/src/gateway.rs	6.0	Mixed	Explicit Debt: TodoComment
node/bft/src/primary.rs	6.0	Mixed	Explicit Debt: TodoComment
cli/src/commands/start.rs	6.0	Mixed	Explicit Debt: TodoComment
node/bft/src/sync/mod.rs	6.0	Mixed	Explicit Debt: TodoComment
node/sync/src/block_sync.rs	6.0	Mixed	Explicit Debt: TodoComment
node/bft/src/helpers/storage.rs	6.0	Mixed	Explicit Debt: TodoComment
node/cdn/src/blocks.rs	6.0	Mixed	Explicit Debt: TodoComment
node/src/bootstrap_client/handshake.rs	6.0	Mixed	Explicit Debt: TodoComment
node/rest/src/routes.rs	6.0	Mixed	Explicit Debt: TodoComment

How the grades work

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

Critical — 51

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 — 248

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 — 17

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

Could not be resolved — 39

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. 40 of 44 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); 4 documentation/naming judgement(s) are LLM-assisted and labelled advisory. Overall confidence is 0.9 — the weighted average across measured dimensions; it falls as more of the score leans on LLM-assisted judgement and rises when it's fully tool-backed.

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

What we checked — 44 dimensions across the health lenses

D1D2D3D4D5D6D9D13D15D16D17D19D20D21D22D26D28D29D30D31D34D35D36D43D44AX10AX3AX4AX9ES1ES2M1M2M3M4P1P10P2P3P4P6P7PF1PF3

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, 288 of 316 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 · checkov	Secrets in history, SAST, CVEs, IaC & container, PII / GDPR	1.86.0 · 0.69.3 · 3.2.533	✓ 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 01a0f200-c016-77c8-89c2-e01bdbe9cd85.

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

Run transparency — what happened this run

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

D8 Code Coverage — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Coverage NOT MEASURED: test source is present (.rs) but the built-in coverage collector has no runner for this repository's ecosystem — so this suite was never executed by it. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a defect in the repo. To have real coverage read, produce a coverage report in a standard format (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.
D11 Test Reliability — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Test source is present (.rs) and this repository declares a Cargo test suite (repository root, 107 test files), but it was not re-run: no test result was produced. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
D12 Dependency Hygiene — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Not scored — 29 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.
AX6 Interface segregation — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is computed over the public interfaces this run's compilations declare, and none was loaded, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
C1 Data Protection — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These personal data controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks personal data controls.
C2 Access Controls — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These authorization controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks authorization controls.
C3 Audit Trail — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These audit controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks audit controls.
C4 Data Retention — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These retention controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks retention controls.
C5 Data-Subject Rights — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These data-subject rights controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks data-subject rights controls.
ED5 Idempotency — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check finds retry-prone mutations by walking the repository's declared types, and NONE was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to look at. That is a limit of the analyzer's reach — it reads .NET projects — not a finding that this repository has no command handlers or message consumers.
GD1 Unfinished & placeholder code — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
IC1 Incompleteness & stubs — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
P5 DR & Backup — not measured this run — This is a true statement about the repository that carries nothing for its owner to act on, so it is reported here rather than as a defect in their code. No backup/snapshot/replication config, RTO/RPO or restore-procedure documentation was found — and no production persistence was detected either (no data-access packages, no data-store services, no database resources), so there is nothing in this repository whose loss a DR control would recover. If this system's data lives in a platform or ops repo we can't see, that's where the DR evidence belongs.
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 reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript was found in 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.
X3 Exception handling — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X30 Support guard that admits what it rejects — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X4 Structured logging — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X5 Nullable reference types — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.

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.
D13 REDACTED Scanning: REDACTED detection is signature- and entropy-based on the current tree — a secret that does not match a known pattern, or one already rotated, will not be flagged (a clean scan is "nothing matched", not "no secrets exist").
D15 Churn × Complexity Hotspots: Churn hotspots come from git history — a freshly imported or squashed repository has no churn signal, and recent rewrites can mask a historically risky file.
D16 Bus Factor: Bus-factor is a time-decayed model of commit attribution (who has recently, repeatedly worked a file), not comprehension — pairing, review and reading-without-committing spread knowledge it can't see; bot commits and shared accounts still distort it.
D17 Explicit Debt: Acknowledged-debt signals (TODO/FIXME, suppressions, dead code) are textual — undocumented debt that nobody marked, and debt that lives in design rather than annotations, is invisible. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, generated stubs) is excluded — it is never the team's dead code to delete.
D19 Documentation Quality: Documentation quality is judged by an LLM over a bounded sample of docs — it reads what is written, not whether the docs match the running system, and it is advisory, not a measurement. Its critique rows are drawn from a closed category vocabulary and each row means the same thing in every run, so two scans can be compared row by row; the SET that fires is still a sample, and does not repeat exactly. Measured on one frozen input, six scans at one engine SHA: 2-5 critique rows per scan, 8 distinct rows across the six, 3 of those 8 seen in only one scan. So a D19 row is evidence about the documentation, but a COUNT of D19 rows is not a quantity — never read a change in it as an improvement or a regression.
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.
D31 IaC & Container Security: IaC scanning checks Dockerfiles/Terraform/Kubernetes against best-practice rules — it cannot see the live cloud account, runtime configuration, or drift between the committed config and what is actually deployed.
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 (4): D19, D21, D22, M4 (model: Local LLM). For these, a model reads a bounded sample and sets the numeric score; each names its own sample and method on its card. They are sampled and advisory by design: they vary at the margins between runs and are never a deterministic measurement. Every other score in this report is tool-computed at confidence 1.0.

Dimensions

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity7.4 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 7.4 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

15 method(s) exceeded the cyclomatic complexity threshold of 15; the worst was Gateway::inbound at 57. A further 7 method(s) were over the threshold but excluded as flat dispatchers (a long switch/match over independent cases: many branches, almost no nesting), the largest being DisconnectReason::read_le at 21 — 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: node/router/messages/src/helpers/disconnect.rs (DisconnectReason::read_le at 21), node/bft/events/src/lib.rs (Event::read_le at 18). They are named here because the per-file figures other dimensions report are taken BEFORE this exclusion, so such a file can show a high maximum complexity elsewhere in this report and nothing here, with nothing to reconcile the two.

Primary::propose_batch (cyclomatic 43) · ×3node/bft/src/primary.rs:455

Gateway::inbound (cyclomatic 57) · ×2node/bft/src/gateway.rs:646

Start::parse_node (cyclomatic 34) · ×2cli/src/commands/start.rs:775

Inbound::inbound (cyclomatic 47)node/router/src/inbound.rs:80

BFT::commit_leader_certificate (cyclomatic 26)node/bft/src/bft.rs:595

+ 6 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

What to do

Resolve the 3 Primary finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with primary.rs (3). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 warning-level).
Resolve the 2 Gateway finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with gateway.rs (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
Resolve the 2 Start finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with start.rs (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 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 Complexity5.8 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 5.8 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

46 method(s) exceeded the cognitive complexity threshold of 15; the worst was Primary::propose_batch at 84.

BlockSync::prepare_block_requests (cognitive 40) · ×7node/sync/src/block_sync.rs:973

Gateway::inbound (cognitive 70) · ×5node/bft/src/gateway.rs:646

Primary::propose_batch (cognitive 84) · ×4node/bft/src/primary.rs:455

Start::parse_node (cognitive 44) · ×4cli/src/commands/start.rs:775

Sync::sync_storage_with_ledger_at_bootup (cognitive 37) · ×4node/bft/src/sync/mod.rs:347

+ 14 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

What to do

Resolve the 7 BlockSync finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with block_sync.rs (7). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (7 warning-level).
Resolve the 5 Gateway finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with gateway.rs (5). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (5 warning-level).
Resolve the 4 Primary finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with primary.rs (4). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 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 Classes8.9 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 8.9 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

27 god class(es) detected.

MethodTooLong: Gateway.inbound · ×8node/bft/src/gateway.rs:646

ClassTooLong: Gateway · ×6node/bft/src/gateway.rs:206

TooManyMethods: Rest · ×6node/rest/src/lib.rs:188

FileTooLong: src/gateway.rs · ×6node/bft/src/gateway.rs

TooManyFields: Startcli/src/commands/start.rs:136

What to do

Resolve the 8 MethodTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with primary.rs (2), lib.rs (2), gateway.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (8 warning-level).
Resolve the 6 ClassTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with gateway.rs, primary.rs, block_sync.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (6 warning-level).
Resolve the 6 TooManyMethods finding(s) in God Classes — start with lib.rs, gateway.rs, primary.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (6 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 Duplication9.6 / 10Stronggated by 43 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 9.6 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

41 duplicated block group(s) detected. A further 2 rows report members as variants of one another; they aggregate block groups already counted above and are not themselves counted.

Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) · ×6node/bft/src/gateway.rs:768

Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) · ×6node/bft/src/gateway.rs:324

Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) · ×5node/bft/src/gateway.rs:2163

Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) · ×4node/bft/src/gateway.rs:875

Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) · ×4node/bft/src/gateway.rs:2129

+ 16 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

What to do

Resolve the 6 Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with gateway.rs, cache.rs, node.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (6 warning-level).
Resolve the 6 Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with gateway.rs (2), disconnect.rs (2), handshake.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (6 warning-level).
Resolve the 5 Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with gateway.rs, storage.rs, mod.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (5 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 · Coupling8.5 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 8.5 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

21 production modules (Cargo), 0 dependency cycle(s), 0 unstable depended-on module(s). Read from the build's own module declarations; 4 module(s) off the main sequence, with abstractness counted on 19 of the 21 (the rest declare no modelled class or interface, export only macros, or have no source directory of their own).

Off the main sequence: snarkos-account · ×4

What to do

Resolve the 4 Off the main sequence finding(s) in Coupling. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 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)9.3 / 10Stronggated by 5 serious findings✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 9.3 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

5 of 84 classes have LCOM4 above 3.

Low cohesion: MockLedgerService (LCOM4 7) · ×5node/bft/ledger-service/src/mock.rs:42

What to do

Resolve the 5 Low cohesion finding(s) in Cohesion (LCOM4) — start with mod.rs (2), mock.rs, storage.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (5 warning-level).
Enforce Cohesion (LCOM4) in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D9 · Test Distribution9.6 / 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 9.6 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

523 test methods: 476 unit, 30 integration, 0 BDD, 17 e2e. The Rust suite contributes 523 `#[test]` function(s) across 107 file(s) declaring at least one; its unit/integration split is Cargo's own — 11 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.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d9_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D13 · REDACTED Scanning0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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 0.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

3 secret(s) detected.

REDACTED

What to do

Resolve the 3 Leaked secret finding(s) in REDACTED Scanning — start with REDACTED (2), REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 issue-level).
Enforce REDACTED Scanning in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

Detailed fixes: d13_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots9.1 / 10Stronggated by 11 serious findings✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

Top hotspots: node/bft/src/gateway.rs (21×57=1197); node/bft/src/primary.rs (25×43=1075); node/bft/src/helpers/storage.rs (20×17=340) Repeated repair below the complexity floor: node/router/messages/src/helpers/codec.rs (5 of 7 changes were fixes); node/router/messages/src/unconfirmed_transaction.rs (3 of 5 changes were fixes); node/bft/src/worker.rs (3 of 4 changes were fixes)

Hotspot: node/bft/src/gateway.rs · ×7node/bft/src/gateway.rs:646

Repeated repair: node/router/messages/src/helpers/codec.rs · ×4node/router/messages/src/helpers/codec.rs:96

What to do

Resolve the 7 Hotspot finding(s) in Churn × Complexity Hotspots — start with gateway.rs, primary.rs, storage.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (7 warning-level).
Resolve the 4 Repeated repair finding(s) in Churn × Complexity Hotspots — start with codec.rs, unconfirmed_transaction.rs, worker.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 warning-level).

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D16 · Bus Factor9.0 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

15 source file(s) have their living knowledge concentrated in one author (≥90% of recent, decayed contribution). The largest is node/network/src/noise.rs. Counted over 141 of the 169 production source files in this repository: the rest are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over.

Off-boarding risk: anonymized user #1 · ×2

Further sole-owners (lower concentration)

What to do

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D17 · Explicit Debt9.7 / 10Stronggated by 67 serious findings✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

67 deducted task-comment markers across 50225 LoC (0.1/KLoC) → score 9.7. Task comments only: this repository's language is read without a compiler, so D17's suppression, dead-code and commented-out-code arms did not run and this score counts fewer marker kinds than a .NET repository's would.

TodoComment · ×65account/src/lib.rs:189

FixmeComment · ×2node/bft/tests/gateway_e2e.rs:123

What to do

Resolve the 65 TodoComment finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with block_sync.rs (8), lib.rs (6), primary.rs (5). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (65 warning-level).
Resolve the 2 FixmeComment finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with gateway_e2e.rs (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
Enforce Explicit Debt in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

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

This repository's README files are well organized with an explicit table of contents and a clear overview document (1. Overview) that states what the project is and its purpose. The build guide covers requirements, installation, and run commands for each crate, while detailed architecture docs exist for specific crates like snarkos-node-bft (primary, round advancement, batch proposal, ledger advancement), snarkos-node-metrics (quick start via scripts/devnet.sh, Grafana dashboard), and the node-rest API. The READMEs are all directory-specific and document their own contents rather than the repository as a whole; the lack of an overall overview/installation/contribution doc is not penalized because it resides at the root level. The README is a focused directory doc for the node/sync/locators crate (211 words), describing what it provides (block locators as data structures used by nodes to advertise blocks) and its internal structure (BlockLocators struct with checkpoints/recents maps). It gives an overview of block identifiers (height, genesis, N-1) and a hash's role in consistency checks. The crate has no architecture/docs markdown files.

Documentation: no installation or build instructions · ×2node/sync/locators/README.md

What to do

Resolve the 2 Documentation finding(s) in Documentation Quality — start with README.md (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 recommendation-level).

Detailed fixes: d19_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.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 a 400-member sample of 181 exposed types.

Inconsistent naming convention for data type variants. 'sign_bytes' uses the type name, while 'sign_bits' uses the pluralized type name. 'sign' is ambiguous as it takes a generic Field array but lacks a suffix.

Same inconsistency as sign: 'verify_bytes' vs 'verify_bits'. The generic 'verify' for Fields is inconsistent with the explicit suffixes used for other types.

Duplicate function signatures with different parameter names (one named 'path', one '_path'). This suggests an overload or a copy-paste error in the API surface, which is confusing for consumers.

While these are inverse operations, the naming is slightly asymmetric. 'get_block_height' implies getting the height of a block (given a hash), but 'get_block_hash' implies getting the hash of a block (given a height). This is acceptable but could be clearer.

Inconsistent return types for 'contains' operations. 'Storage' returns a boolean, while 'LedgerService' returns a Result. This forces callers to handle errors differently for similar existence checks.

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

What to do

Resolve the 1 Inconsistent naming convention for data type variants. 'sign_bytes' uses… finding(s) in Internal API Consistency. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 Same inconsistency as sign finding(s) in Internal API Consistency. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 Duplicate function signatures with different parameter names (one named… 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 Cohesion10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

0 of 21 build units (Cargo) flagged as possibly oversized/incoherent.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d26_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D28 · Secrets (history)0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

15 finding(s): 0 critical, 15 high, 0 medium, 0 low. Remediation for historically-committed secrets is credential rotation — they remain in history regardless of later deletion.

REDACTED

What to do

Resolve the 15 REDACTED finding(s) in Secrets (history) — start with REDACTED (5), REDACTED (5), REDACTED (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (15 issue-level).
Resolve the 1 Rotate the exposed credentials finding(s) in Secrets (history). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)1.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 1.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

32 finding(s): 0 critical, 31 high, 1 medium, 0 low. 18 unpinned-GitHub-Actions row(s) are reported here but scored by D36 (supply-chain provenance), which measures that posture as `pinned_actions` — one pinning decision is charged once, not once per lens. semgrep hit a parse error in 6 file(s) — `.ci/test_full_upgrade.sh` (line 215, line 332), `.ci/test_reset_minority.sh` (line 33), `.ci/test_restart_majority.sh` (line 34), `REDACTED` (line 373), `node/bft/src/primary.rs` (line 410, line 415, line 420, …), … (+1 more) — so no absence of findings in the named regions is evidence of anything; rows reported elsewhere in those files are real. Fix the syntax error (or exclude the file deliberately) and re-scan to cover them. Separately, one or more rules could not re-parse an embedded snippet in 1 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

+ 3 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 4 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED (3), REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 issue-level).
No action in Static Analysis (SAST) — all 18 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 (18 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 Vulnerabilities9.1 / 10Stronggated by 5 serious findings✓ 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 9.1 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

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

REDACTED

What to do

Resolve the 3 Medium advisory (unmaintained) finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with REDACTED (3). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 warning-level).
Resolve the 2 Medium CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with REDACTED (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D31 · IaC & Container Security9.6 / 10Adequategated by 1 critical finding✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether Dockerfiles / Terraform / Kubernetes config follow security best practices.

Method: IaC/container misconfiguration scan via trivy config (Dockerfile/Terraform/K8s/Helm/CloudFormation); severity rules to 0-10 moderate normalizer. NotApplicable without manifests. Exhaustive, deterministic.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 9.6 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

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

REDACTED

What to do

Resolve the 1 High IaC finding(s) in IaC & Container Security — start with REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).
Resolve the 1 Medium IaC finding(s) in IaC & Container Security — start with REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).

Detailed fixes: d31_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D34 · Knowledge Freshness9.3 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 9.3 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

10 of 141 significant source file(s) are orphaned — their living knowledge has decayed to nothing, so no one currently understands them. The largest is account/src/lib.rs. Counted over 141 of the 169 production source files in this repository: the rest are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over.

Orphaned files with no living knowledge

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d34_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D35 · Change Coupling9.5 / 10Stronggated by 8 serious findings✓ 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 9.5 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

Strongest change-coupling: mock.rs↔prover.rs 80%; test_helpers.rs↔router.rs 71%; test_helpers.rs↔router.rs 71%

Change coupling: mock.rs ↔ prover.rs · ×6node/bft/ledger-service/src/mock.rs

Change-coupling hub: test_helpers.rs → router.rs, router.rs, router.rsnode/router/src/test_helpers.rs

Change coupling clique: deploy.rs, execute.rs, transfer_private.rscli/src/commands/developer/deploy.rs

What to do

Resolve the 6 Change coupling finding(s) in Change Coupling — start with mod.rs (2), mock.rs, memory.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (6 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 Change-coupling hub finding(s) in Change Coupling — start with test_helpers.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 Change coupling clique finding(s) in Change Coupling — start with deploy.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 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 2 REDACTED finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing — start with REDACTED (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 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-Life6.0 / 10Adequate✓ 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 6.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

1 end-of-life runtime(s) and 0 end-of-life framework(s), read from 2 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.

End-of-life runtime: Rust 1.96

What to do

Resolve the 1 End-of-life runtime finding(s) in Platform End-of-Life. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).

Detailed fixes: d44_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions

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

AX10 · Code composition9.5 / 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?

ES1 · Fold determinism10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Event Sourcing — Whether the recovery-replay fold is deterministic — state derived purely from each event's own fields, no clock/random/IO on the replay path.

Method: Roslyn syntax scan (event-sourcing gated): Apply/When folds checked for forbidden tokens (DateTime.Now, Guid.NewGuid, Random, IO), stripped of comments/strings. Deterministic, hard fact per fold.

Do you agree with this assessment?

ES2 · Immutable events1.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

Other · Event Sourcing — Whether domain events stay immutable (private fields, set once) rather than carrying mutable state.

Method: Roslyn scan (event-sourcing gated): persisted events checked for public setters; immutability verified per property/field. Deterministic, hard fact.

`Event` conforms to a domain-event contract but carries a freely-mutable `pub` field. Events are immutable facts — model them with private fields (set once in the constructor) so a recorded event can never be rewritten. — node/bft/events/src/lib.rs:97

Do you agree with this assessment?

M1 · Documentation (README)8.7 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

What to do

Add a 'Testing' section to the root README — how to run the test suite.
Add an 'Architecture' / 'How it works' section to the root README — the high-level shape.

Do you agree with this assessment?

M2 · Architecture documentation0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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

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

No Architecture Decision Records found — no conventional ADR directory, no numbered `NNNN-title` documents in any markup this check reads, and nothing ADR-shaped by content. Design rationale recorded elsewhere (a design-notes tree, a mailing list, pull-request discussion) is not visible to this check and is not re-findable per decision, so a future maintainer cannot ask why one choice was made and get an answer.
No C4/Structurizr/PlantUML/Mermaid/Graphviz/D2 diagram, no drawn diagram named for the architecture, no file named `architecture` or `design` in any markup this check reads, and nothing in the README, docs or contributor guides that announces the shape — no `## Architecture` heading, no "architecture overview"/"high-level design" phrasing, no "the architecture is …" introduction, no guided code tour. A shape laid out in prose that never names itself as the architecture is not visible to this check, and neither is one kept outside the repository, so this row reports the absence of a re-findable shape document — not evidence that nobody wrote the shape down.

What to do

Record 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).
Add a C4 context/container diagram (Structurizr, PlantUML or Mermaid) or an architecture.md overview.

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 & versioning10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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

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

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 tooling5.0 / 10Adequate✓ 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

Enable Dependabot/Renovate or a dependency-review gate.
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.

Deployment is orchestrated by compose, but no service declares a `healthcheck:` and nothing pins a previous image to fall back to — the runtime can tell that the container is up, not that it is serving, so a bad release is harder to detect and reverse.
Deployment 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 reaches the release trigger goes to production unreviewed, so a mistaken merge or tag is live before anyone can stop it.

What to do

Add a `healthcheck:` to the served compose service — probing the endpoint it already answers on where it has one — with `depends_on: condition: service_healthy` on whatever waits for it, and keep the deployed image tag immutable and recorded so rolling back is re-pointing at the previous tag rather than rebuilding.
Add an approval/environment gate (required reviewers / protection rules) before production promotion.

Do you agree with this assessment?

P6 · Release Hygiene5.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

What to do

Keep a changelog (e.g. Keep-a-Changelog) recording what shipped in each release.

Do you agree with this assessment?

P7 · Outbound HTTP resilience3.0 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

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

Method: Source scan: outbound HTTP clients and what bounds them — resilience handlers (Polly, AddStandardResilienceHandler) on .NET; on Go, the JVM, Python, JavaScript/TypeScript, Ruby, PHP, Rust, Elixir, Swift, Dart and Erlang, a timeout, deadline, retry or breaker beside each call, or a process-wide client default (a framework-wide deadline such as Drupal core's, Laravel's or actix's awc counts). Exhaustive, deterministic.

`ureq::post(` makes an outbound HTTP call, and nothing bounds it: no timeout, deadline, retry or circuit breaker is set for it here, and the client has no process-wide default. A slow or failing dependency will hold this service's request, thread or connection until the call gives up on its own — or never, for a client with no default timeout. 4 of the 5 files that make outbound calls are unbounded; the first 4 are listed. — cli/src/commands/developer/mod.rs:305
`ureq::get(` makes an outbound HTTP call, and nothing bounds it: no timeout, deadline, retry or circuit breaker is set for it here, and the client has no process-wide default. A slow or failing dependency will hold this service's request, thread or connection until the call gives up on its own — or never, for a client with no default timeout. — cli/src/commands/developer/scan.rs:156
`Client::builder()` makes an outbound HTTP call, and nothing bounds it: no timeout, deadline, retry or circuit breaker is set for it here, and the client has no process-wide default. A slow or failing dependency will hold this service's request, thread or connection until the call gives up on its own — or never, for a client with no default timeout. — node/cdn/src/blocks.rs:175
`reqwest::Client::new(` makes an outbound HTTP call, and nothing bounds it: no timeout, deadline, retry or circuit breaker is set for it here, and the client has no process-wide default. A slow or failing dependency will hold this service's request, thread or connection until the call gives up on its own — or never, for a client with no default timeout. — node/src/bootstrap_client/mod.rs:98

What to do

Give every client a whole-request bound: `reqwest::Client::builder().timeout(Duration::from_secs(10))` (never `reqwest::get` or `Client::new()`, which have none), ureq's `timeout_global`, or wrap the call in `tokio::time::timeout`; add retry with back-off (`reqwest-retry`'s `RetryTransientMiddleware`, `backoff`) around dependencies that fail.

Do you agree with this assessment?

PF1 · Benchmark discipline9.0 / 10Exemplary✓ 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	87%	Strong	Solid.
Architecture	96%	Exemplary	Strongest area.
Maturity	62%	Adequate — gated by M2	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Readiness	39%	Weak — gated by D13, P7	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Security	51%	Adequate — gated by D28, D29, D36	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Event Sourcing	49%	Weak — gated by ES2	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Performance	94%	Exemplary	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 — 73 check(s) not relevant to this codebase

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

AC1 Text alternatives — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC2 Forms & labels — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC3 Page structure — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC4 Keyboard semantics — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC5 ARIA correctness — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC6 Visual & motion safety — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC7 A11y enforcement — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AX1 Captive dependencies — Not applicable: Rust with no dependency-injection crate has no container to hand one lifetime's instance to another — every value is owned by the code that builds it, and the borrow checker rejects a longer-lived value keeping a borrow of a shorter-lived one.
AX2 Stateful singletons — No container singleton was found, so there is no shared instance for concurrent requests to race on. No function in this Python code is served by a threaded web framework (a Flask, Bottle or FastAPI route, a Django or Pyramid view), so no module is shared between request threads. 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
AXB2 Runtime readiness — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
AXR1 Runtime accessibility — compose up failed (exit 18 — an image could not be pulled) — grafana Pulling prometheus Pulling grafana Error Get "https://registry-1.docker.io/v2/": Forbidden prometheus Error context canceled Error response from daemon: Get "https://registry-1.docker.io/v2/": Forbidden; the earlier `compose pull` step reported: grafana Pulling prometheus Pulling prometheus Error Get "https://registry-1.docker.io/v2/": Forbidden grafana Error Get "https://registry-1.docker.io/v2/": Forbidden Error response from daemon: Get "https://registry-1.docker.io/v2/": Forbidden; the runtime sandbox reaches registries only through the in-fence pull-through mirror, so an image the mirror does not carry cannot be fetched — this is a limit of our sandbox, not of your stack; runtime evidence skipped This is a statement about this run, not a statement about your application: nothing here says the surface is inaccessible, only that it was never rendered.
C1 Data Protection — Not assessed: these personal data controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks personal data controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
C2 Access Controls — Not assessed: these authorization controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks authorization controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
D10 Test Quality — ~5217 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.
D11 Test Reliability — Test reliability not included — the .rs suite was found but not re-run
D12 Dependency Hygiene — Not scored — 29 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 634 shipped crate(s) were read from its REDACTED, but crates.io could not be asked for the licence of 40 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.
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
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 — applicable but not scored (2 of 3 signals for this style — below the bar we score at): 6 value object(s); 1 domain event(s); its domain events are published by services or handlers — no domain entity raises one
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.
GD1 Unfinished & placeholder code — no source files were read — this check reads C# syntax, and none was loaded for this repository. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
IC1 Incompleteness & stubs — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
P12 CI test-gate honesty — Reported, not scored — and nothing was matched here. The coverage check applies to any stack, and the automatic-re-run check to any GitHub-Actions workflow, but the checks for excluded tests, skipped tests and sleep-based synchronisation currently recognise only some ecosystems' test-runner idioms, so on a repository built with another stack the zeros below mean 'not checked', not 'clean'.
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 — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X3 Exception handling — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X30 Support guard that admits what it rejects — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X32 Type resolved by simple name across every loaded assembly — This check is about how a .NET program searches the assemblies loaded into its process for a type, and this repository contains no .NET source, so there is nothing here for it to assess. Not a gap in the analyzer and not a finding about your code.
X4 Structured logging — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X5 Nullable reference types — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X6 Hand-rolled structured-format parsing — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
X7 Silent fallback defaults — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
X9 Subsumed condition operand — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.

Appendix A — Findings (grouped)

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

Critical — 51 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

D28 · Secrets (history) · REDACTED · ×15

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

D13 · REDACTED Scanning · Leaked secret · ×3

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED

REDACTED
REDACTED

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

REDACTED

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

REDACTED

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

REDACTED

D31 · IaC & Container Security · High IaC · ×1

REDACTED

ES2 · Immutable events · Mutable domain event · ×1

Mutable domain event: Event node/bft/events/src/lib.rs:97 — `Event` conforms to a domain-event contract but carries a freely-mutable `pub` field. Events are immutable facts — model them with private fields (set once in the constructor) so a recorded event can never be rewritten.

Serious — 248 finding(s)

D17 · Explicit Debt · TodoComment · ×65

TodoComment account/src/lib.rs:189 — // TODO(kaimast): remove once we upgrade the rand crate — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment cli/src/commands/start.rs:956 — // TODO(kaimast): start the display earlier and show sync progress. — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment cli/src/commands/start.rs:1095 — // TODO(kaimast): set up a panic handler here for each worker thread once [`tokio::runtime::Builder::unhandled_panic`](https://docs.rs/tokio/latest/tokio/runtime/struct.Builder.html#method.unhandled_panic) is stabilized.
TodoComment cli/src/commands/developer/scan.rs:409 — // TODO: Dedup the error types. We're adding the record as valid because the endpoint failed, — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment node/bft/events/src/lib.rs:94 — // TODO (howardwu): For mainnet - Remove this clippy lint. The CertificateResponse should not — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment node/bft/events/src/disconnect.rs:151 — // TODO switch to an iteration method that doesn't require manually updating this vec if enums are added — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment node/bft/src/worker.rs:1241 — // TODO once Worker implements Debug, simplify this with `unwrap_err` — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment node/bft/src/primary.rs:177 — /// TODO(kaimast): avoiding using an async lock here, so this can be merged with the `proposed_batch`, — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment node/bft/src/primary.rs:507 — // TODO(ljedrz): the BatchHeader should be serialized only once in advance before being sent to non-signers. — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment node/bft/src/primary.rs:1273 — // TODO: eliminate those redundant checks — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment node/bft/src/primary.rs:1926 — // TODO (raychu86): Optimize this by parallelizing requests, but avoiding duplicated requests since certificates are likely shared across batches. — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment node/bft/src/primary.rs:2063 — // TODO (howardwu): Limit the number of open requests we send to a peer. — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment node/bft/src/lib.rs:69 — /// TODO(kaimast): directy multiply by constant once the `const_trait_impl` feature is stable. — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment node/bft/src/gateway.rs:812 — // TODO(kaimast): This needs more testing to ensure disconnect is the correct action. — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment node/src/client/router.rs:262 — // TODO(kaimast): This needs more testing to ensure disconnect is the correct action. — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment node/bft/src/gateway.rs:873 — // TODO (howardwu): Add rate limiting checks on this event, on a per-peer basis. — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment node/bft/src/gateway.rs:1537 — // TODO(kaimast): This can, in theory, still lead to race conditions, if we immediately reconnect to the same peer. — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment node/bft/src/gateway.rs:2450 — // TODO implement Debug properly and move it over to production code — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment node/bft/src/helpers/telemetry.rs:97 — // TODO: Consider other metrics to track: — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment node/bft/src/helpers/storage.rs:816 — // TODO (howardwu): We may want to use `shift_remove` below, in order to align compatibility — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment node/bft/src/helpers/storage.rs:1129 — // TODO (howardwu): Testing with 'max_gc_rounds' set to '0' should ensure everything is cleared after insertion. — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment node/bft/src/helpers/dag.rs:145 — //TODO (kaimast): return early here? — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment node/bft/src/helpers/dag.rs:157 — // TODO(kaimast); only remove old certificates for specific author here? — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment node/bft/src/helpers/dag.rs:169 — // TODO (kaimast): is this extra retain needed? It might be less expensive to keep the certificate and skip this additional iteration. — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment node/bft/src/primary/proposal_task.rs:93 — // TODO(kaimast): the round_start time should be based on the timestamp of the — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
+ 40 more in this group — see findings.md.

D3 · God Classes · MethodTooLong · ×8

MethodTooLong: Gateway.inbound node/bft/src/gateway.rs:646 — MethodTooLong — inbound runs 186 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 86 over it, 1.86× 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.
MethodTooLong: Primary.propose_batch node/bft/src/primary.rs:455 — MethodTooLong — propose_batch runs 171 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 71 over it, 1.71× 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.
MethodTooLong: Primary.start_handlers node/bft/src/primary.rs:1326 — MethodTooLong — start_handlers runs 146 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 46 over it, 1.46× 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.
MethodTooLong: BFT.commit_leader_certificate node/bft/src/bft.rs:595 — MethodTooLong — commit_leader_certificate runs 129 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 29 over it, 1.29× 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.
MethodTooLong: Rest.build_routes node/rest/src/lib.rs:271 — MethodTooLong — build_routes runs 129 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 29 over it, 1.29× 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.
MethodTooLong: Inbound.inbound node/router/src/inbound.rs:80 — MethodTooLong — inbound runs 126 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 26 over it, 1.26× 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.
MethodTooLong: Start.parse_node cli/src/commands/start.rs:775 — MethodTooLong — parse_node runs 114 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 14 over it, 1.14× 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.
MethodTooLong: Consensus.try_advance_to_next_block node/consensus/src/lib.rs:594 — MethodTooLong — try_advance_to_next_block runs 113 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 13 over it, 1.13× 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.

D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots · Hotspot · ×7

Hotspot: node/bft/src/gateway.rs node/bft/src/gateway.rs:646 — node/bft/src/gateway.rs changed 21 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 57 in Gateway::inbound at line 646. 3 of those changes were fix/bug commits, and the other 18 changed it for other reasons — this file is under both repair and feature pressure. Before the next change lands here, make sure the area it touches is under test, then split that area out of the file so the following change is smaller than this one — a file this often edited pays the complexity back every time. Counted over 2026-06-27..2026-09-25, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-06-27 14:01:00 +01:00' --until='2026-09-25 14:01:00 +01:00' --full-history --no-merges -- node/bft/src/gateway.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.
Hotspot: node/bft/src/primary.rs node/bft/src/primary.rs:455 — node/bft/src/primary.rs changed 25 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 43 in Primary::propose_batch at line 455. 10 of those changes were fix/bug commits, and the other 15 changed it for other reasons — this file is under both repair and feature pressure. Before the next change lands here, make sure the area it touches is under test, then split that area out of the file so the following change is smaller than this one — a file this often edited pays the complexity back every time. Counted over 2026-06-27..2026-09-25, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-06-27 14:01:00 +01:00' --until='2026-09-25 14:01:00 +01:00' --full-history --no-merges -- node/bft/src/primary.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.
Hotspot: node/bft/src/helpers/storage.rs node/bft/src/helpers/storage.rs:872 — node/bft/src/helpers/storage.rs changed 20 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 17 in Storage::sync_certificate_with_block at line 872. 8 of those changes were fix/bug commits, and the other 12 changed it for other reasons — this file is under both repair and feature pressure. Before the next change lands here, make sure the area it touches is under test, then split that area out of the file so the following change is smaller than this one — a file this often edited pays the complexity back every time. Counted over 2026-06-27..2026-09-25, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-06-27 14:01:00 +01:00' --until='2026-09-25 14:01:00 +01:00' --full-history --no-merges -- node/bft/src/helpers/storage.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.
Hotspot: node/bft/src/bft.rs node/bft/src/bft.rs:595 — node/bft/src/bft.rs changed 7 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 26 in BFT::commit_leader_certificate at line 595. 3 of those changes were fix/bug commits, and the other 4 changed it for other reasons — this file is under both repair and feature pressure. Before the next change lands here, make sure the area it touches is under test, then split that area out of the file so the following change is smaller than this one — a file this often edited pays the complexity back every time. Counted over 2026-06-27..2026-09-25, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-06-27 14:01:00 +01:00' --until='2026-09-25 14:01:00 +01:00' --full-history --no-merges -- node/bft/src/bft.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.
Hotspot: cli/src/commands/start.rs cli/src/commands/start.rs:775 — cli/src/commands/start.rs changed 5 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 34 in Start::parse_node at line 775. 1 of those changes was a fix/bug commit, and the other 4 changed it for other reasons — this file is under both repair and feature pressure. Before the next change lands here, make sure the area it touches is under test, then split that area out of the file so the following change is smaller than this one — a file this often edited pays the complexity back every time. Counted over 2026-06-27..2026-09-25, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-06-27 14:01:00 +01:00' --until='2026-09-25 14:01:00 +01:00' --full-history --no-merges -- cli/src/commands/start.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.
Hotspot: node/src/node.rs node/src/node.rs:379 — node/src/node.rs changed 6 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 21 in Node::perform_auto_checkpoints at line 379. Frequent change and high complexity in one file compound: schedule the next change to it to include carving out the part being edited, with the area under test before it moves. Counted over 2026-06-27..2026-09-25, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-06-27 14:01:00 +01:00' --until='2026-09-25 14:01:00 +01:00' --full-history --no-merges -- node/src/node.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.
Hotspot: node/router/src/inbound.rs node/router/src/inbound.rs:80 — node/router/src/inbound.rs changed 2 times in last 90 days, and the most complex body those changes touched has cyclomatic complexity 47 in Inbound::inbound at line 80. 1 of those changes was a fix/bug commit, and the other 1 changed it for other reasons — this file is under both repair and feature pressure. Before the next change lands here, make sure the area it touches is under test, then split that area out of the file so the following change is smaller than this one — a file this often edited pays the complexity back every time. Counted over 2026-06-27..2026-09-25, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-06-27 14:01:00 +01:00' --until='2026-09-25 14:01:00 +01:00' --full-history --no-merges -- node/router/src/inbound.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 · BlockSync · ×7

BlockSync::prepare_block_requests (cognitive 40) node/sync/src/block_sync.rs:973 — BlockSync::prepare_block_requests has cognitive complexity 40 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 18 (30 pts), loops 4 (8 pts), boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 16). 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.
BlockSync::update_peer_locators (cognitive 21) node/sync/src/block_sync.rs:812 — BlockSync::update_peer_locators has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (11 pts), match/switch 3 (7 pts), loops 3 (nesting depth added 8). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
BlockSync::send_block_requests (cognitive 20) node/sync/src/block_sync.rs:433 — BlockSync::send_block_requests has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 5 (9 pts), loops 4 (6 pts), match/switch 3 (5 pts) (nesting depth added 8). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
BlockSync::try_issuing_block_requests (cognitive 17) node/sync/src/block_sync.rs:545 — BlockSync::try_issuing_block_requests has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (11 pts), loops 2 (5 pts), boolean chains 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.
BlockSync::insert_block_responses (cognitive 17) node/sync/src/block_sync.rs:593 — BlockSync::insert_block_responses has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (16 pts), loops 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.
BlockSync::try_advancing_block_synchronization (cognitive 16) node/sync/src/block_sync.rs:682 — BlockSync::try_advancing_block_synchronization has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (11 pts), match/switch 2 (4 pts), loops 1 (nesting depth added 6). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
BlockSync::handle_block_request_timeouts (cognitive 16) node/sync/src/block_sync.rs:1346 — BlockSync::handle_block_request_timeouts has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 6 (8 pts), loops 3 (5 pts), boolean chains 3 (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.

D3 · God Classes · ClassTooLong · ×6

ClassTooLong: Gateway node/bft/src/gateway.rs:206 — ClassTooLong — 1009 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted), 50 methods, 15 blocks, lines 208-2380. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 609 over it, 2.52× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
ClassTooLong: Primary node/bft/src/primary.rs:153 — ClassTooLong — 941 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted), 40 methods, 9 blocks, lines 153-2130. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 541 over it, 2.35× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
ClassTooLong: BlockSync node/sync/src/block_sync.rs:202 — ClassTooLong — 636 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted), 35 methods, 5 blocks, lines 202-1607. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 236 over it, 1.59× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
ClassTooLong: Start cli/src/commands/start.rs:136 — ClassTooLong — 500 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted), 12 methods, 3 blocks, lines 136-1104. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 100 over it, 1.25× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
ClassTooLong: Sync node/bft/src/sync/mod.rs:81 — ClassTooLong — 475 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted), 23 methods, 7 blocks, lines 81-1095. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 75 over it, 1.19× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
ClassTooLong: BFT node/bft/src/bft.rs:62 — ClassTooLong — 434 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted), 24 methods, 8 blocks, lines 62-936. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 34 over it, 1.09× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.

D3 · God Classes · TooManyMethods · ×6

TooManyMethods: Rest node/rest/src/lib.rs:188 — TooManyMethods — 75 methods, declared across 2 files: src/routes.rs (68), src/lib.rs (7). The bar is 30 methods; this is 45 over it, 2.50× the bar. That list is where to read them, not a suggestion to split the file: the members belong to the type wherever they are declared, so moving them between files leaves the count unchanged. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
TooManyMethods: Gateway node/bft/src/gateway.rs:206 — TooManyMethods — 50 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 20 over it, 1.67× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
TooManyMethods: Primary node/bft/src/primary.rs:153 — TooManyMethods — 40 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 10 over it, 1.33× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
TooManyMethods: BlockSync node/sync/src/block_sync.rs:202 — TooManyMethods — 35 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 5 over it, 1.17× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
TooManyMethods: Storage node/bft/src/helpers/storage.rs:73 — TooManyMethods — 33 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 3 over it, 1.10× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
TooManyMethods: Worker node/bft/src/worker.rs:53 — TooManyMethods — 33 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 3 over it, 1.10× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.

D3 · God Classes · FileTooLong · ×6

FileTooLong: src/gateway.rs node/bft/src/gateway.rs — FileTooLong — 1202 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted), about 84% of them inside a single declaration: Gateway (15 blocks, 208-2380). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 702 over it, 2.40× the bar. Moving the declarations that sit BESIDE it into sibling files will not shorten this file. Extract from INSIDE that declaration instead: lift each cohesive group of its body — the parts that share the same inputs and are named together — into its own unit in a sibling file, and have the original call them.
FileTooLong: src/primary.rs node/bft/src/primary.rs — FileTooLong — 1030 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted), about 91% of them inside a single declaration: Primary (9 blocks, 153-2130). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 530 over it, 2.06× the bar. Moving the declarations that sit BESIDE it into sibling files will not shorten this file. Extract from INSIDE that declaration instead: lift each cohesive group of its body — the parts that share the same inputs and are named together — into its own unit in a sibling file, and have the original call them.
FileTooLong: src/routes.rs node/rest/src/routes.rs — FileTooLong — 837 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted), about 84% of them inside a single declaration: Rest (284-1686). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 337 over it, 1.67× the bar. Moving the declarations that sit BESIDE it into sibling files will not shorten this file. Extract from INSIDE that declaration instead: lift each cohesive group of its body — the parts that share the same inputs and are named together — into its own unit in a sibling file, and have the original call them.
FileTooLong: src/block_sync.rs node/sync/src/block_sync.rs — FileTooLong — 780 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted), about 82% of them inside a single declaration: BlockSync (5 blocks, 202-1607). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 280 over it, 1.56× the bar. Moving the declarations that sit BESIDE it into sibling files will not shorten this file. Extract from INSIDE that declaration instead: lift each cohesive group of its body — the parts that share the same inputs and are named together — into its own unit in a sibling file, and have the original call them.
FileTooLong: commands/start.rs cli/src/commands/start.rs — FileTooLong — 672 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted), about 74% of them inside a single declaration: Start (3 blocks, 136-1104). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 172 over it, 1.34× the bar. Moving the declarations that sit BESIDE it into sibling files will not shorten this file. Extract from INSIDE that declaration instead: lift each cohesive group of its body — the parts that share the same inputs and are named together — into its own unit in a sibling file, and have the original call them.
FileTooLong: sync/mod.rs node/bft/src/sync/mod.rs — FileTooLong — 513 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded, and inline test code — #[cfg(test)] modules and bare #[test] functions — not counted), about 93% of them inside a single declaration: Sync (7 blocks, 81-1095). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 13 over it, 1.03× the bar. Moving the declarations that sit BESIDE it into sibling files will not shorten this file. Extract from INSIDE that declaration instead: lift each cohesive group of its body — the parts that share the same inputs and are named together — into its own unit in a sibling file, and have the original call them.

D35 · Change Coupling · Change coupling · ×6

Change coupling: mock.rs ↔ prover.rs node/bft/ledger-service/src/mock.rs — `node/bft/ledger-service/src/mock.rs` and `node/bft/ledger-service/src/prover.rs` change together 80% of the time (8 of the 10 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well, and counted over this repository's 10,000 most recent commits rather than its whole history — 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 8 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are `d5b354c8` ref: set execution cost to 10 credits in `MockLedger`; `4970d1ac` Minor fixes (at that commit the files were still `node/narwhal/ledger-service/src/mock.rs` and `node/narwhal/ledger-service/src/prover.rs`); `2e33fa48` Introduce get_previous_committee_for_round (at that commit the files were still `node/narwhal/ledger-service/src/mock.rs` and `node/narwhal/ledger-service/src/prover.rs`) — run `git show` on any of them.
Change coupling: memory.rs ↔ persistent.rs node/bft/storage-service/src/memory.rs — `node/bft/storage-service/src/memory.rs` and `node/bft/storage-service/src/persistent.rs` change together 67% of the time (14 of the 21 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well, and counted over this repository's 10,000 most recent commits rather than its whole history — 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 14 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are `1ece35a8` docs: address the review comments; `47bf742a` fix: count an already-aborted transmission ID under storage locks; `ac90b6d7` refactor: remove contains_transmission — run `git show` on any of them.
Change coupling: certificate_response.rs ↔ storage.rs node/bft/events/src/certificate_response.rs — `node/bft/events/src/certificate_response.rs` and `node/bft/src/helpers/storage.rs` change together 67% of the time (8 of the 12 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well, and counted over this repository's 10,000 most recent commits rather than its whole history — 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 8 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are `0bcb7607` Use committee_id in tests; `ce873652` Reverts election certificates; `3d108ca4` tests: remove author from batch signing — run `git show` on any of them.
Change coupling: mod.rs ↔ mod.rs node/src/client/mod.rs — `node/src/client/mod.rs` and `node/src/validator/mod.rs` change together 61% of the time (82 of the 135 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well, and counted over this repository's 10,000 most recent commits rather than its whole history — 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 82 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are `69363e86` Remove unused and untested slipstream-plugins support.; `2a4fc8cf` Allow operators to limit REST verification concurrency at startup.; `c1a2dcad` feat(rest): serve the `history` routes from the Provable historical API — run `git show` on any of them.
Change coupling: ready.rs ↔ primary.rs node/bft/src/helpers/ready.rs — `node/bft/src/helpers/ready.rs` and `node/bft/src/primary.rs` change together 52% of the time (25 of the 48 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well, and counted over this repository's 10,000 most recent commits rather than its whole history — 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 25 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are `a8e0a8d8` ref: improve worker draining logic; `e2595c44` Revert "Revert "Merge pull request #3266 from AleoNet/optimize/clear-…; `99592f43` Revert "Merge pull request #3266 from AleoNet/optimize/clear-solutions" — run `git show` on any of them.
Change coupling: mod.rs ↔ mod.rs node/src/prover/mod.rs — `node/src/prover/mod.rs` and `node/src/validator/mod.rs` change together 51% of the time (56 of the 110 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well, and counted over this repository's 10,000 most recent commits rather than its whole history — 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 56 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are `62caba23` refactor: attach the Ping task to the Router; `edd71893` fix: no more zombie tasks on shutdown; `4ec2f561` first pass at plumbing for slipstream plugins — run `git show` on any of them.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) · ×6

Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) node/bft/src/gateway.rs:768 — node/bft/src/gateway.rs:768-780 | node/router/src/inbound.rs:139-151 — 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.
Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) node/bft/src/helpers/cache.rs:216 — node/bft/src/helpers/cache.rs:216-228 | node/router/src/helpers/cache.rs:300-312 — 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.
Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) node/src/node.rs:138 — node/src/node.rs:138-150 | node/src/node.rs:219-231 — 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) node/bft/src/bft.rs:332 — node/bft/src/bft.rs:332-344 | node/bft/src/bft.rs:643-655 — 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) cli/src/commands/developer/deploy.rs:217 — cli/src/commands/developer/deploy.rs:217-229 | cli/src/commands/developer/execute.rs:219-231 — 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.
Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) node/src/client/mod.rs:554 — node/src/client/mod.rs:554-566 | node/src/validator/mod.rs:503-515 — 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 (8 lines × 2) · ×6

Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) node/bft/src/gateway.rs:324 — node/bft/src/gateway.rs:324-331 | node/router/src/lib.rs:179-186 — 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.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) node/bft/src/gateway.rs:2065 — node/bft/src/gateway.rs:2065-2072 | node/src/bootstrap_client/handshake.rs:243-250 — 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.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) node/router/src/handshake.rs:225 — node/router/src/handshake.rs:225-232 | node/router/src/handshake.rs:289-297 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) node/tcp/src/protocols/disconnect.rs:53 — node/tcp/src/protocols/disconnect.rs:53-60 | node/tcp/src/protocols/on_connect.rs:45-52 — 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.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) node/bft/events/src/disconnect.rs:74 — node/bft/events/src/disconnect.rs:74-81 | node/router/messages/src/helpers/disconnect.rs:166-173 — 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.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) node/bft/src/helpers/cache.rs:205 — node/bft/src/helpers/cache.rs:205-212 | node/router/src/helpers/cache.rs:289-296 — 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.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Gateway · ×5

Gateway::inbound (cognitive 70) node/bft/src/gateway.rs:646 — Gateway::inbound has cognitive complexity 70 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 25 (50 pts), match/switch 7 (14 pts), loops 2 (4 pts), boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 34). 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.
Gateway::perform_handshake (cognitive 31) node/bft/src/gateway.rs:1590 — Gateway::perform_handshake has cognitive complexity 31 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 16 (25 pts), boolean chains 3, match/switch 2 (3 pts) (nesting depth added 10). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
Gateway::log_connected_validators (cognitive 17) node/bft/src/gateway.rs:1038 — Gateway::log_connected_validators has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (13 pts), match/switch 2, boolean chains 1, loops 1 (nesting depth added 3). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — so group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function. Some of it IS depth: where a check sits inside another whose only job is to reach it, merge the two into one condition, and where an else follows a branch that already returns, drop the trailing else and let the rest of the body continue at one level.
Gateway::handle_bootstrap_peers (cognitive 17) node/bft/src/gateway.rs:1198 — Gateway::handle_bootstrap_peers has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 6 (11 pts), loops 2 (3 pts), match/switch 1 (3 pts) (nesting depth added 8). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
Gateway::handle_min_connected_validators (cognitive 17) node/bft/src/gateway.rs:1279 — Gateway::handle_min_connected_validators has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 6 (12 pts), loops 1 (2 pts), match/switch 1 (2 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 8). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) · ×5

Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) node/bft/src/gateway.rs:2163 — node/bft/src/gateway.rs:2163-2169 | node/bft/src/gateway.rs:2225-2231 — 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 (7 lines × 2) node/bft/src/helpers/storage.rs:933 — node/bft/src/helpers/storage.rs:933-939 | node/bft/src/helpers/storage.rs:957-963 — 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 (7 lines × 2) node/bft/src/sync/mod.rs:1009 — node/bft/src/sync/mod.rs:1009-1015 | node/bft/src/worker.rs:562-568 — before extracting anything, compare `node/bft/src/sync/mod.rs` and `node/bft/src/worker.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 33 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) node/src/bootstrap_client/handshake.rs:472 — node/src/bootstrap_client/handshake.rs:472-478 | node/src/bootstrap_client/handshake.rs:491-497 — 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 (7 lines × 2) node/cdn/src/blocks.rs:451 — node/cdn/src/blocks.rs:451-457 | node/cdn/src/blocks.rs:482-488 — 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.

D6 · Cohesion (LCOM4) · Low cohesion · ×5

Low cohesion: MockLedgerService (LCOM4 7) node/bft/ledger-service/src/mock.rs:42 — MockLedgerService's methods fall into 7 groups that share no field and call none of each other, against a bar of more than 3 for this run (LCOM4, configurable — your repository's bar is the one quoted here). Each group is a set of methods reachable from one another through shared fields or direct calls, so 7 groups means the type has that many internally-connected clusters with nothing tying them together. Types whose shape makes a high count expected — and which would otherwise dominate this list — are excluded before this row is raised, so this is a genuine split candidate rather than a metric reading. It is still a shape, not a defect: confirm the groups match responsibilities you can name before splitting.
Low cohesion: Storage (LCOM4 6) node/bft/src/helpers/storage.rs:73 — Storage's methods fall into 6 groups that share no field and call none of each other, against a bar of more than 3 for this run (LCOM4, configurable — your repository's bar is the one quoted here). Each group is a set of methods reachable from one another through shared fields or direct calls, so 6 groups means the type has that many internally-connected clusters with nothing tying them together. Types whose shape makes a high count expected — and which would otherwise dominate this list — are excluded before this row is raised, so this is a genuine split candidate rather than a metric reading. It is still a shape, not a defect: confirm the groups match responsibilities you can name before splitting.
Low cohesion: Gateway (LCOM4 4) node/bft/src/gateway.rs:206 — Gateway's methods fall into 4 groups that share no field and call none of each other, against a bar of more than 3 for this run (LCOM4, configurable — your repository's bar is the one quoted here). Each group is a set of methods reachable from one another through shared fields or direct calls, so 4 groups means the type has that many internally-connected clusters with nothing tying them together. Types whose shape makes a high count expected — and which would otherwise dominate this list — are excluded before this row is raised, so this is a genuine split candidate rather than a metric reading. It is still a shape, not a defect: confirm the groups match responsibilities you can name before splitting.
Low cohesion: Client (LCOM4 4) node/src/client/mod.rs:100 — Client's methods fall into 4 groups that share no field and call none of each other, against a bar of more than 3 for this run (LCOM4, configurable — your repository's bar is the one quoted here). Each group is a set of methods reachable from one another through shared fields or direct calls, so 4 groups means the type has that many internally-connected clusters with nothing tying them together. Types whose shape makes a high count expected — and which would otherwise dominate this list — are excluded before this row is raised, so this is a genuine split candidate rather than a metric reading. It is still a shape, not a defect: confirm the groups match responsibilities you can name before splitting.
Low cohesion: Prover (LCOM4 4) node/src/prover/mod.rs:72 — Prover's methods fall into 4 groups that share no field and call none of each other, against a bar of more than 3 for this run (LCOM4, configurable — your repository's bar is the one quoted here). Each group is a set of methods reachable from one another through shared fields or direct calls, so 4 groups means the type has that many internally-connected clusters with nothing tying them together. Types whose shape makes a high count expected — and which would otherwise dominate this list — are excluded before this row is raised, so this is a genuine split candidate rather than a metric reading. It is still a shape, not a defect: confirm the groups match responsibilities you can name before splitting.

D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots · Repeated repair · ×4

Repeated repair: node/router/messages/src/helpers/codec.rs node/router/messages/src/helpers/codec.rs:96 — node/router/messages/src/helpers/codec.rs changed 7 times in last 90 days and 5 of those changes were fix/bug commits, so repair is the majority of this file's churn. Its max cyclomatic complexity is 5 (its worst body is MessageCodec::decode at line 96), 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(router): tighten MAX_PING_MESSAGE_SIZE from 16 MiB to 2 MiB”; “fix(router): reject an excluded message type outright, not just oversized”; “fix(router): cap the size of a Ping message”; “fix(router): address review findings on the transaction overhead cap”. 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 2026-06-27..2026-09-25, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-06-27 14:01:00 +01:00' --until='2026-09-25 14:01:00 +01:00' --full-history --no-merges -- node/router/messages/src/helpers/codec.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.
Repeated repair: node/router/messages/src/unconfirmed_transaction.rs node/router/messages/src/unconfirmed_transaction.rs:49 — node/router/messages/src/unconfirmed_transaction.rs changed 5 times in last 90 days and 3 of those changes were fix/bug commits, so repair is the majority of this file's churn. Its max cyclomatic complexity is 1 (its worst body is UnconfirmedTransaction::from at line 49), 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(router): address review findings on the transaction overhead cap”; “fix(router): move the transaction overhead constant next to write_le”; “fix(router): account for the frame envelope in the transaction size cap”. 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 2026-06-27..2026-09-25, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-06-27 14:01:00 +01:00' --until='2026-09-25 14:01:00 +01:00' --full-history --no-merges -- node/router/messages/src/unconfirmed_transaction.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.
Repeated repair: node/bft/src/worker.rs node/bft/src/worker.rs:365 — node/bft/src/worker.rs changed 4 times in last 90 days and 3 of those changes were fix/bug commits, so repair is the majority of this file's churn. Its max cyclomatic complexity is 11 (its worst body is Worker::insert_transmission_from_peer at line 365), 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: keep a transmission whose ID storage knows only as aborted”; “fix(bft): scope the ready-queue cap to the worker-ping path only”; “fix(bft): enforce worker capacity limit at transmission insertion”. 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 2026-06-27..2026-09-25, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-06-27 14:01:00 +01:00' --until='2026-09-25 14:01:00 +01:00' --full-history --no-merges -- node/bft/src/worker.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.
Repeated repair: node/src/traits.rs node/src/traits.rs:52 — node/src/traits.rs changed 3 times in last 90 days and 3 of those changes were fix/bug commits, so repair is the majority of this file's churn. Its max cyclomatic complexity is 4 (its worst body is NodeInterface::wait_for_signals at line 52), 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: abort the metrics exporter task on shutdown”; “fix: account for other platforms in the shutdown task check”; “fix: abort the FD monitor task on shutdown”. 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 2026-06-27..2026-09-25, the 90 days ending at the analysed commit. Reproduce with `git log --since='2026-06-27 14:01:00 +01:00' --until='2026-09-25 14:01:00 +01:00' --full-history --no-merges -- node/src/traits.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 · Primary · ×4

Primary::propose_batch (cognitive 84) node/bft/src/primary.rs:455 — Primary::propose_batch has cognitive complexity 84 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 26 (63 pts), match/switch 4 (10 pts), boolean chains 6, loops 3 (5 pts) (nesting depth added 45). 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.
Primary::start_handlers (cognitive 63) node/bft/src/primary.rs:1326 — Primary::start_handlers has cognitive complexity 63 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 18 (43 pts), loops 12 (15 pts), match/switch 2 (4 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 30). 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.
Primary::process_batch_propose_from_peer (cognitive 27) node/bft/src/primary.rs:828 — Primary::process_batch_propose_from_peer has cognitive complexity 27 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 18 (24 pts), boolean chains 2, match/switch 1 (nesting depth added 6). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
Primary::add_signature_to_batch (cognitive 17) node/bft/src/primary.rs:1062 — Primary::add_signature_to_batch has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (14 pts), match/switch 2 (3 pts) (nesting depth added 6). The drivers above price the dispatch low by construction — a dispatch is charged once however many cases it lists, while each branch inside an arm is charged in full — so most of this count is what the case bodies hold, and the arms are where it can be reduced. To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Start · ×4

Start::parse_node (cognitive 44) cli/src/commands/start.rs:775 — Start::parse_node has cognitive complexity 44 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 25 (33 pts), match/switch 5 (6 pts), boolean chains 4, loops 1 (nesting depth added 9). 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.
Start::parse_development (cognitive 33) cli/src/commands/start.rs:533 — Start::parse_development has cognitive complexity 33 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 13 (22 pts), loops 3 (9 pts), boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 15). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
Start::check_for_old_storage_format (cognitive 18) cli/src/commands/start.rs:992 — Start::check_for_old_storage_format has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (18 pts) (nesting depth added 8). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
Start::parse_genesis (cognitive 16) cli/src/commands/start.rs:634 — Start::parse_genesis has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 4 (6 pts), match/switch 2 (6 pts), loops 1 (3 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 8). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Sync · ×4

Sync::sync_storage_with_ledger_at_bootup (cognitive 37) node/bft/src/sync/mod.rs:347 — Sync::sync_storage_with_ledger_at_bootup has cognitive complexity 37 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: loops 9 (27 pts), if/else 4 (9 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 23). To reduce it, break up the iteration: give each loop body a named function, and split a multi-phase loop into one function per phase so no single body carries the whole pipeline.
Sync::try_sync_storage_with_block (cognitive 29) node/bft/src/sync/mod.rs:805 — Sync::try_sync_storage_with_block has cognitive complexity 29 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: loops 6 (12 pts), if/else 7 (11 pts), match/switch 3 (4 pts), boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 11). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
Sync::try_advancing_block_synchronization_inner (cognitive 27) node/bft/src/sync/mod.rs:509 — Sync::try_advancing_block_synchronization_inner has cognitive complexity 27 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (17 pts), match/switch 2 (6 pts), loops 2 (4 pts) (nesting depth added 13). 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.
Sync::run (cognitive 17) node/bft/src/sync/mod.rs:159 — Sync::run has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 4 (8 pts), loops 8, boolean chains 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.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) · ×4

Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) node/bft/src/gateway.rs:875 — node/bft/src/gateway.rs:875-880 | node/bft/src/gateway.rs:888-893 — 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 (6 lines × 2) node/bft/src/gateway.rs:2134 — node/bft/src/gateway.rs:2134-2139 | node/bft/src/gateway.rs:2239-2244 — 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 (6 lines × 2) node/router/src/handshake.rs:184 — node/router/src/handshake.rs:184-189 | node/router/src/handshake.rs:268-273 — 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 (6 lines × 2) node/router/src/handshake.rs:198 — node/router/src/handshake.rs:198-203 | node/router/src/handshake.rs:318-323 — 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 (5 lines × 2) · ×4

Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) node/bft/src/gateway.rs:2129 — node/bft/src/gateway.rs:2129-2133 | node/bft/src/gateway.rs:2234-2238 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) node/tcp/src/protocols/handshake.rs:52 — node/tcp/src/protocols/handshake.rs:52-56 | node/tcp/src/protocols/reading.rs:86-90 — 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.
Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) node/bft/src/gateway.rs:992 — node/bft/src/gateway.rs:992-996 | node/bft/src/primary.rs:2090-2094 — 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.
Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) node/bft/src/gateway.rs:2107 — node/bft/src/gateway.rs:2107-2111 | node/src/bootstrap_client/handshake.rs:297-301 — 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.

D5 · Coupling · Off the main sequence · ×4

Off the main sequence: snarkos-account — snarkos-account: abstractness 0.00, instability 0.00, distance 1.00 — zone of pain — concrete and depended on by 6 project(s), so it's rigid to change.
Off the main sequence: snarkos-node-sync-locators — snarkos-node-sync-locators: abstractness 0.00, instability 0.00, distance 1.00 — zone of pain — concrete and depended on by 4 project(s), so it's rigid to change.
Off the main sequence: snarkos-utilities — snarkos-utilities: abstractness 0.17, instability 0.00, distance 0.83 — zone of pain — concrete and depended on by 8 project(s), so it's rigid to change.
Off the main sequence: snarkos-node-network — snarkos-node-network: abstractness 0.14, instability 0.13, distance 0.73 — zone of pain — concrete and depended on by 7 project(s), so it's rigid to change.

P7 · Outbound HTTP resilience · Outbound HTTP without resilience · ×4

Outbound HTTP without resilience cli/src/commands/developer/mod.rs:305 — `ureq::post(` makes an outbound HTTP call, and nothing bounds it: no timeout, deadline, retry or circuit breaker is set for it here, and the client has no process-wide default. A slow or failing dependency will hold this service's request, thread or connection until the call gives up on its own — or never, for a client with no default timeout. 4 of the 5 files that make outbound calls are unbounded; the first 4 are listed.
Outbound HTTP without resilience cli/src/commands/developer/scan.rs:156 — `ureq::get(` makes an outbound HTTP call, and nothing bounds it: no timeout, deadline, retry or circuit breaker is set for it here, and the client has no process-wide default. A slow or failing dependency will hold this service's request, thread or connection until the call gives up on its own — or never, for a client with no default timeout.
Outbound HTTP without resilience node/cdn/src/blocks.rs:175 — `Client::builder()` makes an outbound HTTP call, and nothing bounds it: no timeout, deadline, retry or circuit breaker is set for it here, and the client has no process-wide default. A slow or failing dependency will hold this service's request, thread or connection until the call gives up on its own — or never, for a client with no default timeout.
Outbound HTTP without resilience node/src/bootstrap_client/mod.rs:98 — `reqwest::Client::new(` makes an outbound HTTP call, and nothing bounds it: no timeout, deadline, retry or circuit breaker is set for it here, and the client has no process-wide default. A slow or failing dependency will hold this service's request, thread or connection until the call gives up on its own — or never, for a client with no default timeout.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Primary · ×3

Primary::propose_batch (cyclomatic 43) node/bft/src/primary.rs:455 — Primary::propose_batch has cyclomatic complexity 43 (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.
Primary::start_handlers (cyclomatic 33) node/bft/src/primary.rs:1326 — Primary::start_handlers has cyclomatic complexity 33 (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.
Primary::process_batch_propose_from_peer (cyclomatic 22) node/bft/src/primary.rs:828 — Primary::process_batch_propose_from_peer has cyclomatic complexity 22 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · BFT · ×3

BFT::commit_leader_certificate (cognitive 58) node/bft/src/bft.rs:595 — BFT::commit_leader_certificate has cognitive complexity 58 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 11 (29 pts), loops 7 (15 pts), match/switch 4 (13 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 35). 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.
BFT::try_advance_to_next_round (cognitive 20) node/bft/src/bft.rs:227 — BFT::try_advance_to_next_round has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 8 (13 pts), match/switch 3 (7 pts) (nesting depth added 9). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
BFT::order_dag_with_dfs (cognitive 17) node/bft/src/bft.rs:860 — BFT::order_dag_with_dfs has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 4 (7 pts), match/switch 2 (7 pts), loops 2 (3 pts) (nesting depth added 9). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Client · ×3

Client::initialize_solution_verification (cognitive 28) node/src/client/mod.rs:332 — Client::initialize_solution_verification has cognitive complexity 28 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (20 pts), match/switch 1 (4 pts), loops 2 (3 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 17). 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.
Client::initialize_execute_verification (cognitive 21) node/src/client/mod.rs:474 — Client::initialize_execute_verification has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 4 (11 pts), loops 3 (6 pts), match/switch 1 (3 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 12). 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.
Client::initialize_deploy_verification (cognitive 20) node/src/client/mod.rs:406 — Client::initialize_deploy_verification has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 5 (13 pts), loops 2 (3 pts), match/switch 1 (3 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 11). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities · Medium advisory (unmaintained) · ×3

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Gateway · ×2

Gateway::inbound (cyclomatic 57) node/bft/src/gateway.rs:646 — Gateway::inbound has cyclomatic complexity 57 (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.
Gateway::perform_handshake (cyclomatic 20) node/bft/src/gateway.rs:1590 — Gateway::perform_handshake has cyclomatic complexity 20 (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 · Start · ×2

Start::parse_node (cyclomatic 34) cli/src/commands/start.rs:775 — Start::parse_node has cyclomatic complexity 34 (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.
Start::parse_development (cyclomatic 16) cli/src/commands/start.rs:533 — Start::parse_development 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.

D17 · Explicit Debt · FixmeComment · ×2

FixmeComment node/bft/tests/gateway_e2e.rs:123 — // FIXME(nkls): currently we can't assert on the disconnect type, the message isn't always sent — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
FixmeComment node/bft/tests/gateway_e2e.rs:230 — // FIXME(nkls): currently we can't assert on the disconnect type, the message isn't always sent — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · snarkos_node_cdn · ×2

snarkos_node_cdn::blocks::download_block_bundles (cognitive 33) node/cdn/src/blocks.rs:328 — snarkos_node_cdn::blocks::download_block_bundles has cognitive complexity 33 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 4 (12 pts), loops 4 (11 pts), match/switch 2 (10 pts) (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.
snarkos_node_cdn::blocks::load_blocks (cognitive 17) node/cdn/src/blocks.rs:184 — snarkos_node_cdn::blocks::load_blocks has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (12 pts), loops 2 (3 pts), match/switch 2 (nesting depth added 6). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · BFTPersistentStorage · ×2

BFTPersistentStorage::remove_transmissions (cognitive 29) node/bft/storage-service/src/persistent.rs:227 — BFTPersistentStorage::remove_transmissions has cognitive complexity 29 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (20 pts), match/switch 3 (8 pts), loops 1 (nesting depth added 18). 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.
BFTPersistentStorage::insert_transmissions (cognitive 23) node/bft/storage-service/src/persistent.rs:134 — BFTPersistentStorage::insert_transmissions has cognitive complexity 23 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 5 (15 pts), match/switch 3 (6 pts), loops 2 (nesting depth added 13). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Storage · ×2

Storage::sync_certificate_with_block (cognitive 25) node/bft/src/helpers/storage.rs:872 — Storage::sync_certificate_with_block has cognitive complexity 25 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 14 (20 pts), boolean chains 2, match/switch 1 (2 pts), loops 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.
Storage::check_batch_header (cognitive 24) node/bft/src/helpers/storage.rs:492 — Storage::check_batch_header has cognitive complexity 24 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 11 (21 pts), loops 1 (2 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 11). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · snarkos_cli · ×2

snarkos_cli::helpers::fd_check::spawn_fd_monitor (cognitive 17) cli/src/helpers/fd_check.rs:135 — snarkos_cli::helpers::fd_check::spawn_fd_monitor has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 5 (12 pts), match/switch 2 (4 pts), loops 1 (nesting depth added 9). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
snarkos_cli::helpers::logger::parse_log_verbosity (cognitive 17) cli/src/helpers/logger.rs:35 — snarkos_cli::helpers::logger::parse_log_verbosity has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 16, match/switch 1. To reduce it, split the body: this score is breadth rather than depth — many checks laid out side by side rather than nested inside one another, so inverting conditions into early returns has nothing left to flatten. 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.

D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities · Medium CVE · ×2

REDACTED
REDACTED

D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED

REDACTED
REDACTED

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

Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) node/sync/src/block_sync.rs:1328 — node/sync/src/block_sync.rs:1328-1338 | node/sync/src/block_sync.rs:1425-1435 — 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 (11 lines × 2) node/sync/src/ping.rs:75 — node/sync/src/ping.rs:75-85 | node/sync/src/ping.rs:94-104 — 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 (9 lines × 2) · ×2

Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) node/bft/src/gateway.rs:2153 — node/bft/src/gateway.rs:2153-2161 | node/bft/src/gateway.rs:2215-2223 — 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 (9 lines × 2) node/router/src/inbound.rs:258 — node/router/src/inbound.rs:258-266 | node/router/src/inbound.rs:289-297 — 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.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Inbound · ×1

Inbound::inbound (cyclomatic 47) node/router/src/inbound.rs:80 — Inbound::inbound has cyclomatic complexity 47 (threshold 15). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Where every arm is uniform — the same kind of value, with no behaviour of its own — a table keyed by the case is the shorter form; wherever the arms carry different data or different behaviour, keep them as cases, because collapsing those trades an explicit, reviewable set of cases for nothing.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · BFT · ×1

BFT::commit_leader_certificate (cyclomatic 26) node/bft/src/bft.rs:595 — BFT::commit_leader_certificate has cyclomatic complexity 26 (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 · Sync · ×1

Sync::try_sync_storage_with_block (cyclomatic 23) node/bft/src/sync/mod.rs:805 — Sync::try_sync_storage_with_block has cyclomatic complexity 23 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function so the top-level body reads as a short sequence of named decisions.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Node · ×1

Node::perform_auto_checkpoints (cyclomatic 21) node/src/node.rs:379 — Node::perform_auto_checkpoints has cyclomatic complexity 21 (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 · BlockSync · ×1

BlockSync::prepare_block_requests (cyclomatic 20) node/sync/src/block_sync.rs:973 — BlockSync::prepare_block_requests has cyclomatic complexity 20 (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 · Account · ×1

Account::parse (cyclomatic 17) cli/src/commands/account.rs:114 — Account::parse has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Where every arm is uniform — the same kind of value, with no behaviour of its own — a table keyed by the case is the shorter form; wherever the arms carry different data or different behaviour, keep them as cases, because collapsing those trades an explicit, reviewable set of cases for nothing.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Developer · ×1

Developer::handle_transaction (cyclomatic 17) cli/src/commands/developer/mod.rs:424 — Developer::handle_transaction has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Where every arm is uniform — the same kind of value, with no behaviour of its own — a table keyed by the case is the shorter form; wherever the arms carry different data or different behaviour, keep them as cases, because collapsing those trades an explicit, reviewable set of cases for nothing.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Storage · ×1

Storage::sync_certificate_with_block (cyclomatic 17) node/bft/src/helpers/storage.rs:872 — Storage::sync_certificate_with_block has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Inbound · ×1

Inbound::inbound (cognitive 64) node/router/src/inbound.rs:80 — Inbound::inbound has cognitive complexity 64 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 18 (33 pts), match/switch 16 (30 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 29). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Node · ×1

Node::perform_auto_checkpoints (cognitive 40) node/src/node.rs:379 — Node::perform_auto_checkpoints has cognitive complexity 40 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 13 (28 pts), loops 3 (5 pts), match/switch 2 (5 pts), boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 20). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Developer · ×1

Developer::handle_transaction (cognitive 27) cli/src/commands/developer/mod.rs:424 — Developer::handle_transaction has cognitive complexity 27 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: match/switch 7 (17 pts), if/else 7 (10 pts) (nesting depth added 13). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · BootstrapClient · ×1

BootstrapClient::perform_handshake (cognitive 24) node/src/bootstrap_client/handshake.rs:122 — BootstrapClient::perform_handshake has cognitive complexity 24 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (20 pts), match/switch 2 (4 pts) (nesting depth added 12). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Router · ×1

Router::handshake (cognitive 22) node/router/src/handshake.rs:86 — Router::handshake has cognitive complexity 22 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (18 pts), match/switch 2 (3 pts), boolean chains 1 (nesting depth added 10). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · BFTMemoryService · ×1

BFTMemoryService::insert_transmissions (cognitive 19) node/bft/storage-service/src/memory.rs:72 — BFTMemoryService::insert_transmissions has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 4 (13 pts), match/switch 2 (4 pts), loops 2 (nesting depth added 11). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · PeerPoolHandling · ×1

PeerPoolHandling::insert_candidate_peers (cognitive 17) node/network/src/peering.rs:206 — PeerPoolHandling::insert_candidate_peers has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (9 pts), match/switch 2 (4 pts), boolean chains 3, loops 1 (nesting depth added 4). To reduce it, split the body: this score is breadth rather than depth — many checks laid out side by side rather than nested inside one another, so inverting conditions into early returns has nothing left to flatten. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · snarkos · ×1

snarkos::snarkos::main (cognitive 16) snarkos/main.rs:74 — snarkos::snarkos::main has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: loops 4 (7 pts), if/else 4 (6 pts), boolean chains 2, match/switch 1 (nesting depth added 5). 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 · Inconsistent naming convention for data type variants. 'sign_bytes' uses the type name, while 'sign_bits' uses the pluralized type name. 'sign' is ambiguous as it takes a generic Field array but lacks a suffix. · ×1

Inconsistent naming convention for data type variants. 'sign_bytes' uses the type name, while 'sign_bits' uses the pluralized type name. 'sign' is ambiguous as it takes a generic Field array but lacks a suffix. — Standardize to 'sign_bytes', 'sign_bits', and 'sign_fields' (or 'sign_fields', 'sign_bytes', 'sign_bits') to clearly indicate the input data type in all method names. (signatures: Account.sign(message: &[Field<N>], rng: R): Result | Account.sign_bytes(message: &[u8], rng: R): Result | Account.sign_bits(message: &[bool], rng: R): Result)

D22 · Internal API Consistency · Same inconsistency as sign · ×1

Same inconsistency as sign: 'verify_bytes' vs 'verify_bits'. The generic 'verify' for Fields is inconsistent with the explicit suffixes used for other types. — Rename 'verify' to 'verify_fields' to match the pattern of 'verify_bytes' and 'verify_bits'. (signatures: Account.verify(message: &[Field<N>], signature: Signature): bool | Account.verify_bytes(message: &[u8], signature: Signature): bool | Account.verify_bits(message: &[bool], signature: Signature): bool)

D22 · Internal API Consistency · Duplicate function signatures with different parameter names (one named 'path', one '_path'). This suggests an overload or a copy-paste error in the API surface, which is confusing for consumers. · ×1

Duplicate function signatures with different parameter names (one named 'path', one '_path'). This suggests an overload or a copy-paste error in the API surface, which is confusing for consumers. — Remove the duplicate. If they are distinct overloads (e.g., different generic bounds not shown), ensure the signatures are distinct. If identical, keep only one. (signatures: snarkos_cli.check_parent_permissions(path: T): Result | snarkos_cli.check_parent_permissions(_path: T): Result)

D22 · Internal API Consistency · While these are inverse operations, the naming is slightly asymmetric. 'get_block_height' implies getting the height of a block (given a hash), but 'get_block_hash' implies getting the hash of a block (given a height). This is acceptable but could be clearer. · ×1

While these are inverse operations, the naming is slightly asymmetric. 'get_block_height' implies getting the height of a block (given a hash), but 'get_block_hash' implies getting the hash of a block (given a height). This is acceptable but could be clearer. — Consider renaming to 'height_from_hash' and 'hash_from_height' for absolute clarity, or keep as is if the context is obvious. (Low severity, but noted for consistency). (signatures: LedgerService.get_block_height(hash: BlockHash): Result | LedgerService.get_block_hash(height: u32): Result)

D22 · Internal API Consistency · Inconsistent return types for 'contains' operations. 'Storage' returns a boolean, while 'LedgerService' returns a Result. This forces callers to handle errors differently for similar existence checks. · ×1

Inconsistent return types for 'contains' operations. 'Storage' returns a boolean, while 'LedgerService' returns a Result. This forces callers to handle errors differently for similar existence checks. — Standardize 'contains' methods to return bool if they cannot fail, or Result if they can. Given these are likely simple lookups, bool is preferred for consistency across the codebase. (signatures: Storage.contains_certificate(certificate_id: Field): bool | LedgerService.contains_certificate(certificate_id: Field): Result)

D22 · Internal API Consistency · Two methods with similar names and signatures that check for different states of the same entity. This can be confusing. · ×1

Two methods with similar names and signatures that check for different states of the same entity. This can be confusing. — Ensure the distinction is clear in documentation. Consider if 'contains_certificate' should imply 'unprocessed' or if a more explicit name like 'contains_processed_certificate' is needed. (signatures: Storage.contains_unprocessed_certificate(certificate_id: Field): bool | Storage.contains_certificate(certificate_id: Field): bool)

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

REDACTED

D3 · God Classes · TooManyFields · ×1

TooManyFields: Start cli/src/commands/start.rs:136 — TooManyFields — 43 stored fields beside 12 methods. The bar is 30 stored fields; this is 13 over it, 1.43× the bar. This is width in DATA, not behaviour: every reader that takes the whole type couples to all of its fields, so a change to any one of them is a change every reader has to be checked against. To reduce it, group the fields that are read together by the same callers into a smaller type of their own, and have this one hold that type as a single member — each reader then names only the group it uses.

D31 · IaC & Container Security · Medium IaC · ×1

REDACTED

D35 · Change Coupling · Change-coupling hub · ×1

Change-coupling hub: test_helpers.rs → router.rs, router.rs, router.rs node/router/src/test_helpers.rs — `node/router/src/test_helpers.rs` changes together with 3 other files — `node/src/client/router.rs`, `node/src/prover/router.rs`, `node/src/validator/router.rs` — none of which declares a dependency on it: one file is the hub of 3 separate couplings, not 3 unrelated pairs. Read the hub first: if the others each duplicate a part of what it does, the shared concern belongs in ONE unit and extracting it clears every edge at once; if the hub is a registry, dispatcher or barrel that must name each of them, the coupling is structural and the question is whether that list can be discovered instead of enumerated. Fixing the hub is one change; breaking the couplings one pair at a time is 3.

D35 · Change Coupling · Change coupling clique · ×1

Change coupling clique: deploy.rs, execute.rs, transfer_private.rs cli/src/commands/developer/deploy.rs — 3 files — `cli/src/commands/developer/deploy.rs`, `cli/src/commands/developer/execute.rs`, `cli/src/commands/developer/transfer_private.rs` — all change together with no explicit dependency: a fully-connected co-change clique, not 3 separate couplings. They share one concern (thin parallel siblings over a common abstraction), so extract the shared part into ONE unit and the whole clique's coupling clears at once — you do not need to break each pair individually.

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

REDACTED

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

REDACTED

D4 · Code Duplication · Members sharing a duplicated core (5 members, 50+ identical tokens) · ×1

Members sharing a duplicated core (5 members, 50+ identical tokens) node/rest/src/routes.rs:362 — node/rest/src/routes.rs:362-385 | node/rest/src/routes.rs:399-426 | node/rest/src/routes.rs:439-463 | node/rest/src/routes.rs:483-510 | node/rest/src/routes.rs:529-561 — These 5 members share a duplicated core: a run of at least 50 identical tokens appears in every one of them. That run is NOT broken out as duplicated-block rows below — it is what admitted this row, and the blocks below cover only the part of it that clears the block floor, so they understate the correspondence. Read the members as one construct written 5 times. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 5 times.

D4 · Code Duplication · Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) · ×1

Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) node/bft/src/gateway.rs:2119 — node/bft/src/gateway.rs:2119-2174 | node/bft/src/gateway.rs:2187-2257 | node/router/src/handshake.rs:175-248 | node/router/src/handshake.rs:258-343 — These 4 members share a duplicated core: a run of at least 50 identical tokens appears in every one of them. That run is NOT broken out as duplicated-block rows below — it is what admitted this row, and the blocks below cover only the part of it that clears the block floor, so they understate the correspondence. Read the members as one construct written 4 times. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 4 times.

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

Duplicated block (26 lines × 2) cli/src/commands/account.rs:244 — cli/src/commands/account.rs:244-269 | cli/src/commands/account.rs:286-311 — 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 (18 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (18 lines × 2) node/src/client/mod.rs:216 — node/src/client/mod.rs:216-233 | node/src/validator/mod.rs:194-211 — 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 (16–17 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (16–17 lines × 2) node/consensus/src/lib.rs:611 — node/consensus/src/lib.rs:611-626 | node/consensus/src/lib.rs:646-662 — 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 (14–15 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (14–15 lines × 2) node/bft/events/src/challenge_request.rs:62 — node/bft/events/src/challenge_request.rs:62-75 | node/router/messages/src/challenge_request.rs:60-74 — 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 (14 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) node/bft/src/sync/mod.rs:203 — node/bft/src/sync/mod.rs:203-216 | node/bft/src/worker.rs:510-523 — before extracting anything, compare `node/bft/src/sync/mod.rs` and `node/bft/src/worker.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 33 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (12 lines × 5) · ×1

Duplicated block (12 lines × 5) node/rest/src/routes.rs:369 — node/rest/src/routes.rs:369-380 | node/rest/src/routes.rs:410-421 | node/rest/src/routes.rs:447-458 | node/rest/src/routes.rs:494-505 | node/rest/src/routes.rs:545-556 — all 5 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited.

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

Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) node/bft/src/sync/mod.rs:1017 — node/bft/src/sync/mod.rs:1017-1028 | node/bft/src/worker.rs:573-584 — before extracting anything, compare `node/bft/src/sync/mod.rs` and `node/bft/src/worker.rs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 33 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (9 lines × 3) · ×1

Duplicated block (9 lines × 3) node/router/messages/src/helpers/codec.rs:81 — node/router/messages/src/helpers/codec.rs:81-89 | node/src/bootstrap_client/codec.rs:59-67 | node/src/bootstrap_client/codec.rs:75-83 — there are 3 copies across 2 file(s) — more copies than files, so at least one file holds the block twice. Extract it once into a single shared function every call site can reach and call it from all 3 sites; resolving a subset leaves the remainder to drift apart.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (7 lines × 4) · ×1

Duplicated block (7 lines × 4) node/bft/src/gateway.rs:2155 — node/bft/src/gateway.rs:2155-2162 | node/bft/src/gateway.rs:2217-2224 | node/router/src/handshake.rs:227-233 | node/router/src/handshake.rs:291-298 — there are 4 copies across 2 file(s) — more copies than files, so at least one file holds the block twice. Extract it once into a single shared function every call site can reach and call it from all 4 sites; resolving a subset leaves the remainder to drift apart.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (5–6 lines × 3) · ×1

Duplicated block (5–6 lines × 3) node/bft/src/gateway.rs:2163 — node/bft/src/gateway.rs:2163-2167 | node/bft/src/gateway.rs:2225-2229 | node/router/src/handshake.rs:235-240 — there are 3 copies across 2 file(s) — more copies than files, so at least one file holds the block twice. Extract it once into a single shared function every call site can reach and call it from all 3 sites; resolving a subset leaves the remainder to drift apart.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (8 lines × 3) · ×1

Duplicated block (8 lines × 3) node/bft/ledger-service/src/lib.rs:52 — node/bft/ledger-service/src/lib.rs:52-59 | node/bft/src/helpers/mod.rs:55-62 | node/rest/src/lib.rs:566-573 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere all 3 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 3 times.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (6 lines × 3) · ×1

Duplicated block (6 lines × 3) node/tcp/src/protocols/handshake.rs:52 — node/tcp/src/protocols/handshake.rs:52-57 | node/tcp/src/protocols/reading.rs:86-91 | node/tcp/src/protocols/writing.rs:85-90 — 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 all 3 call sites, so a change lands once.

D44 · Platform End-of-Life · End-of-life runtime · ×1

End-of-life runtime: Rust 1.96 — rust-toolchain.toml declares Rust 1.96 as this project's toolchain file, and Rust 1.96, superseded by 1.97 on 2026-07-09 (the Rust project patches only the current stable). An unsupported runtime receives no security patches, so every vulnerability disclosed in it since 2026-07-09 is present and unfixable without moving off it. This is a migration rather than an upgrade: there is no newer release of a runtime that has ended.

Minor — 17 finding(s)

D16 · Bus Factor · Off-boarding risk · ×2

Off-boarding risk: anonymized user #1 — If anonymized user #1 becomes unavailable, 9 significant file(s) lose their only recent owner: node/network/src/noise.rs, node/bft/storage-service/src/tests.rs, node/bft/events/src/helpers/handshake.rs, node/tcp/src/helpers/connections.rs, node/bft/storage-service/src/traits.rs, node/tcp/src/protocols/disconnect.rs, node/tcp/src/helpers/config.rs, node/tcp/src/protocols/mod.rs (+1 more). Pair on, review, or document these before any departure.
Off-boarding risk: anonymized user #2 — If anonymized user #2 becomes unavailable, 3 significant file(s) lose their only recent owner: node/router/messages/src/helpers/disconnect.rs, cli/src/helpers/args.rs, node/sync/src/block_sync/helpers.rs. Pair on, review, or document these before any departure.

D19 · Documentation Quality · Documentation · ×2

Documentation: no installation or build instructions node/sync/locators/README.md — There are no installation/build/run instructions for the node/sync/locators crate. Add a short install line (cargo add or cargo.toml import) plus how to build and run an example.
Documentation: no usage examples node/sync/locators/README.md — The README describes the BlockLocators struct and its operations but gives no usage examples. Add a one-line example showing how to construct, check, or serialize/deserialize a BlockLocators instance.

D16 · Bus Factor · Further sole-owners (lower concentration) · ×1

Further sole-owners (lower concentration) — 2 other contributor(s) are each the sole owner of a small amount of code below the off-boarding threshold — folded into the bus-factor score and metrics (15 single-owned of 141 analysed files in total, counted over production source files of roughly 2,400 bytes or more, excluding vendored, generated and example/demo trees and test files identified by path convention, largest first; 141 of the 169 production source files in this repository met that bar). They are anonymized user #3 (2 file(s)), anonymized user #4 (1 file(s)) — spread or document their files in the same way, at lower priority than the named off-boarding risks above.

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/`.

D28 · Secrets (history) · Rotate the exposed credentials · ×1

REDACTED

D34 · Knowledge Freshness · Orphaned files with no living knowledge · ×1

Orphaned files with no living knowledge — 10 of 141 analysed file(s) have no living knowledge left — their last meaningful change has decayed away, so if one breaks, no one currently understands it (counted over production source files of roughly 2,400 bytes or more, excluding vendored, generated and example/demo trees and test files identified by path convention, largest first; 141 of the 169 production source files in this repository met that bar). None is large enough to earn a read-through of its own, so this row stands in for the per-file rows rather than raising one each — most significant first: account/src/lib.rs, node/router/src/writing.rs, node/bft/events/src/transmission_response.rs, cli/src/helpers/dynamic_format.rs, node/bft/src/helpers/partition.rs, node/bft/events/src/challenge_response.rs, node/bft/events/src/block_request.rs, cli/src/helpers/bech32m.rs (and 2 more). Attach the read to the next change that touches one of them: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for, so the knowledge comes back at the cost of a change you were making anyway.

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

M2 · Architecture documentation · No ADRs · ×1

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

M2 · Architecture documentation · No architecture diagram/doc · ×1

No architecture diagram/doc — No C4/Structurizr/PlantUML/Mermaid/Graphviz/D2 diagram, no drawn diagram named for the architecture, no file named `architecture` or `design` in any markup this check reads, and nothing in the README, docs or contributor guides that announces the shape — no `## Architecture` heading, no "architecture overview"/"high-level design" phrasing, no "the architecture is …" introduction, no guided code tour. A shape laid out in prose that never names itself as the architecture is not visible to this check, and neither is one kept outside the repository, so this row reports the absence of a re-findable shape document — not evidence that nobody wrote the shape down.

P4 · Deployment & Rollback · No rollback/health safety · ×1

No rollback/health safety — Deployment is orchestrated by compose, but no service declares a `healthcheck:` and nothing pins a previous image to fall back to — the runtime can tell that the container is up, not that it is serving, so a bad release is harder to detect and reverse.

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

No release approval gate — Deployment 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 reaches the release trigger goes to production unreviewed, so a mistaken merge or tag is live before anyone can stop it.

P6 · Release Hygiene · No changelog · ×1

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

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-16c9f26e7c1243cf8f10b436b8435299/history.json --exit-code 0 --source .	29	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-16c9f26e7c1243cf8f10b436b8435299/tree.json --exit-code 0 --source .	7	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 .	32	artifacts/raw/semgrep.json
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities	osv-scanner	—	osv-scanner --format json --recursive .	5	artifacts/raw/osv-scanner.json
D31 · IaC & Container Security	trivy	—	trivy config --format json --quiet .	2	artifacts/raw/trivy-config.json
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 01a0f200-c016-77c8-89c2-e01bdbe9cd85 · every finding is also locatable in findings.md, and the complete scoring record (with exit codes + durations) in sidecar.json.

ProvableHQ/snarkOS

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 · 87% · Strong ·

At a glance — Architecture · 96% · Exemplary ·

At a glance — Maturity · 62% · Adequate · gated by M2 ·

At a glance — Readiness · 39% · Weak · gated by D13, P7 ·

At a glance — Security · 51% · Adequate · gated by D28, D29, D36 ·

At a glance — Event Sourcing · 49% · Weak · gated by ES2 ·

At a glance — Performance · 94% · Exemplary ·

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