{"$schema":"https://json.schemastore.org/sarif-2.1.0.json","version":"2.1.0","runs":[{"tool":{"driver":{"name":"codehealth","informationUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev","rules":[{"id":"D1","name":"Cyclomatic Complexity","shortDescription":{"text":"Cyclomatic Complexity"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/D1"},{"id":"D2","name":"Cognitive Complexity","shortDescription":{"text":"Cognitive Complexity"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/D2"},{"id":"D3","name":"God Classes","shortDescription":{"text":"God Classes"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/D3"},{"id":"D4","name":"Code Duplication","shortDescription":{"text":"Code Duplication"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/D4"},{"id":"D5","name":"Coupling","shortDescription":{"text":"Coupling"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/D5"},{"id":"D6","name":"Cohesion (LCOM4)","shortDescription":{"text":"Cohesion (LCOM4)"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/D6"},{"id":"D8","name":"Code Coverage","shortDescription":{"text":"Code Coverage"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/D8"},{"id":"D9","name":"Test Distribution","shortDescription":{"text":"Test Distribution"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/D9"},{"id":"D10","name":"Test Quality","shortDescription":{"text":"Test Quality"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/D10"},{"id":"D12","name":"Dependency Hygiene","shortDescription":{"text":"Dependency Hygiene"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/D12"},{"id":"D13","name":"Secret Scanning","shortDescription":{"text":"Secret Scanning"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/D13","relationships":[{"target":{"id":"CWE-798","toolComponent":{"name":"CWE","guid":"c3a2b1d0-7f3e-4b2a-9c1d-5e6f7a8b9c0d"}},"kinds":["relevant"]},{"target":{"id":"CWE-259","toolComponent":{"name":"CWE","guid":"c3a2b1d0-7f3e-4b2a-9c1d-5e6f7a8b9c0d"}},"kinds":["relevant"]}],"properties":{"cwe":["CWE-798","CWE-259"]}},{"id":"D15","name":"Churn \u00D7 Complexity Hotspots","shortDescription":{"text":"Churn \u00D7 Complexity Hotspots"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/D15"},{"id":"D17","name":"Explicit Debt","shortDescription":{"text":"Explicit Debt"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/D17"},{"id":"D19","name":"Documentation Quality","shortDescription":{"text":"Documentation Quality"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/D19"},{"id":"D21","name":"Naming Consistency","shortDescription":{"text":"Naming Consistency"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/D21"},{"id":"D22","name":"Internal API Consistency","shortDescription":{"text":"Internal API Consistency"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/D22"},{"id":"D26","name":"Project Cohesion","shortDescription":{"text":"Project Cohesion"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/D26"},{"id":"D28","name":"Secrets (history)","shortDescription":{"text":"Secrets (history)"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/D28","relationships":[{"target":{"id":"CWE-798","toolComponent":{"name":"CWE","guid":"c3a2b1d0-7f3e-4b2a-9c1d-5e6f7a8b9c0d"}},"kinds":["relevant"]},{"target":{"id":"CWE-259","toolComponent":{"name":"CWE","guid":"c3a2b1d0-7f3e-4b2a-9c1d-5e6f7a8b9c0d"}},"kinds":["relevant"]}],"properties":{"cwe":["CWE-798","CWE-259"]}},{"id":"D29","name":"Static Analysis (SAST)","shortDescription":{"text":"Static Analysis (SAST)"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/D29","relationships":[{"target":{"id":"CWE-79","toolComponent":{"name":"CWE","guid":"c3a2b1d0-7f3e-4b2a-9c1d-5e6f7a8b9c0d"}},"kinds":["relevant"]},{"target":{"id":"CWE-89","toolComponent":{"name":"CWE","guid":"c3a2b1d0-7f3e-4b2a-9c1d-5e6f7a8b9c0d"}},"kinds":["relevant"]},{"target":{"id":"CWE-78","toolComponent":{"name":"CWE","guid":"c3a2b1d0-7f3e-4b2a-9c1d-5e6f7a8b9c0d"}},"kinds":["relevant"]},{"target":{"id":"CWE-94","toolComponent":{"name":"CWE","guid":"c3a2b1d0-7f3e-4b2a-9c1d-5e6f7a8b9c0d"}},"kinds":["relevant"]},{"target":{"id":"CWE-77","toolComponent":{"name":"CWE","guid":"c3a2b1d0-7f3e-4b2a-9c1d-5e6f7a8b9c0d"}},"kinds":["relevant"]}],"properties":{"cwe":["CWE-79","CWE-89","CWE-78","CWE-94","CWE-77"]}},{"id":"D34","name":"Knowledge Freshness","shortDescription":{"text":"Knowledge Freshness"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/D34"},{"id":"D35","name":"Change Coupling","shortDescription":{"text":"Change Coupling"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/D35"},{"id":"D36","name":"Supply-chain Provenance \u0026 Signing","shortDescription":{"text":"Supply-chain Provenance \u0026 Signing"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/D36","relationships":[{"target":{"id":"CWE-1357","toolComponent":{"name":"CWE","guid":"c3a2b1d0-7f3e-4b2a-9c1d-5e6f7a8b9c0d"}},"kinds":["relevant"]},{"target":{"id":"CWE-494","toolComponent":{"name":"CWE","guid":"c3a2b1d0-7f3e-4b2a-9c1d-5e6f7a8b9c0d"}},"kinds":["relevant"]}],"properties":{"cwe":["CWE-1357","CWE-494"]}},{"id":"AX10","name":"Code composition","shortDescription":{"text":"Code composition"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/AX10"},{"id":"AX3","name":"Project dependency cycles","shortDescription":{"text":"Project dependency cycles"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/AX3"},{"id":"AX4","name":"Dependency direction","shortDescription":{"text":"Dependency direction"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/AX4"},{"id":"AX8","name":"Test isolation","shortDescription":{"text":"Test isolation"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/AX8"},{"id":"M1","name":"Documentation (README)","shortDescription":{"text":"Documentation (README)"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/M1"},{"id":"M2","name":"Architecture documentation","shortDescription":{"text":"Architecture documentation"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/M2"},{"id":"M3","name":"Folder \u0026 project structure","shortDescription":{"text":"Folder \u0026 project structure"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/M3"},{"id":"M4","name":"Documentation accuracy","shortDescription":{"text":"Documentation accuracy"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/M4"},{"id":"P1","name":"CI/CD gates","shortDescription":{"text":"CI/CD gates"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/P1"},{"id":"P10","name":"Library API \u0026 versioning","shortDescription":{"text":"Library API \u0026 versioning"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/P10"},{"id":"P12","name":"CI test-gate honesty","shortDescription":{"text":"CI test-gate honesty"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/P12"},{"id":"P3","name":"Security \u0026 performance tooling","shortDescription":{"text":"Security \u0026 performance tooling"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/P3"},{"id":"P6","name":"Release Hygiene","shortDescription":{"text":"Release Hygiene"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/P6"},{"id":"X10","name":"Duplicated predicate","shortDescription":{"text":"Duplicated predicate"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/X10"},{"id":"X25","name":"Inert configuration knob","shortDescription":{"text":"Inert configuration knob"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/X25"},{"id":"X29","name":"Per-element action decided by a fixed element","shortDescription":{"text":"Per-element action decided by a fixed element"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/X29"},{"id":"X32","name":"Type resolved by simple name across every loaded assembly","shortDescription":{"text":"Type resolved by simple name across every loaded assembly"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/X32"},{"id":"X6","name":"Hand-rolled structured-format parsing","shortDescription":{"text":"Hand-rolled structured-format parsing"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/X6"},{"id":"X9","name":"Subsumed condition operand","shortDescription":{"text":"Subsumed condition operand"},"helpUri":"https://codehealth.canine.dev/dimensions/X9"}]}},"results":[{"ruleId":"D3","level":"warning","message":{"text":"FileTooLong: js/typeahead.jquery.js: FileTooLong \u2014 1285 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 785 over it, 2.57\u00D7 the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"docs/js/typeahead.jquery.js"},"region":{"startLine":1}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"6b35da86392e0d4c300db3e0c6ee9ca904c7f67f4ff981dfe7ceb981f093bd76"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (18 lines \u00D7 2): Sources/XCoordinator/UINavigationController\u002BTransition.swift:14-31 | Sources/XCoordinator/UITabBarController\u002BTransition.swift:39-56 \u2014 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 \u2014 a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them \u2014 and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at \u0060Sources/XCoordinator/UINavigationController\u002BTransition.swift:14\u0060 it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows \u2014 the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members\u0027 bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run \u2014 a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift \u2014 so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member\u0027s own documentation with it."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Sources/XCoordinator/UINavigationController\u002BTransition.swift"},"region":{"startLine":14}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"7713ff72821d5c9284723035ecb3a243cc0cb6929ffd56cd4b7826ee628975e3"}},{"ruleId":"D4","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Duplicated block (6 lines \u00D7 2): Sources/XCoordinator/NavigationAnimationDelegate.swift:78-83 | Sources/XCoordinator/TabBarAnimationDelegate.swift:45-50 \u2014 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 \u2014 a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them \u2014 and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Sources/XCoordinator/NavigationAnimationDelegate.swift"},"region":{"startLine":78}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"ef3b0e52ca2a3cd926ca347fb05d36c9d2deb8b64bb3e8627b4b9832e9281ba4"}},{"ruleId":"D6","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Low cohesion: AnyCoordinator (LCOM4 7): AnyCoordinator\u0027s 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 \u2014 your repository\u0027s 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 \u2014 and which would otherwise dominate this list \u2014 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."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Sources/XCoordinator/AnyCoordinator.swift"},"region":{"startLine":30}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"234017fba321b7d82f4ad626d394c18925e003aea32717e5011c63740b7e90b0"}},{"ruleId":"D6","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Low cohesion: StrongRouter (LCOM4 5): StrongRouter\u0027s methods fall into 5 groups that share no field and call none of each other, against a bar of more than 3 for this run (LCOM4, configurable \u2014 your repository\u0027s bar is the one quoted here). Each group is a set of methods reachable from one another through shared fields or direct calls, so 5 groups means the type has that many internally-connected clusters with nothing tying them together. Types whose shape makes a high count expected \u2014 and which would otherwise dominate this list \u2014 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."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Sources/XCoordinator/StrongRouter.swift"},"region":{"startLine":23}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"82761fea22cdee68878ce30f69233f37c3b2e53401e55641dbdd4e45923ac79c"}},{"ruleId":"D6","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Low cohesion: BaseCoordinator (LCOM4 4): BaseCoordinator\u0027s 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 \u2014 your repository\u0027s 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 \u2014 and which would otherwise dominate this list \u2014 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."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Sources/XCoordinator/BaseCoordinator.swift"},"region":{"startLine":23}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"57dce48ed95b683d84711bc0897f621d731e0fb1c48f77ee470a1a1def8dc6d0"}},{"ruleId":"D6","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Low cohesion: UIViewController (LCOM4 4): UIViewController\u0027s 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 \u2014 your repository\u0027s 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 \u2014 and which would otherwise dominate this list \u2014 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."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Sources/XCoordinator/BaseCoordinator.swift"},"region":{"startLine":146}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"70db4c4cae8b60f0703d2e310d7237e576c82d553b774e4c5bcb092640363e7a"}},{"ruleId":"D8","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Coverage not measured \u2014 Swift suite: Coverage NOT MEASURED: the Swift half could not be measured \u2014 the Swift suite in . produced no coverage export. Coverage is excluded from the score rather than counted as a near-zero. The named suite step is one the repository\u0027s maintainers can perform; once it passes, the real number is measured on the next scan. Alternatively, commit the lcov/Cobertura report your CI produces and it is read without a re-run."},"locations":[],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"62e63e619c28f057e129f2997c965d32a457366a9ce18ca019ffb6bdfba85c99"}},{"ruleId":"D10","level":"note","message":{"text":"No direct assertions: testViewCoordinator: No conventional assertion call was detected, and 10 of 10 tests in \u0060XCoordinatorTests\u0060 read the same way \u2014 so this is treated as that project\u0027s convention rather than a broken test, and it does not drag the score. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a project of runnable samples compiled as tests, where a run that does not throw is the only check. If it is the latter, these methods genuinely verify nothing."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Tests/XCoordinatorTests/AnimationTests.swift"},"region":{"startLine":31}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"658cb654c5936ad429173be13a311bc390e9eaea88edb773dbae660c9bbb4eb9"}},{"ruleId":"D10","level":"note","message":{"text":"No direct assertions: testSplitCoordinator: No conventional assertion call was detected, and 10 of 10 tests in \u0060XCoordinatorTests\u0060 read the same way \u2014 so this is treated as that project\u0027s convention rather than a broken test, and it does not drag the score. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a project of runnable samples compiled as tests, where a run that does not throw is the only check. If it is the latter, these methods genuinely verify nothing."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Tests/XCoordinatorTests/AnimationTests.swift"},"region":{"startLine":37}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"70b8276bd11a20b656627b7a7045e7e1132fe322ca830e9f084d39fd8a6377c0"}},{"ruleId":"D10","level":"note","message":{"text":"No direct assertions: testPageCoordinator: No conventional assertion call was detected, and 10 of 10 tests in \u0060XCoordinatorTests\u0060 read the same way \u2014 so this is treated as that project\u0027s convention rather than a broken test, and it does not drag the score. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a project of runnable samples compiled as tests, where a run that does not throw is the only check. If it is the latter, these methods genuinely verify nothing."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Tests/XCoordinatorTests/AnimationTests.swift"},"region":{"startLine":43}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"3bb96147e698efd6f6afcf96aebcea45960417e2b53543b021181c2445008e9d"}},{"ruleId":"D10","level":"note","message":{"text":"No direct assertions: testTabBarCoordinator: No conventional assertion call was detected, and 10 of 10 tests in \u0060XCoordinatorTests\u0060 read the same way \u2014 so this is treated as that project\u0027s convention rather than a broken test, and it does not drag the score. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a project of runnable samples compiled as tests, where a run that does not throw is the only check. If it is the latter, these methods genuinely verify nothing."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Tests/XCoordinatorTests/AnimationTests.swift"},"region":{"startLine":49}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"6e7d1642d6e2ab3a074d8692caf7bd0bce0bfc8bb30aaa6492309a0c656bebfc"}},{"ruleId":"D10","level":"note","message":{"text":"No direct assertions: testNavigationCoordinator: No conventional assertion call was detected, and 10 of 10 tests in \u0060XCoordinatorTests\u0060 read the same way \u2014 so this is treated as that project\u0027s convention rather than a broken test, and it does not drag the score. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a project of runnable samples compiled as tests, where a run that does not throw is the only check. If it is the latter, these methods genuinely verify nothing."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Tests/XCoordinatorTests/AnimationTests.swift"},"region":{"startLine":71}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"fa46689a3badba20f2c0027c0c3c9151da3768915b83b832f5869e9c49d5dcc0"}},{"ruleId":"D10","level":"note","message":{"text":"No direct assertions: testPageCoordinator: No conventional assertion call was detected, and 10 of 10 tests in \u0060XCoordinatorTests\u0060 read the same way \u2014 so this is treated as that project\u0027s convention rather than a broken test, and it does not drag the score. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a project of runnable samples compiled as tests, where a run that does not throw is the only check. If it is the latter, these methods genuinely verify nothing."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Tests/XCoordinatorTests/TransitionTests.swift"},"region":{"startLine":31}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"781d3c40dcc1e6d763e2b4af4de7b9f00ba046b9bf762186d99849f3ffd98f0c"}},{"ruleId":"D10","level":"note","message":{"text":"No direct assertions: testSplitCoordinator: No conventional assertion call was detected, and 10 of 10 tests in \u0060XCoordinatorTests\u0060 read the same way \u2014 so this is treated as that project\u0027s convention rather than a broken test, and it does not drag the score. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a project of runnable samples compiled as tests, where a run that does not throw is the only check. If it is the latter, these methods genuinely verify nothing."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Tests/XCoordinatorTests/TransitionTests.swift"},"region":{"startLine":41}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"800f4da56e8b8405b881132a7aee8a47b6ec52815e21506978021b107af5aec9"}},{"ruleId":"D10","level":"note","message":{"text":"No direct assertions: testTabBarCoordinator: No conventional assertion call was detected, and 10 of 10 tests in \u0060XCoordinatorTests\u0060 read the same way \u2014 so this is treated as that project\u0027s convention rather than a broken test, and it does not drag the score. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a project of runnable samples compiled as tests, where a run that does not throw is the only check. If it is the latter, these methods genuinely verify nothing."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Tests/XCoordinatorTests/TransitionTests.swift"},"region":{"startLine":51}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"cedd947a022397638f05d5665c501017743bfffeea385b14c376e360d25e857a"}},{"ruleId":"D10","level":"note","message":{"text":"No direct assertions: testViewCoordinator: No conventional assertion call was detected, and 10 of 10 tests in \u0060XCoordinatorTests\u0060 read the same way \u2014 so this is treated as that project\u0027s convention rather than a broken test, and it does not drag the score. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a project of runnable samples compiled as tests, where a run that does not throw is the only check. If it is the latter, these methods genuinely verify nothing."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Tests/XCoordinatorTests/TransitionTests.swift"},"region":{"startLine":61}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"291df1b09d9dd787a309c61079995419812c58f1aebc5e9e24a79d35167d8caa"}},{"ruleId":"D10","level":"note","message":{"text":"No direct assertions: testNavigationCoordinator: No conventional assertion call was detected, and 10 of 10 tests in \u0060XCoordinatorTests\u0060 read the same way \u2014 so this is treated as that project\u0027s convention rather than a broken test, and it does not drag the score. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a project of runnable samples compiled as tests, where a run that does not throw is the only check. If it is the latter, these methods genuinely verify nothing."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Tests/XCoordinatorTests/TransitionTests.swift"},"region":{"startLine":67}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"3aaf3542339afc930b9f14bcfe3ee1174bdb7ac566277e5ea38faf5222a1cf41"}},{"ruleId":"D10","level":"note","message":{"text":"Test project verifies nothing: XCoordinatorTests: No conventional assertion call was detected in 10 of 10 tests in \u0060XCoordinatorTests\u0060 \u2014 the project as a whole, not one method. Two things look like this: verification that happens indirectly (an approval/verifier harness or BDD step methods), or a suite that genuinely checks nothing. If it is the latter, this project passes unconditionally and cannot fail."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Tests/XCoordinatorTests/AnimationTests.swift"},"region":{"startLine":31}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"602565188f07398f7bb4c6eea68200c3ad95e728508cb0e835bfeaa6f8afa7b8"}},{"ruleId":"D22","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Inconsistent method overloading for triggering transitions. The \u0060Router\u0060 type exposes four variations of \u0060trigger\u0060 that differ only by the presence of optional parameters (\u0060TransitionOptions\u0060 and \u0060completion\u0060). This creates ambiguity and forces callers to choose between different signatures for essentially the same operation, rather than using a single method with optional parameters.: Consolidate into a single method signature: \u0060trigger(_ route: RouteType, with options: TransitionOptions = .default, completion: PresentationHandler? = nil)\u0060. This reduces API surface area and eliminates confusion about which overload to use. (signatures: Router.trigger(RouteType, with: TransitionOptions) | Router.trigger(RouteType, completion: PresentationHandler?) | Router.trigger(RouteType, with: TransitionOptions, completion: PresentationHandler?) | Router.trigger(RouteType))"},"locations":[],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"4e5e283d9579467d89ccef52dd88a44d9267e00146cb7560d2886c97ce2abe17"}},{"ruleId":"D22","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Inconsistent naming and return types for context-aware triggering. \u0060Coordinator\u0060 and \u0060StrongRouter\u0060 use \u0060contextTrigger\u0060 with a completion handler, while \u0060Router\u0060 uses \u0060contextTrigger\u0060 returning a \u0060TransitionContext\u0060. This suggests a split in design intent (fire-and-forget vs. chainable/context-returning) that is not clearly distinguished by naming or type hierarchy.: Unify the naming convention. If the return value is important, use a distinct name like \u0060contextTrigger\u0060 (returning context) and \u0060trigger\u0060 (fire-and-forget). Alternatively, ensure all types follow the same pattern (e.g., all return a context or all take a completion). The current mix of \u0060contextTrigger\u0060 behaviors is confusing. (signatures: Coordinator.contextTrigger(RouteType, with: TransitionOptions, completion: ContextPresentationHandler?) | Router.contextTrigger(RouteType, with: TransitionOptions): TransitionContext | StrongRouter.contextTrigger(RouteType, with: TransitionOptions, completion: ContextPresentationHandler?))"},"locations":[],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"40f5e66f9d36f60080a5a2af1e9ca60bb5951344072a34eb12ef98a277aa68f9"}},{"ruleId":"D22","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Redundant method exposure across coordinator types. \u0060AnyCoordinator\u0060, \u0060BaseCoordinator\u0060, and \u0060BasicCoordinator\u0060 all expose \u0060prepareTransition\u0060. Since \u0060AnyCoordinator\u0060 is an erased type wrapper and \u0060BaseCoordinator\u0060 is the base implementation, exposing this method on \u0060AnyCoordinator\u0060 (which is meant to be a type-erased container) is inconsistent with typical type-erasure patterns where internal logic is hidden. Furthermore, \u0060BasicCoordinator\u0060 inherits from \u0060BaseCoordinator\u0060, making the explicit re-declaration or identical signature redundant.: Remove \u0060prepareTransition\u0060 from \u0060AnyCoordinator\u0060 if it is not strictly necessary for the erased interface, or document why it is exposed. Ensure \u0060BasicCoordinator\u0060 does not unnecessarily re-declare methods already present in \u0060BaseCoordinator\u0060 unless overriding behavior. (signatures: AnyCoordinator.prepareTransition(for: RouteType): TransitionType | BaseCoordinator.prepareTransition(for: RouteType): TransitionType | BasicCoordinator.prepareTransition(for: RouteType): TransitionType)"},"locations":[],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"409a9dc036059f56cab6971c6164f0f2de1e243ec879e8a2cfe682fe76b21b45"}},{"ruleId":"D28","level":"error","message":{"text":"A security finding was recorded here. Its details are withheld on the public artifact \u2014 ask the repository owner for the full report."},"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"136740cdcec51dc188ec47182ca283a6ab3d9d77dabc20b30e435f62a492f06b"},"properties":{"commitSha":"0963e9faf25b6015da9d1fb395c107b6d840d4e4"}},{"ruleId":"D28","level":"error","message":{"text":"A security finding was recorded here. Its details are withheld on the public artifact \u2014 ask the repository owner for the full report."},"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"e971fc68bb8cf1c7a89c69eccccc315e7dfe0126288ef8cf52f29d5426b940c4"},"properties":{"commitSha":"25c9c3ee225520e5478ceb0d4ab0b69579d5692b"}},{"ruleId":"D28","level":"error","message":{"text":"A security finding was recorded here. Its details are withheld on the public artifact \u2014 ask the repository owner for the full report."},"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"04ec1a97b975813f590d60397187e0514dab8332f96071c3455af16f7b9683ff"},"properties":{"commitSha":"25c9c3ee225520e5478ceb0d4ab0b69579d5692b"}},{"ruleId":"D28","level":"note","message":{"text":"A security finding was recorded here. Its details are withheld on the public artifact \u2014 ask the repository owner for the full report."},"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"3cdfd7beb31b791ae18dcb425e21eb157c842e7bbcd522cc330573c1a6538db1"}},{"ruleId":"D34","level":"note","message":{"text":"Dormant codebase: 27 of 27 significant files have no living knowledge \u2014 the codebase as a whole is dormant, not 27 separate risks. Counted over 27 of the 48 production source files in this repository: the rest are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over. Re-engage owners or document before change."},"locations":[],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"4c69f1e54b7dd6fe9029dd02df6ba8f8145b789f2f18dbdaa086c40ded49dba6"}},{"ruleId":"D35","level":"warning","message":{"text":"Change coupling: NavigationAnimationDelegate.swift \u2194 TabBarAnimationDelegate.swift: \u0060Sources/XCoordinator/NavigationAnimationDelegate.swift\u0060 and \u0060Sources/XCoordinator/TabBarAnimationDelegate.swift\u0060 change together 67% of the time (10 of the 15 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well \u2014 a repo-wide or module-wide sweep is evidence about the sweep rather than about any pair inside it and is left out of BOTH sides of this ratio, while a dependency bump, a formatter/rename sweep, or a commit whose edit to one of the two files was a tool directive such as //go:generate or whitespace only is left out of the shared count ONLY, so the two sides are not taken over identical commit sets). They sit in the same directory, and in this ecosystem sibling files there normally share one namespace/package \u2014 so a direct reference between them needs no import and this pass cannot see whether one exists. Read the pair before acting: if one file only DECLARES what the other consumes (a constants/types file beside its user), the co-change is definitional and the question is whether the split earns its keep; if they duplicate structure, extract the common part into a shared function or type they both call; if neither holds, the coupling is hidden and worth breaking. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 10 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are \u00602058e6b5\u0060 Add tvOS support; \u00604adffe07\u0060 Add triggerPublisher for more adaptive API; \u0060bf65f442\u0060 Make AnimationDelegates more intuitive (at that commit the files were still \u0060Sources/XCoordinator/Animation\u002BNavigation.swift\u0060 and \u0060Sources/XCoordinator/Animation\u002BTabBar.swift\u0060) \u2014 run \u0060git show\u0060 on any of them."},"locations":[{"physicalLocation":{"artifactLocation":{"uri":"Sources/XCoordinator/NavigationAnimationDelegate.swift"},"region":{"startLine":1}}}],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"1646b50df150ddf35c97950146e91bd9ebab9fa9e876f5f95a5a965f90c6455b"}},{"ruleId":"D36","level":"note","message":{"text":"A security finding was recorded here. Its details are withheld on the public artifact \u2014 ask the repository owner for the full report."},"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"ace515990e7ee0f17b5c17e44dd168a5bdecf90804a3a3dd845cf05540978013"}},{"ruleId":"M2","level":"note","message":{"text":"No ADRs: No Architecture Decision Records found \u2014 no conventional ADR directory, no numbered \u0060NNNN-title\u0060 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."},"locations":[],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"670b3d6e36a756d63097d0dfbf90afd5fc761308800b9354894a07c3f4e4aa14"}},{"ruleId":"M2","level":"note","message":{"text":"No architecture diagram/doc: No C4/Structurizr/PlantUML/Mermaid/Graphviz/D2 diagram, no drawn diagram named for the architecture, no file named \u0060architecture\u0060 or \u0060design\u0060 in any markup this check reads, and nothing in the README, docs or contributor guides that announces the shape \u2014 no \u0060## Architecture\u0060 heading, no \u0022architecture overview\u0022/\u0022high-level design\u0022 phrasing, no \u0022the architecture is \u2026\u0022 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 \u2014 not evidence that nobody wrote the shape down."},"locations":[],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"0c190e7c159d1850ee706c3ac4486e151e8a4fe169de4bf61436b9f399654f06"}},{"ruleId":"M4","level":"note","message":{"text":"README/code drift: README advertises Docker containerisation, but no Dockerfile/compose file exists \u2014 searched for: \u0060dockerfile\u0060, \u0060docker-compose\u0060, \u0060compose.yaml\u0060, \u0060compose.yml\u0060. Each was matched case- and separator-insensitively against file and directory NAMES anywhere in the tree, and against the CONTENTS of manifest files (package.json, *.csproj, *.props, *.slnx, *.yml, Dockerfile); the README\u0027s own prose never counts, so a claim is never refuted by merely being made. Nothing outside that search was read \u2014 a footprint living only in a submodule, in a file type not listed here, or under a name none of those terms matches is not seen, and this row is then wrong."},"locations":[],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"343bbbd51ceb8de7a9ff88d79f7c797abf9b5921f8727b67b4d0f4f8a22c5e49"}},{"ruleId":"P1","level":"note","message":{"text":"CI test execution not evidenced: A CI pipeline exists but no test-runner invocation (your stack\u0027s test command, or a test job) was found \u2014 changes may merge without the suite running."},"locations":[],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"860902100b1c048f49c648730bdf23459de2d8ca6af82ef0ec593ecb3995a80c"}},{"ruleId":"P10","level":"note","message":{"text":"Large public API surface: 34/45 types (76%) declared in the published library are public. For a library, every public type is a stability contract \u2014 keep implementation types off the surface and expose only the intended API."},"locations":[],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"ed2ba843444ae377c17142f58f714e281e4bd3f183ab100ee1fbef389875d3e6"}},{"ruleId":"P3","level":"note","message":{"text":"No SAST: No static application security testing detected. For this repository\u0027s stack, add CodeQL\u0027s Swift pack (Swift/Xcode) (or \u0060semgrep --config=auto\u0060, which runs on any language) as a CI step. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: the 212 CI workflow file(s) in this repository, and the scanner and linter configuration checked in beside them. A scan that runs outside CI, one configured in your forge\u0027s web UI rather than in a committed file, or a tool whose name is none of those this check carries, is not seen \u2014 if that is your case the row is wrong, and saying so is more useful than adding a second scanner."},"locations":[],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"6e54424179c892f03ef2fd003130ac4bd43f39bbf3b1ca0a0143e25acb80ec87"}},{"ruleId":"P6","level":"note","message":{"text":"No changelog: No CHANGELOG/HISTORY/RELEASES file \u2014 what shipped when isn\u0027t easy to reconstruct for support or audit. (Versioning/tagging makes releases traceable, but a changelog records the what.)"},"locations":[],"partialFingerprints":{"codehealthFindingId/v1":"dda5aa5aed8cbb292c3ef2b733bc138f614293ae6426c85e98bf31ef330d9415"}}],"taxonomies":[{"name":"CWE","guid":"c3a2b1d0-7f3e-4b2a-9c1d-5e6f7a8b9c0d","organization":"MITRE","informationUri":"https://cwe.mitre.org/","isComprehensive":false,"shortDescription":{"text":"The MITRE Common Weakness Enumeration (CWE)."},"taxa":[{"id":"CWE-1357","guid":"e4d2e772-757e-0a5c-bd7d-77052949d866","name":"Reliance on Insufficiently Trustworthy Component","shortDescription":{"text":"Reliance on Insufficiently Trustworthy Component"},"helpUri":"https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/1357.html"},{"id":"CWE-259","guid":"ae9ad959-fbb6-9d5e-892d-3dca66da0b69","name":"Use of Hard-coded Password","shortDescription":{"text":"Use of Hard-coded Password"},"helpUri":"https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/259.html"},{"id":"CWE-494","guid":"b8a65e0d-e459-4a55-a931-fc1136482375","name":"Download of Code Without Integrity Check","shortDescription":{"text":"Download of Code Without Integrity Check"},"helpUri":"https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/494.html"},{"id":"CWE-77","guid":"332c8ade-6612-9f56-a06b-d8d90b1a8750","name":"Command Injection","shortDescription":{"text":"Command Injection"},"helpUri":"https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/77.html"},{"id":"CWE-78","guid":"2e31ceaf-c7ae-2e5e-9661-cfb1362789cf","name":"OS Command Injection","shortDescription":{"text":"OS Command Injection"},"helpUri":"https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/78.html"},{"id":"CWE-79","guid":"fd45580b-e8c4-fc5e-8c2f-aa8fab0b4dbf","name":"Cross-site Scripting (XSS)","shortDescription":{"text":"Cross-site Scripting (XSS)"},"helpUri":"https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/79.html"},{"id":"CWE-798","guid":"5e8f057d-fee3-995a-a0cb-9fc5b0d174d1","name":"Use of Hard-coded Credentials","shortDescription":{"text":"Use of Hard-coded Credentials"},"helpUri":"https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/798.html"},{"id":"CWE-89","guid":"6d08fdad-37eb-c150-bbf0-d7d946863407","name":"SQL Injection","shortDescription":{"text":"SQL Injection"},"helpUri":"https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/89.html"},{"id":"CWE-94","guid":"75e7f50c-6c2f-dd52-bf40-bf6c52b861fd","name":"Code Injection","shortDescription":{"text":"Code Injection"},"helpUri":"https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/94.html"}]}],"properties":{"codehealthPublication":{"public":true,"notice":"This is the PUBLIC form of this artifact. Findings are listed in full, but the details of SECURITY findings \u2014 which rule fired, in which file, on which line, and how to fix it \u2014 are deliberately withheld, and any secret-scanner results are excluded entirely. Where detail is absent here it was REMOVED FOR PUBLICATION; it is not missing from the analysis. The complete artifact is available from the repository owner.","securityFindingsRedacted":5,"secretScannerRunsExcluded":0}},"redactionTokens":["A security finding was recorded here. Its details are withheld on the public artifact \u2014 ask the repository owner for the full report."]}]}